Awww, do the poor widdle babies dislike opposing opinions?
Perhaps it was my opening line of yesterday's blog post on the Hugos that started their ire, but they devolved into their usual venom-spewing high school cliques. Deriding Goodkind (hey, guys, you know he's still producing books in his universe? You know, the series you don't like and "isn't eligible" for anything), and calling me a special snowflake because the Hugo award choices were either crap, or stuff I've never heard of.
Let me spell something out for these douchebags, because they seem to have a slight inability for comprehensive reading.
I'll start by only quoting my own blog.
This once again boils down to a, "If anyone still cares about the Hugos anymore" story.
So, today, I'm going after trolls.
But since I must once again use small words to be understood by small people, let's go over my own blog. People who already grasped the concepts of yesterday's blog might want to skim over this section, since they might get some mild entertainment value over it.NO PICARD— Swear Trek (@swear_trek) April 3, 2017
TURN BACK BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE pic.twitter.com/6jcXGVZ07F
we were all told that This Person would have almost certainly have won the Hugo award for best editor, but she lost because she was a Puppy Pick.
If you said, "Who is Toni Weisskopf, Alex?" you'd be right.
But strangely enough, Toni isn't here. But she's not a Puppy Pick this year. We were all told that she would have won if she weren't a Puppy Pick.
Guess what: she wouldn't have even been NOMINATED if she weren't a Puppy Pick.
They lied. Shocking, isn't it?
After that, I went through the "best series" category, and noted that Honor Harrington, Goodkind and Ringo seemed to not even get a nod. The nimrod on my posts claimed that Honor and Goodkind were ineligible ... wrong about Honor? Nevermind, scream about Goodkind! I guess they didn't want to mention Ringo, lest he appear in a puff of smoke and destroy them. That man can type.
But, no, a lot of the trolls focused on Goodkind for some reason. Perhaps because his bad guys resembled Jihadists or communists, depending on the novel. Perhaps he had one book dedicated to the intelligence industry, and like all good leftists, the trolls simply hate America.
If the trolls dislike that I don't know who Foz Meadows is .... tough.
Maybe they don't like that I hated the Ghostbusters movie from last year.
Guess what? Neither did anybody else.
Warning on the video: Rated R for language. Rated F for funny as heck.
But OF COURSE it's going to win a Hugo. Because "Oh! It's womyn! If you don't vote for it, you're a sexist!" Heh.
Then I looked at the Best Related category, and the "womyn" bullet points were an obvious theme. I can see Carrie Fisher as an in memoriam vote, but I suspect that it's not political enough.
At that point, I got bored. Why? Because it's the Hugos. Duh. It's a small, cliquish little award, given out to a small, cliquish band of closeted fantatics who'd rather give awards based on checkboxing instead of on merit. I'm told that a few nominees I never heard of are actually worth it,
To be honest, I'm bored now making fun of the 770 trolls.
It's amusing that, at the end of the day, I hopped onto this particular train because Arthur Chu called Brad Torgersen's wife and kid "human shields." At that point, I knew which side I was going to join before I knew anything else about it. Why? Because anyone who would let a comment like Chu's get through needs to be taken down a peg or two.
But these folks have no sense of humor. They're your basic, boiler plate ideologues. But they're so uniform, in such lockstep, they goose step in sync.
To my readers, I hate to break it to you, but I'm starting to agree with the rest of the crowd. It's not fun to beat these guys up anymore. In 2015, the Hugos were obviously a circle jerk. In 2016, there was still entertainment to be had.
Now it's the Black Knight sketch from Monty Python and the Holy Grail, only in internet discussion.
But not the Dragons
Starting with the Love at First Bite series.