Return of the 770 Trolls

To no one's surprise, over at File 770, the comments section doesn't seem to like me.

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.

Yeah, that's right. No one gives a flying f*** about your crap anymore. If anyone in 770's comments section had looked at Vox Day's blog around Rabid Puppies, they would have noticed something odd: He told his followers to NOT buy tickets this year, and only really vote if they had the nominating ballot from last year. 

So, in small words: even Vox things the Hugos aren't even worth trolling anymore.

I'd ask the twits in 770s comments section to think that over, but that would require that they think in the first place.

Heck, the only reason I bothered with a Hugo post is because, well, this is probably my last chance to make fun of these losers. I mean, no one cares anymore. Larry, Brad, Vox, everybody has stopped caring.

Had the commenters noticed, even the Hugo voters are beginning to not care. But that would require the trolls be able to do math.

But, yes, I had expected yesterday's post to be the last drop of entertainment that I could get out of the Hugos.

Thankfully, 770 trolls were nice enough to give the horse just a little more juice so I can beat it to death some more. Thanks, guys. Your inability to grasp simple concepts is much appreciated.

Now, you will note that I'm talking specifically about the comments section. One of their trolls (I assume, he commented under a handle with no connecting URLs) broke their leash and decided to whine on my blog yesterday, that Honor Harrington isn't eligible!!!

Then a commenter who goes by "Migly" stepped in, and calmly corrected him.

Said troll proceeded to go on an incoherent rant for several other comments, ignoring that he'd been soundly chastised in one sentence.

So, today, I'm going after trolls.

NO PICARD
TURN BACK BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE pic.twitter.com/6jcXGVZ07F

— Swear Trek (@swear_trek) April 3, 2017

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.

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?

Or, in smaller words: oh, look, every Puppy kicking little douche bag who supported downvoting one of the most popular science fiction editors in history claimed that if Toni weren't a Puppy pick, she would have easily won. Heck, Toni had more votes as a "loser" than most winners. I'm reliably informed that Toni's "loss" STILL had more votes than every win of Patty Hayden.

But I guess the comments section has long abandoned their need to cover up both their sexism and antisemitism, and decided to just go full bore into it.

...I joke, of course. We all know that Toni wasn't No Awarded because of her gender or faith, but because she's an evil Libertarian, or because she edits evil military SFF, or worse, edits Larry.

I enjoy the hypocrisy here, I really do. In an age where their battle cry is "womyn!" et al, the Hugo voters deliberately went out of their way to deny one of the premiere female editors a win award. I love it. It's beautiful that they lie so blatantly and so obviously, and they bellow that they are the champion of all women everywhere... except for the ones who disagree with them, those women are obviously sub-human and therefore don't count. Seriously, these trolls should just start handing out little yellow stars and skip all the subterfuge, it's not working.

The funny thing is, my next like after "Shocking, isn't it?" was that I can't convey enough sarcasm without going overboard. Apparently, the trolls can't read THAT part either.

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.

[EDIT: It occurs to me that I should probably make a point of mentioning from now until July that The Dragon Awards are open and ready for nominations. If you don't have any thoughts on what to nominate, I have a list of suggestions you might want to take a look at. If you already  have a good idea of what you want, just click here to go and vote for them immediately. The instructions are right there.... moving on]

Here, some books that are too good for the Hugos.

But not the Dragons

Starting with the Love at First Bite series.