The alt-right is shitting up the Hugo slates again

[Ultimate Paragon]

I'm talking about the politics of the authors themselves, not the books.

Is that a yes or no? Because you appear to be missing the point here. Is SJW-Sally writes a book and her ideologies are against everything you love will you judge the book based on the author or the content? If Nazi-fanboy-88 writes a book will you judge the book based on the author or the content?

Depends on how much the author's politics bleed into the book.

[Askold]

I'm talking about the politics of the authors themselves, not the books.

Is that a yes or no? Because you appear to be missing the point here. Is SJW-Sally writes a book and her ideologies are against everything you love will you judge the book based on the author or the content? If Nazi-fanboy-88 writes a book will you judge the book based on the author or the content?

Depends on how much the author's politics bleed into the book.

That's still not the answer to the actual question. DO YOU JUDGE A BOOK BASED ON THE WRITER OR THE CONTENT!?

And why is it wrong when the LIBRUL-kids vote against books that have politics they don't like but ok if the Puppies do the same?

[Svata]

Ultie, let me ask you this - if a book was submitted by an unrepentent Nazi, who believes Hitler was 100% justified in murdering six million Jews, would you judge his book called "Utopia of the Ubermensch" for its content, or for the fact it was written by an unrepentent Nazi who includes that transgender people in his novel are burned alive?

Would you be able to separate your judgement of his book's writing from the atrocious political agenda?

You say we should judge a right wing book for its content and not for its political agenda, whereas the right wing looks for any excuse to call a book "shamelessly liberal." As if being a liberal is something you need to be ashamed of. By contrast espousing Republican politics doesn't get you nearly as much direct and conscious vitriol.

I'm talking about the politics of the authors themselves, not the books.

Bolding mine. You were saying?

[Askold]

Another problem is that everyone likes to think that they make up the silent majority so the Puppies are a reaction to seeing that the world does not work the way these people assumed and instead of admitting that they and their beliefs are less popular they conjured up some conspiracy theory that they could blame instead.

The last few days have been kind of awesome. I said that for the Hugo’s the writer’s politics were more important than the quality of their work. I was called a liar. Yet, within a couple of hours of the announcement there were multiple posts from the other side where groups of SJWs were strategizing how to make sure No Award beat me, and how to punish every other artist I recommended as well. Others were complaining that the rules needed to be changed to keep the undesirables out. All of this was while they proudly bragged how they had not read me, nor ever would… because tolerance. Hell if I know.

As the old saying goes, you aren't paranoid if they really are out to get you.

Was that before or after the Puppies started doing the same? Are we seeing a counter reaction or not?

And I used the term alt-right because: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alt-right The opposition to multiculturalism and feminism ring a bell and although SJWs weren't mentioned in the article it does look like alt-right would hate them so it all fits.

Also, Milo was mentioned in the article and turns out that your fan-movement is being linked to alt-right as well through him so is that why you are defending the Puppies?

[Ultimate Paragon]

I'm talking about the politics of the authors themselves, not the books.

Is that a yes or no? Because you appear to be missing the point here. Is SJW-Sally writes a book and her ideologies are against everything you love will you judge the book based on the author or the content? If Nazi-fanboy-88 writes a book will you judge the book based on the author or the content?

Depends on how much the author's politics bleed into the book.

That's still not the answer to the actual question. DO YOU JUDGE A BOOK BASED ON THE WRITER OR THE CONTENT!?

And why is it wrong when the LIBRUL-kids vote against books that have politics they don't like but ok if the Puppies do the same?

You judge a book based on the content.  And honestly, I think they're probably going about this wrong.

[niam2023]

Everything eventually ties back into GG with him.

He's managed to circumvent the ban on talking about GG outside of F&B by talking about things that members of That Movement are for or against or involved with.

Edit - and lets continue with the Nazi.

His content is rife with his politics - all the "villains" are Jewish stereotypes who are described as having "large, bulbous kike noses",  and the "evil minions" are all black stereotypes "their names all Latashiniqua if female or Denashandriq if male". The back is signed Heil Hitler.

Now then - do you judge Utopia of the Ubermensch for the content or the politics involved in the author's "vision".

[Ultimate Paragon]

Everything eventually ties back into GG with him.

He's managed to circumvent the ban on talking about GG outside of F&B by talking about things that members of That Movement are for or against or involved with.

Edit - and lets continue with the Nazi.

His content is rife with his politics - all the "villains" are Jewish stereotypes who are described as having "large, bulbous kike noses",  and the "evil minions" are all black stereotypes "their names all Latashiniqua if female or Denashandriq if male".

Now then - do you judge Utopia of the Ubermensch for his content or his politics?

When the politics are in the book itself, it can be judged based on them.  However, authors simply holding certain beliefs is no reason to mark down their books.  Would you give Apocalypto a bad review because of Mel Gibson's anti-Semitism?

[davedan]

Everything eventually ties back into GG with him.

He's managed to circumvent the ban on talking about GG outside of F&B by talking about things that members of That Movement are for or against or involved with.

Edit - and lets continue with the Nazi.

His content is rife with his politics - all the "villains" are Jewish stereotypes who are described as having "large, bulbous kike noses",  and the "evil minions" are all black stereotypes "their names all Latashiniqua if female or Denashandriq if male". The back is signed Heil Hitler.

Now then - do you judge Utopia of the Ubermensch for the content or the politics involved in the author's "vision".

What the fuck is with your obsession with Nazis?

[niam2023]

I just used them as the most convenient example of an identifiable belief system.

I could just as easily say that for an opposite alignment, would you say that a Stalinist Author should be judged for his political beliefs if his book included passages saying "all rich men are nothing but power hungry jackals who need to be ruthlessly killed", and similar?

[Tolpuddle Martyr]

I just used them as the most convenient example of an identifiable belief system.

I could just as easily say that for an opposite alignment, would you say that a Stalinist Author should be judged for his political beliefs if his book included passages saying "all rich men are nothing but power hungry jackals who need to be ruthlessly killed", and similar?

Eh, Stalin didn't give a toss about the rich. His hate on was for "wreckers" who just happened to be anyone he suspected of plotting against him.

EDIT: Well, yeah-sorta. He did liquidate the Kulaks which translates to "land owning farmer who hires laborers" in his collectivisation drive.

[ironbite]

Getting a straight answer out of UP is just...amazing.

Ironbite-like getting money out of my sister.

[Askold]

When the politics are in the book itself, it can be judged based on them.  However, authors simply holding certain beliefs is no reason to mark down their books.  Would you give Apocalypto a bad review because of Mel Gibson's anti-Semitism?

...So now that we have almost gotten an answer out of you: seeing as the Puppies are an ideological organization that only votes on books based on the politics of the author and whether or not they suit the Puppies, how can you defend them? Furthermore, before you go with "but the other side is also doing it" can you prove that there was a progressive conspiracy that targeted authors purely based on their politics and not based on what they wrote? Specifically, can you even prove that writers who did not in any way put their own ideologies into their books suffered BEFORE the Puppies began the organized voting?

[Tolpuddle Martyr]

Didya hafta Askold?

Now we can expect a tsunami of unread links and MS paint that borks the tables on the page with no spoiler tags.

And also no real answer to your question!

[IanC]

After last year, when they refused to hand out any awards at all in certain categories because the chance some nasty right winger might win, i think the Hugos have lost their minds. Its going to be another shitstorm this year, and it will be hilarious.

[Ironchew]

After last year, when they refused to hand out any awards at all in certain categories because the chance some nasty right winger might win, i think the Hugos have lost their minds. Its going to be another shitstorm this year, and it will be hilarious.

/pol/ peeks his head in to offer chan-wisdom.