Discussion History Main / DoingItForTheArt

So, Troper Shtovak apparently just registered, and the first thing he does here at TV Tropes is this. First he boasts that he hasn\\\'t read the book, then he posts a book-length screed himself pontificating about how his interpretation of this book that he hasn\\\'t read (Paraphrased: \\\"It\\\'s incitement for genocide, just trust me guyz!!\\\") is the only correct one.

That he is telling the truth about not having read the book is clear, given the factual errors about it that he perpetuates. For only a few, the protagonists in \\\'\\\'Victoria\\\'\\\' do not carry out any genocides, Atlanta is not nuked \\\"for having the audacity to be full of undesirables\\\" but to stop an enemy genocide in progress, and BLM is not the enemy (they don\\\'t appear at all in the book). In general, our new troper appears to be taking a goofy military sci-fi book featuring zeppelins, Tesla-tech, cavalrymen in plumed helmets and Amazonian nations reproducing by cloning considerably more seriously than it would seem to warrant.

Furthermore, defaming a real life person (William Lind, in this case) by calling him a fascist and Holocaust denier without proof is completely unacceptable no matter what. Even if Lind\\\'s reactionary politics are crazy, that\\\'s not just low, it could potentially result in legal trouble for TV Tropes if he decided to take action against it.

There is no need to resort to falsehoods and smears. In fact, doing so serves more to hurt the anti-\\\'\\\'Victoria\\\'\\\' case, since it only destroys its credibility. The best way to treat an eccentric work like this is to present it factually and without screeching about how much it sucks. Then everyone can see what it is about, and judge it accordingly on its own merits. In the eyes of normal people, those should more than suffice to disqualify any serious interpretation of it, while still allowing those who enjoy it for the crazy characters and goofy hijinks to do that.

Treating the work this way would also be what is consistent with TV Tropes policy. Bashing works based on political disagreements is specifically against the site\\\'s rules. As is said on the page on Administrivia/PrescriptiveVsDescriptiveLanguage:

* It is not necessary to tell readers whether a trope is a good or bad thing in RealLife, nor that it is subjective, nor that there is controversy about it. [[AndThatsTerrible You wouldn\\\'t put up with that in a story]], so why should we have to put up with it on the wiki?
* Other people may have different opinions about the quality of a work or a creator\\\'s work; they may even like something or someone for qualities that you find objectionable. Leave room for differences of opinion when you write about media.
* The wiki does not, as a matter of policy, have an opinion on any [[BanOnPolitics social or political]] topics.

So, Troper Shtovak apparently just registered, and the first thing he does here at TV Tropes is this. First he boasts that he hasn\\\'t read the book, then he posts a book-length screed himself pontificating about how his interpretation of this book that he hasn\\\'t read (Paraphrased: \\\"It\\\'s incitement for genocide, trust me guyz!!\\\") is the only correct one.

That he is telling the truth about not having read the book is clear, given the factual errors about it that he perpetuates. For only a few, the protagonists in \\\'\\\'Victoria\\\'\\\' do not carry out any genocides, Atlanta is not nuked \\\"for having the audacity to be full of undesirables\\\" but to stop an enemy genocide in progress, and BLM is not the enemy (they don\\\'t appear at all in the book). In general, our new troper appears to be taking a goofy military sci-fi book featuring zeppelins, Tesla-tech, cavalrymen in plumed helmets and Amazonian nations reproducing by cloning considerably more seriously than it would seem to warrant.

Furthermore, defaming a real life person (William Lind, in this case) by calling him a fascist and Holocaust denier without proof is completely unacceptable no matter what. Even if Lind\\\'s reactionary politics are crazy, that\\\'s not just low, it could potentially result in legal trouble for TV Tropes if he decided to take action against it.

There is no need to resort to falsehoods and smears. In fact, doing so serves more to hurt the anti-\\\'\\\'Victoria\\\'\\\' case, since it only destroys its credibility. The best way to treat an eccentric work like this is to present it factually and without screeching about how much it sucks. Then everyone can see what it is about, and judge it accordingly on its own merits. In the eyes of normal people, those should more than suffice to disqualify any serious interpretation of it, while still allowing those who enjoy it for the crazy characters and goofy hijinks to do that.

Treating the work this way would also be what is consistent with TV Tropes policy. Bashing works based on political disagreements is specifically against the site\\\'s rules. As is said on the page on Administrivia/PrescriptiveVsDescriptiveLanguage:

* It is not necessary to tell readers whether a trope is a good or bad thing in RealLife, nor that it is subjective, nor that there is controversy about it. [[AndThatsTerrible You wouldn\\\'t put up with that in a story]], so why should we have to put up with it on the wiki?
* Other people may have different opinions about the quality of a work or a creator\\\'s work; they may even like something or someone for qualities that you find objectionable. Leave room for differences of opinion when you write about media.
* The wiki does not, as a matter of policy, have an opinion on any [[BanOnPolitics social or political]] topics.

So, Troper Shtovak apparently just registered, and the first thing he does here at TV Tropes is this. First he boasts that he hasn\\\'t read the book, then he posts a book-length screed himself pontificating about how his interpretation of this book that he hasn\\\'t read (Paraphrased: \\\"It\\\'s incitement for genocide, trust me guyz!!\\\") is the only correct one.

That he is telling the truth about not having read the book is clear, given the factual errors about it that he perpetuates. For only a few, the protagonists in \\\'\\\'Victoria\\\'\\\' do not carry out any genocides, Atlanta is not nuked \\\"for having the audacity to be full of undesirables\\\" but to stop an enemy genocide in progress, and BLM is not the enemy (they don\\\'t appear at all in the book). In general, our new troper appears to be taking a goofy military sci-fi book featuring zeppelins, Tesla-tech, cavalrymen in plumed helmets and Amazonian nations reproducing by cloning considerably more seriously than it would seem to warrant.

Furthermore, defaming a real life person (William Lind, in this case) by calling him a fascist and Holocaust denier without proof is completely unacceptable no matter what. Even if Lind\\\'s reactionary politics are crazy, that\\\'s not just low, it could potentially result in legal trouble for TV Tropes if he decided to take action against it.

There is no need to resort to falsehoods and smears. In fact, doing so serves more to hurt the anti-\\\'\\\'Victoria\\\'\\\' case, since it only destroys its credibility. The best way to treat an eccentric work like this is to present it factually and without screeching about how much it sucks. Then everyone can see what it is about, and judge it accordingly on its own merits. In the eyes of normal people, those should more than suffice to disqualify any serious interpretation of it, while still allowing those who enjoy the goofy hijinks to do that.

Treating the work this way would also be what is consistent with TV Tropes policy. Bashing works based on political disagreements is specifically against the site\\\'s rules. As is said on the page on Administrivia/PrescriptiveVsDescriptiveLanguage:

* It is not necessary to tell readers whether a trope is a good or bad thing in RealLife, nor that it is subjective, nor that there is controversy about it. [[AndThatsTerrible You wouldn\\\'t put up with that in a story]], so why should we have to put up with it on the wiki?
* Other people may have different opinions about the quality of a work or a creator\\\'s work; they may even like something or someone for qualities that you find objectionable. Leave room for differences of opinion when you write about media.
* The wiki does not, as a matter of policy, have an opinion on any [[BanOnPolitics social or political]] topics.

So, Troper Shtovak apparently just registered, and the first thing he does here at TV Tropes is this. First he boasts that he hasn\\\'t read the book, then he posts a book-length screed himself pontificating about how his interpretation of this book that he hasn\\\'t read (Paraphrased: \\\"It\\\'s incitement for genocide, trust me guyz!!\\\") is the only correct one.

That he is telling the truth about not having read the book is clear, given the factual errors about it that he perpetuates. For only a few, the protagonists in \\\'\\\'Victoria\\\'\\\' do not carry out any genocides, Atlanta is not nuked \\\"for having the audacity to be full of undesirables\\\" but to stop an enemy genocide in progress, and BLM is not the enemy (they don\\\'t appear at all in the book). In general, our new troper appears to be taking a goofy military sci-fi book featuring zeppelins, Tesla-tech, cavalrymen in plumed helmets and Amazonian nations reproducing by cloning considerably more seriously than it would seem to warrant.

Furthermore, defaming a real life person (William Lind, in this case) by calling him a fascist and Holocaust denier without proof is completely unacceptable no matter what. Even if Lind\\\'s reactionary politics are crazy, that\\\'s not just low, it could potentially result in legal trouble for TV Tropes if he decided to take action against it.

There is no need to resort to falsehoods and smears. In fact, doing so serves more to hurt the anti-\\\'\\\'Victoria\\\'\\\' case, since it only destroys its credibility. The best way to treat an eccentric work like this is to present it factually and without screeching about how much it sucks. Then everyone can see what it is about, and judge it accordingly on its own merits. In the eyes of normal people, those should more than suffice to disqualify any serious interpretation of it, while still allowing the people who enjoy the goofy hijinks to do that.

Treating the work this way would also be what is consistent with TV Tropes policy. Bashing works based on political disagreements is specifically against the site\\\'s rules. As is said on the page on Administrivia/PrescriptiveVsDescriptiveLanguage:

* It is not necessary to tell readers whether a trope is a good or bad thing in RealLife, nor that it is subjective, nor that there is controversy about it. [[AndThatsTerrible You wouldn\\\'t put up with that in a story]], so why should we have to put up with it on the wiki?
* Other people may have different opinions about the quality of a work or a creator\\\'s work; they may even like something or someone for qualities that you find objectionable. Leave room for differences of opinion when you write about media.
* The wiki does not, as a matter of policy, have an opinion on any [[BanOnPolitics social or political]] topics.

So, Troper Shtovak apparently just registered, and the first thing he does here at TV Tropes is this. First he boasts that he hasn\\\'t read the book, then he posts a book-length screed himself pontificating about how his interpretation of this book that he hasn\\\'t read (Paraphrased: \\\"It\\\'s incitement for genocide, trust me guyz!!\\\") is the only correct one.

That he is telling the truth about not having read the book is clear, given the factual errors about it that he perpetuates. For only a few, the protagonists in \\\'\\\'Victoria\\\'\\\' do not carry out any genocides, Atlanta is not nuked \\\"for having the audacity to be full of undesirables\\\" but to stop an enemy genocide in progress, and BLM is not the enemy (they don\\\'t appear at all in the book). In general, our new troper appears to be taking a goofy military sci-fi book featuring zeppelins, Tesla-tech, cavalrymen in plumed helmets and Amazonian nations reproducing by cloning considerably more seriously than it would seem to warrant.

Furthermore, defaming a real life person (William Lind, in this case) by calling him a fascist and Holocaust denier without proof is completely unacceptable no matter what. Even if Lind\\\'s reactionary politics are crazy, that\\\'s not just low, it could potentially result in legal trouble for TV Tropes if he decided to take action against it.

There is no need to resort to falsehoods and smears. In fact, doing so serves more to hurt the anti-\\\'\\\'Victoria\\\'\\\' case, since it only destroys its credibility. The best way to treat an eccentric work like this is to present it factually and without screeching about how much it sucks. Then everyone can see what it is about, and judge it accordingly on its own merits. In the eyes of normal people, those should more than suffice to disqualify any serious interpretation of it.

Treating the work this way would also be what is consistent with TV Tropes policy. Bashing works based on political disagreements is specifically against the site\\\'s rules. As is said on the page on Administrivia/PrescriptiveVsDescriptiveLanguage:

* It is not necessary to tell readers whether a trope is a good or bad thing in RealLife, nor that it is subjective, nor that there is controversy about it. [[AndThatsTerrible You wouldn\\\'t put up with that in a story]], so why should we have to put up with it on the wiki?
* Other people may have different opinions about the quality of a work or a creator\\\'s work; they may even like something or someone for qualities that you find objectionable. Leave room for differences of opinion when you write about media.
* The wiki does not, as a matter of policy, have an opinion on any [[BanOnPolitics social or political]] topics.

So, Troper Shtovak apparently just registered, and the first thing he does here at TV Tropes is this. First he boasts that he hasn\\\'t read the book, then he posts a book-length screed himself pontificating about how his interpretation of this book that he hasn\\\'t read (Paraphrased: \\\"It\\\'s incitement for genocide, trust me guyz!!\\\") is the only correct one.

That he is telling the truth about not having read the book is clear, given the factual errors about it that he perpetuates. For only a few, the protagonists in \\\'\\\'Victoria\\\'\\\' do not carry out any genocides, Atlanta is not nuked \\\"for having the audacity to be full of undesirables\\\" but to stop an enemy genocide in progress, and BLM is not the enemy (they don\\\'t appear at all in the book). In general, our new troper appears to be taking a goofy military sci-fi book featuring zeppelins, Tesla-tech, cavalrymen in plumed helmets and Amazonian nations reproducing by cloning considerably more seriously than it would seem to warrant.

Furthermore, defaming a real life person (William Lind, in this case) by calling him a fascist and Holocaust denier without proof is completely unacceptable no matter what. Even if Lind\\\'s reactionary politics are crazy, that\\\'s not just low, it could result in legal trouble for TV Tropes if he decided to take action against it.

There is no need to resort to falsehoods and smears. In fact, doing so serves more to hurt the anti-\\\'\\\'Victoria\\\'\\\' case, since it only destroys its credibility. The best way to treat an eccentric work like this is to present it factually and without screeching about how much it sucks. Then everyone can see what it is about, and judge it accordingly on its own merits. In the eyes of normal people, those should more than suffice to disqualify any serious interpretation of it.

Treating the work this way would also be what is consistent with TV Tropes policy. Bashing works based on political disagreements is specifically against the site\\\'s rules. As is said on the page on Administrivia/PrescriptiveVsDescriptiveLanguage:

* It is not necessary to tell readers whether a trope is a good or bad thing in RealLife, nor that it is subjective, nor that there is controversy about it. [[AndThatsTerrible You wouldn\\\'t put up with that in a story]], so why should we have to put up with it on the wiki?
* Other people may have different opinions about the quality of a work or a creator\\\'s work; they may even like something or someone for qualities that you find objectionable. Leave room for differences of opinion when you write about media.
* The wiki does not, as a matter of policy, have an opinion on any [[BanOnPolitics social or political]] topics.

So, Troper Shtovak apparently just registered, and the first thing he does here at TV Tropes is this. First he boasts that he hasn\\\'t read the book, then he posts a book-length screed himself pontificating about how his interpretation of this book that he hasn\\\'t read (Paraphrased: \\\"It\\\'s incitement for genocide, trust me guyz!!\\\") is the only correct one.

That he is telling the truth about not having read the book is clear, however, given the factual errors about it that he perpetuates. For only a few, the protagonists in \\\'\\\'Victoria\\\'\\\' do not carry out any genocides, Atlanta is not nuked \\\"for having the audacity to be full of undesirables\\\" but to stop an enemy genocide in progress, and BLM is not the enemy (they don\\\'t appear at all in the book). In general, our new troper appears to be taking a goofy military sci-fi book featuring zeppelins, Tesla-tech, cavalrymen in plumed helmets and Amazonian nations reproducing by cloning considerably more seriously than it would seem to warrant.

Furthermore, defaming a real life person (William Lind, in this case) by calling him a fascist and Holocaust denier without proof is completely unacceptable no matter what. Even if Lind\\\'s reactionary politics are crazy, that\\\'s not just low, it could result in legal trouble for TV Tropes if he decided to take action against it.

There is no need to resort to falsehoods and smears. In fact, doing so serves more to hurt the anti-\\\'\\\'Victoria\\\'\\\' case, since it only destroys its credibility. The best way to treat an eccentric work like this is to present it factually and without screeching about how much it sucks. Then everyone can see what it is about, and judge it accordingly on its own merits. In the eyes of normal people, those should more than suffice to disqualify any serious interpretation of it.

Treating the work this way would also be what is consistent with TV Tropes policy. Bashing works based on political disagreements is specifically against the site\\\'s rules. As is said on the page on Administrivia/PrescriptiveVsDescriptiveLanguage:

* It is not necessary to tell readers whether a trope is a good or bad thing in RealLife, nor that it is subjective, nor that there is controversy about it. [[AndThatsTerrible You wouldn\\\'t put up with that in a story]], so why should we have to put up with it on the wiki?
* Other people may have different opinions about the quality of a work or a creator\\\'s work; they may even like something or someone for qualities that you find objectionable. Leave room for differences of opinion when you write about media.
* The wiki does not, as a matter of policy, have an opinion on any [[BanOnPolitics social or political]] topics.