LIstening to Puppy Kickers

So, last week, Liz bourke saw my article....

Okay, I found her Twitter account and I deliberately tagged her in EVERY fisk and dissection I've done of her articles. (a whole three, brought up last time).

Her response?

Heads-up, @tordotcom mods: looks like someone has too much time on their hands. (So wee, such violent metaphor.) https://t.co/XTkj1io4DY

— Liz Bourke (@hawkwing_lb) January 28, 2016

Now, I'm slow. Honest, I'm not that bright sometimes -- I wouldn't have predicted the success of Sad Puppies Bite Back, or Honor At Stake on the Sad Puppies reading list, so what do I know?

But this ... violent metaphor? I suggested that her head might explode, but aside from that? What the hell goes on in this woman's brain?

Oh, who am I kidding? I don't understand a lot of these people. "These people," in this case, being the numb nuts at Tor, or even a lot of the Puppy Kickers. Okay, I understand that they'd rather burn down the Hugos then let anyone else come play in their club house, I get that. That's the easy part.

But what I don't get is who they think they're persuading.

Sure, there's Lizzy Bourke up there, in a Tweet that makes no sense in context -- what, does she really think that Tor Mods can remove my blog from existence? Or the fisk? Is she warning them that I'll be posting on her article? And how violent is my metaphor in that article, really? I reread it just to understand what the hell she was talking about. The head exploding bit was the only thing I could guess at.

Then of course, you have the "reasonable" Puppy Kickers, like George RR Martin. You remember him, right?  He's the guy who bitched that Toni Weisskopf said she would have won a Hugo if it weren't for Sad Puppies ... but yet, when he handed out his own awards to people who he thought "should have" won, Toni wasn't on the list.  Hmmm, funny that.

Yes, obviously it's a lie, but who does Martin think he's fooling? No, really, who? The hypocrisy of the situation is so obvious that it makes my head hurt. "Toni would have won without Sad Puppies," while she was No Awarded  after she got over a thousand votes -- more votes than she ever had in the recent past --  and yet he didn't think that she deserved an award, he didn't give her one of his.

It's total crap, and we can see it is. So who is he fooling?

Do the fellow Puppy Kickers believe crap like this? Does it give them a sense of moral superiority to crap all over the Puppies, claim they're above everything that Puppies do, yet do worse?

In politics, I understand the lies and hypocrisy -- you can at least fool people into swallowing the lies. But right now, the Puppy Kickers believe they're right, everyone else is wrong, and there's no changing it. They are the true and the right and the just, etc, etc, and ... there's really no one else to convince, is there? How many neutrals are out there? Because I can't really see them convincing Puppies to abandon their position.

Maybe there are neutrals out there... but I haven't seen them.

No, seriously, what the hell, Puppy Kickers? Do you even listen to yourselves?

Eh. It's late, I'm tired, and it's been a long day. Maybe this will make sense in the morning.

But I doubt it.