I’ve a question for the Sad Puppies. I crossposted this as a comment on Brad’s Blog, too.
What is the middle game (much less the endgame) here?
Is all this the idea that with enough slates narrowly voted on by Sad Puppies in enough years, all the SJWs are going to dry up and blow away? That, now that everyone has seen that authors like Jim Butcher and Marko Kloos and Tom Kratman can make the Hugo ballot, no one is going to vote for the SJWs blindly because of ‘nomination lock’, and you can declare victory?
Is that what you think is going to happen? Is that what you want to happen?
Is there ever a time that, to stop Rat-faced little Gits and the feminists they support from ever ruining the Hugos again, the Sad Puppies will put up slates and voting them in perpetuity each and every year?
Could a ballot, without a sad puppy slate that had, for example, Brad Torgersen, Larry Correia, Mary Robinette Kowal, Ann Leckie and John Scalzi up for best novels be seen as legitimate by you because, Kowal and Leckie and Scalzi were “surely” logrolled onto there behind the scenes and thus the SJW cabal is back to their old tricks.
Is an annual Sad Puppy slate therefore the “new normal?” to prevent this?