/lit/ - Literature

>>8894944
>she does it for free

>>8894944
identity politics bait doesn't belong here.

Maybe if you'd made an informed post instead of le epic /r9k/ frog and a sentence of 'feels', then you'd have been taken seriously. As per the rules, though, "try to make thoughtful, well-written posts of your own".

>>8894944
>16 hours
unfortunate

>>8894953
It's not bait, I seriously wanted to have a discussion on why this happens. It's very relevant to the book industry and the best place to post it is here.

Some butthurt lib probably reported it because white people having problems goes against the narrative.

>>8894953
> instead of le epic /r9k/ frog and a sentence of 'feels'
Let's ban 75% of this board.

>>8894962
>It's not bait, I seriously wanted to have a discussion on why this happens.

Maybe if you'd made an informed post instead of le epic /r9k/ frog and a sentence of 'feels', then you'd have been taken seriously.

>>8894962
there is no discrimination, you're just a shit writer

>>8894969
So you're mad that I posted a frog and used "tfw"? Why are you even on 4chan?

>>8894967
Sounds good

>>8894972
There is demonstrable discrimination. The only writers who get promoted are those who pander to the liberal narrative. This is a demonstrable fact.

>>8894978
demonstrate, frog

>>8894953

>>8894973
What are you talking about? I'm not the mod, I was trying to explain to you what I thought their rationale might be. And your post was shit.
A shitty OP like that isn't conducive to a genuine discussion.

>>8894980
You haven't noticed how every other writer now is black or female?

>>8894987
that's now how one demonstrates

>>8894985
It actually is. You're just a rulecuck. Even if you disliked the post, nothing about it was against the rules.

>>8894983
Yep, ban them all. I have no problem with that. Although a few of them do seem to want to actually discuss something however inane.

>>8894990
Are you pretending to be retarded? Are you seriously trying to argue that there isn't a liberal bias in publishing?

>>8894996
demonstrate it

>>8894983
>guide to implementing 2d
anon, no.

>>8894992
Reddit may be more up your alley, not even memeing

>>8894987
I notice your misunderstanding of "demonstrable fact."
White males are still a top demographic in publication. White females might have them beat in sheer numbers of YA novels, but that's irrelevant to your idea of
>muh oppression
you're just a shitty writer and too childish to point the finger at yourself

>>8894997
I -- a white heterosexual male (of considerable genius) -- cannot get published.

Women, degenerates, and non-whites (all of inferior mind) are getting published.

It should be plain for all to see

>>8894996
>liberal bias
>they won't publish me
m80 do you understand what the word "liberal" means? this is getting very close to the princess bride scenario

>>8894944

>>8895009
a shit writer

>>8895009
maybe if you cry some more someone will mistake you for a baby and publish your work and you can be the amazing writing baby

>>8895006
Nope. Look at agents, almost all of them are looking for "oppressed voices", i.e. blacks, women, and gays. Look at awards.
>>8895009
Reddit-tier sarcasm
>>8895010
Retard

>>8895017
Proof it

>>8895017
>>8895020
>replying seriously to Reddit sarcasm
How new are you?

>>8895028
I'm not from reddit and I'm not a white nationalist. Does that trigger you?

>>8895031
XD you sure showed that bigot!

>>8895024
>doesn't understand what the word "liberal" means
>thinks calling people retard will stick
bit early for the americans to be up isn't it? good for you

>>8895042
I know exactly what "liberal" means. You're arguing deceptively and in bad faith.

>>8895015
INJUSTICE

>>8895038
I'll take that as a 'yes'

>>8895048
>>8895050
When did 4chan become Reddit?

>>8895056
>anyone who isn't an alt-right moron is 'reddit'

Really makes you think

>>8895065
>wanting to not be discriminated against makes me an alt-right moron

>>8895065
>anyone who doesn't agree with me is le alt-right boogeyman
Really makes me think

>>8895069
Create better threads and you'd be afforded more leeway

>>8895046
>bad faith
your funny!

>>8895075
Stop being a lying cubt. You don't give a shit about post quality and that's not why I was banned
>>8895076
Horrible post, also
>your

>>8895082
Create a thoughtful OP and I will guarantee you that you won't be banned.

But you're probably too entrenched in your victim-mentality to want to try that out

>>8895089
My OP was thoughtful enough. You're moving the goalposts.

>>8895046
no, I'm not. I'm pointing out you're deep in an ideological idiosyncratic doublespeak which prevents you from discussing anything with people who are not in your in-group with any real meaning. It's like abuse victims who assume anal rape means they really love you and it might even be Valentine's Day or your birthday by how split your asshole got. Or trying to talk about Catherine of Siena's five day ecstasies at an acid house rave.

>>8895093
What exactly is your point? Liberal bias is fucking real.

>>8895092
>My OP was thoughtful enough.

It wasn't.

>>8895096
If it were real, they would publish your dreck and publish it liberally.

>>8895089
>>8895089
>>8895089

>>8895092
Op you were rightfully banned for frogposting muh feels that aren't about fucking literature. It was a thinly-veiled /pol/ thread. All frogposters deserve to be banned from boards where they post inane bait that's barely on topic. Thank you mods. Delete this thread as well.

>>8895107
Yes, it was. We have tons of frogposts in the catalog. You're just trying to justify banning me by lying.
>>8895113
It was about literature you fucking retard. If you hate frogs and feels why are you even on 4chan?