How is Kluwe's article harassment?

Randi Harper's panel was about technology design to combat internet harassment. GamerGate was not mentioned.

What is this drivel? What has Kickstarter got to do with this?

So when someone votes for something you don't like, they have "dogpiled" the vote? Is that what you are saying?

No, you do not get what I am saying. The vote was not "rigged". How could it be "rigged", as it's a distributed ballot? Your argument seems to be, "the number of voters was so small that the vote could have easily been rigged, therefore the vote was rigged". That's not an argument.

Voters voted for the works that had merit. In some categories, voters did not think any works had any merit, so the voters voted, "No award". You cannot presume to know why people voted the way that they did.

it was people like Mary Robinette Kowal and John Scalzi that urged the destruction of the Hugo's.

Citation needed. In fact, I can save you the trouble of linking to John Scalzi's view of the Puppies' stuffing of the nominations. That does not urge the destruction of the Hugo's. Actually, it states unequivocally that what the Puppies had done was fine and that there was no need to change the process

Don't be ridiculous. Anybody could have signed up to vote in the Hugos. You could have signed up if you wanted to. Of the people who signed up, the majority didn't want the sub-standard SP entries to win Hugos, so they voted "No award". It's not "bullying" if you lose a vote. It's democracy.

You can't have it both ways. The Sad Puppies were within the rules. So was the electorate in rejecting most of their nominations. You can't say that one side was "bullying" and the other was not if both "sides" followed the rules.

"shown that they will vote as an ideological block"

So people who vote for things that you don't like are "voting as an ideological block". What do you call people who vote for the things that you do like? "Fine, upstanding fans of sci-fi"?

Not really, but the Sad Puppies would not be sad any more. So your "solution" supports one side at the cost of the other.

That is the mob that joined and refused to vote for books like the Dresden files only because they were not LBGT.

This is Slashdot, not Twitter. You can't just make shit up and expect people to believe it. Or, to put it another way,

Yes. Guardians of the Galaxy was a reasonable nomination and it won fair and square. It probably is not the film I would have voted for but:
(a) I didn't stump up $40, so I had no vote!
(b) It is obviously a serious nomination in any case.

That article doesn't say what you think it says. The context of that article was a lot of people running around saying that the Hugos were doomed because the various "puppies" groups had managed to nominate some garbage by voting for a slate. Scalzi's article simply explains that while it's possible for a minority to get things nominated, that doesn't mean that it's possible for the minority to get Hugos awarded. In other words, everybody's doom and gloom about the Hugos was misplaced.

It's worth reading his article, because it is quite interesting and it is how I learned a lot about the process.

1. I believe that by using the term, "SJW", you blind yourself to any realistic analysis of the event;
2. I'm not trying to use any sort of jargon. I am trying to explain what I mean;
4. [sic] I don't understand what you mean here.
3.