>writers are withdrawing their nominations from the Hugos because they dont want to be seen to have won due to politics instead of merit
>writers are withdrawing from presenting awards due to the underhanded bloc voting
Good job neckbeards.
You ruined it.
They literally have no evidence
It is simply an argument
It is simply that works they dont like get nominated or win, and this is proof of a conspiracy to push a liberal/left/"SJW" agenda
The people behind it are outright saying they did it. There is no denial. This isn't an 'accusation' or 'conspiracy', the people doing it are proud about it.
You're a fucking retard. I don't give that much of a shit about this, but you're an idiot.
top fucking lel.
a bunch of trailer trash writing for impotent white male conservative readers to jack off to over strong white male protagonists overcoming the evil spacejews/niggers/future liberals.
Either that or you're totally illiterate and couldn't read what's happening, since you seem to think it's about people pushing a 'liberal' agenda when in fact it's people trying to push anti-liberal, anti-sjw shit.
what sort of insular, isolated fool fed a daily diet of the right wing noise machine convincing you everyones out to get you and you are right and in the silent majority do you have to be to interpret works you dont like winning as the sole evidence necessary of a secret agenda??
Reminder that Orson Scott Card won Hugo awards years ago despite the fact he's a crackpot right-wing religious Mormon nutjob who wants to make homosexuality illegal.
Checkmate Vox Day, you scumbag piece of shit.
Thankfully they are equally adept at tearing themselves down from the inside as they are at tearing down the opposition, and are rife with schisms and internal problems. Also they happen to be a black-hole of personality, charisma and any kind of leadership whatsoever at the moment, with zero individual figures that anyone really recognizes or respects. They've manipulated the situation to their benefit, but they've simultaneously undermined their ability to take advantage of the opportunity.
if bourgeois liberals stopped ACTUALLY giving affirmative action laurels to low quality works based on identity, maybe it would be less easy for conservatives to convince people thats its something they have to 'fight against'.
>The people behind it are outright saying they did it. There is no denial. This isn't an 'accusation' or 'conspiracy', the people doing it are proud about it.
Nothing was rigged and nothing wrong was done you fucking retard. No rules were broken, only your completely imaginary, made-up """""""rules""""""" about what is fair.
>gamergate cucks get mad about m-muh ethics in journalism
>these toddlers take a big messy shit in their diapers and start violating ethics
>"we don't have to honor your ethics"
i didn't realize any of that ilk were actually literate enough to use 4chan
>>writers are withdrawing their nominations from the Hugos because they dont want to be seen to have won due to politics instead of merit
Writers are withdrawing their nominations because either they hate white men or because they're afraid of the cultural zeitgeist
>>writers are withdrawing from presenting awards due to the underhanded bloc voting
Writers are withdrawing because fans of an author voted for that author
>Good job neckbeards.
I'm an angry SJW who is tired of white men controlling everything
>You ruined it.
You stole my euphoric, self-loathing emotions!
>>gamergate cucks get mad about m-muh ethics in journalism
I'm not a gamergate cuck, I've always hated "video game journalism" because it's always been fucking retarded
None of them should have jobs, also they're fucking retarded to push SJW agendas onto a reactionary crowd
>i didn't realize any of that ilk were actually literate enough to use 4chan
As long as we're arguing against spooks, HOW FUCKING DARE you vote for Hitler? You voted for Hitler, you Hitler-voting faggot Hitler-voter.
Hugos dont have judges, it is a popular award
And no, there is no proof whatsoever of any sort of agenda to promote a liberal/leftwing/"SJW" bias in the awards
SF has always been liberal/left with a libertarian streak
SF has been writing about race and gender and sex and identity for decades
Whats happening is a couple of obscure low selling rightwing authors have gotten it into their heads that they're not popular because there is a liberal plot to squash conservative views
Tthey have not won and works they dont like or written by the kind of people they dont like have won is all the proof they need
Last years winner was a space opera
The year before that, a Star Trek parody
And before that, a mary sue fantasy
If some winners or nominees are women or minorities, well thats because a lot of women and minorities write SF and who knows maybe they write about things SF readers like??
>it is deceitful and underhanded, it violates the spirit of the award
This is the exact argument leveraged against the Nazis at Nuremberg, it was a way to execute them for war crimes but also to avoid being hypocritical in face of the U.S.'s war crimes later on. They violated the "spirit", the made-up ghost you appeal to, while you always abide by the "spirit", because the "spirit" of honesty honestly reflects your desires.
The classical liberal view is that a work can have literary merit independent of its political message, if any.
Marxists and fascists, though otherwise diametrically opposed, agree that the political message in a work is the sole determinant of its merit. Even an apolitical work, by its lack of the favored message, can show itself to be problematic and thus inferior.
So we have one bloc of Hugo voters supporting treacly fanfic-tier writing for its themes of exploring societal oppression, and another bloc supporting functionally illiterate ranting because SHIT GOES BOOM SUCK IT LIBTARDS, and nobody actually votes for anything with a readable story. And the award passes into meaninglessness. So it goes.
it has to do with literature in general, which is what i said in my first post. if liberal academics stopped overrating shit writing to fulfill diversity quotas then conservatives would have a harder time convincing people its something they need to fight against.
>And no, there is no proof whatsoever of any sort of agenda to promote a liberal/leftwing/"SJW" bias in the awards
Sure there is, depending on your criteria for "proof". Generally speaking, your criteria always nominally apply to everyone, but somehow people always manage to make very general rules apply to their own benefit. Funny how that always happens.
>Whats happening is a couple of obscure low selling rightwing authors have gotten it into their heads that they're not popular because there is a liberal plot to squash conservative views
Who have a fanbase large and devoted enough to vote for them. Wow, surely a voter with a large fanbase shouldn't win awards.
>Sure there is, depending on your criteria for "proof"
time and time again I ask for proof on forum after forum, the evidence is nothing more than "a woman/african american/liberal/leftwing author was nominated or won - what more proof do you need
>Generally speaking, your criteria always nominally apply to everyone, but somehow people always manage to make very general rules apply to their own benefit. Funny how that always happens.
chortle into your neck when you have evidence
>Who have a fanbase large and devoted enough to vote for them. Wow, surely a voter with a large fanbase shouldn't win awards.
They did not simply vote for them, they voted for a list they provided for every category
I never said Nazis were victims--
--I said the United States used it as a charge against them, but violated the "spirit" clearly themselves, the term "spirit" is always made-up catchall for you to be right by merit of the spirit, you stupid faggot
A writer got his fans to vote for him in an honest election, don't be mad because you suck at democracy.
No, I'm an unbiased contributor who wants you cucks to shut up and stop being buttblasted that some dude won an award. Stop caring about the award and this whole "problem" vanishes
If you truly care about this, you're a pathetic faggot who cares about really trivial things
>time and time again I ask for proof on forum after forum
Jet fuel can't melt steel beams, retard
>the evidence is nothing more than "a woman/african american/liberal/leftwing author was nominated or won - what more proof do you need
It's a tightly wrapped conspiracy, but it's clearly there
>chortle into your neck when you have evidence
>They did not simply vote for them, they voted for a list they provided for every category
Still: No violation of the rules, only your made-up "spirit"
>vehemently argues with us
>"stop caring about this trivial thing!"
>in a nomination-type deal where you buy the right to nominate candidates, not actually vote - and not everyone gets to vote
You don't even know what democracy *is*
This is John C. Wright
one of the obscure little heard of authors whose work has been inundated into the Hugos this year
He is a born again christian who believes there is a Gay Agenda in everything, a snappy dresser, meticulous beard grower, and euphoric fedora tipper
> im saying that in a way liberals have made their bed with this case.
well no they haven't because thats got nothing to do with it
you might as well be blaming "liberals" because you stubbed your toe getting out of bed this morning and use that as an excuse to burn down the house of your old boss
>>in a nomination-type deal where you buy the right to nominate candidates, not actually vote - and not everyone gets to vote
Welcome to America faggot, we've been running the country this way for decades. Just get your head out of your ass and learn what real world politics are.
>implying I don't exclusively browse /lit/
Its real and its happening
>insisting on wearing a hat while indoors
>Oh my God, I had no idea they were putting gays on SCIFI now too?
>by that logic all awards are shit.
>which, they are.
awards only mean shit if anyone values them
in truth, nobody values any award that goes to niggers and women, because they're worthless people
Here I award everyone in this thread: the cuck award, for being the biggest cucks
>3 of the 5 novella nominations
>1 short story nomination
>1 related work nomination
>Transhuman and Subhuman: Essays on Science Fiction and Awful Truth
>abandoned atheism for christianity
literally every /lit/ christposter right here
>Rankine’s “Citizen” delves into blatant and subtle forms of racism, touching on topics ranging from stereotypes about black women to Hurricane Katrina to the Trayvon Martin shooting case.
>Professor Aaron DeRosa is teaching Rankine’s “Citizen” for the first time this quarter. His students in English 205, a class on black literature in the U.S. dubbed “A Literary History of Ferguson, Missouri,” and English 456, a 20th-century American literature class titled “Bare Life and the Militarization of the United States,” are reading the book, which combines prose, poems, images and essays.
/pol/ is always right.
I'm confused /lit/.
So people are complaining because a right-wing author won? Or are right-wing authors complaining that they didn't won because of liberals?
I'd prefer you not make any posts at all, actually.
Right-wingers did something mildly unethical (but completely within the rules) and left-wingers won't shut the fuck up about it, making a much larger deal out of *nothing* just because they hate right wingers that much
I'm sure they'll change the method for nominations after this, it's just that they're stuck with it this time.
Both. Nice trips.
Reasonable people are upset that a fringe quack got his crackpot followers to gang-vote for a bunch of literary hacks because they believe the homos are evil and the only reason they don't normally win awards is because there's a conspiracy against them - when in reality they don't win awards because no one but a handful of weird zealots by their rags.
>So people are complaining because a right-wing author won?
Voting hasn't happened yet.
These are the nominees
The nominees are plolitically skewered because of:
>Or are right-wing authors complaining that they didn't won because of liberals?
And in their insular worldview they could have only won through deceit, that they might not be as popular or interesting and other people are simply doesn't factor into the equation
(on hearing Terry Pratchett discuss voluntary euthanasia)
>It is not the author who appalled me, it was the audience, including myself.
>I sat and listened to pure evil being uttered in charming accents accentuated by droll witticism, and I did not stand up, and I did not strike the old man who uttered them across the mouth: and when he departed, everyone stood and gave him an ovation, even though he had done nothing in his life aside from entertain their idle afternoons. Only I did not stand, being too sick at heart. I did nothing, I said nothing. Was this Christian humility on my part, or merely the cowardice of the silence good men which allows evil men to triumph?
>Had he never said a word, that audience would have been the same: a plowed and fertile topsoil ready to receive any seed, so long as the herb it grows mounts and becomes the tree of death, and the juice of its fruit ferment to venom.
/lit/, this is just too funny.
A bunch of people whining over something irrelevant and a fedora tipper on the other side.
What are you even talking about? You're literally saying a black, gay author didn't win an award because of a white racist conspiracy against her. Literally, THAT'S your argument, retard, stop accusing the other of it.
What the fuck are you even talking about?
I haven't once been talking about whatever woman was mentioned regarding the National Book Award.
The fuck are you even smoking?
In fact, no one is saying that. No one has ever said that. You're either totally illiterate you or you're just purposefully misconstruing everything being said because your position is completely indefensible.
>No, actually, this is YOUR argument, verbatim, retard.
They have no evidence
They simply argue "a work written by a woman with gender neutral terminology won - its a conspiracy!"
That is literally all they have
I sure did. But seriously though, it would be awesome to stop bumping these retarded Hugo threads, it's a retarded topic and literally no one who's not dogmatically for or against the right wing cares.
>STILL going on about the National Book Award
See whats going is, asshat here cant argue about SF or the Hugos so he is going to drag the discussion kicking and screaming into an entirely unrelated topic and proceed to demolish that
debate the topic at hand, stop going off on a tangent
>Book awards are not related to book awards
this sort of literal thinking, belligerent insistence on his way, incapability to discern nuance, unaware of the effect his behaviour has on others - it is the hallmark of autism and their lack of social mores
>It's a tightly wrapped conspiracy, but it's clearly there