Skip to content

Comments on the Humon Hate Thread

December 30, 2012

Internet “intellectualism” comes across in many shapes, but it usually manifests as variations of a common theme: “let’s laugh at those pitiful little intellectually defficient peasants”. Bear in mind, I am not criticising this concept; hell, I love it.

However, the abyss always stares back at you, and unfortunately, many decide to blink.

Today, we will examine one of the most unfortunate cases of this: the Humon Hate Thread at the ED forums.

Starter point

Here is a dissection of the OP:

PictureWhat a wonderful (read: hilariously idiotic) way to start a conversation! Ignoring the backlash fallacy (I myself am guilty, of course, but I wasn’t aware I was supposed to be a role model), the author seems to discredit the artist on the grounds of personal appeal manifesting through the works. Guess we should burn The Chronicles of Narnia and The Sillmarillion, then, since both are blatant masturbatory fodder for their authors (not that I would object, but the OP certainly would).

I will give credit to the point provided, however, as it would be quite the double standard.

PictureAnd here we have the first face palm inducing moment. Considering that this sort of situation still occurs in mainstream works with little opposition except from femnazis, it isn’t bullshit in the slightest.

Picture1- First, while Humon’s excuse is quite stupid, note that none of the characters are treating it as a morally apropriate thing (other barbarians aside), so the implication that it’s a morally correct behaviour is not entirely absent.

2- Now that’s just selective repulsion. I can think of several works with female post-war prostitutes that aren’t accused of being maturbatory fodder.

Picture1- The concept of nation-people predates Hetalia; I guess the latter is a rip-off of Afghanis-tan?

2- Frankly, neither character are established as being representative of female homosexuality as a whole. And while Billy is stereotypical to annoying degrees, Rose is a rather creative concept; it’s not often that girls with “masculine morphology” are adressed in a non-comical manner.

Well, that was the first post. Intellectually dishonesty, superficial examination like people looking for yaoi in The Divine Comedy, and fundamentally just bitching for the sake of bitching.

Posterior posts

Predictably, it is followed by what in their own definition can be described as “faggotry”. However, there are some points of interest, such as racist comments from her, mythological knowledge slip-ups and incompetency, and artistic failure. Still, they end up drowned by pointless homophobia and non-sequiturs.

2 Comments leave one →
  1. Someone permalink
    December 30, 2012 9:58 pm

    I’m sure I’ll sound foolish for asking, but why did you feel that that thread in particular was worth making a point about. Not that I disagree with the points you made mind you; but I’m curious why you chose the Humon thread in particular.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: