[004]
youngstormlord
Current Version
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
If you read my review of this work, you\'ll notice that I also wished the page was deleted. Nobody should read Victoria and it shouldn\'t have been written in the first place. If you could use one sentence to describe that book, it is \
to:
If you read my review of this work, you\\\'ll notice that I also wished the page was deleted. Nobody should read Victoria and it shouldn\\\'t have been written in the first place. If you could use one sentence to describe that book, it is \\\"Plausible deniability for fascism.\\\" . Idumean Patriot makes a comparison to Starship Troopers, as if the book was a parody. That is not really the case.
How would I explain the book to somebody who didn\\\'t read it and has no intention to do so? Imagine a guy so steeped in a certain fandom that he knows all of their inside beliefs, both fringe and widespread. That he knows all of their assumptions, all of their inside jokes, all the buttons and the triggers and \\\"the tickles\\\", all the things that make them happy and nostalgic, all the things made to titillate. And that guy decides to write a book and fills it to the brim with inside jokes, innuendos and double meaning and those little hints that would make a true fan say \\\"I recognize that! I like that!\\\" and feel smart/good about it. That fandom is far-right ultra-religious fascism and Victoria is \\\"Ready Player One\\\" for fascists.
And when Lind makes a joke, it is a racist, sexist or homophobic inside joke. Or an innocent line is a dogwhistle for \\\"people in the know\\\". And things are just enough over the top that somebody could say \\\"Oh, it\\\'s a parody\\\". If it is a parody, then it is a bad parody. And Lind leaves just enough holes in the narrative, implies just enough things that it could be deniable. \\\"Yeah, all the black people suddenly became conservative, agriculture focused, simpler-times-are-better Christians and decided to go live on big farms, growing crops for white people (and picking cotton, wink wink nudge nudge), under threat of extreme punishments. And those who didn\\\'t... Well, there were none of those (after we shot and /or hanged them, wink wink, nudge nudge). \\\"
I have described reading it as watching porn for fetish I don\\\'t have. I recognize the parts that are \\\"bees knees\\\" for somebody who has it, parts specifically written to cause a targeted reaction, but just deniable enough for those innocent of what is going on. Why is that pizza delivery boy looking at the girl\\\'s naked feet and camera is showing us his field of vision for five whole minutes as they chat? Well, it could be done to show how the pizza delivery boy is really, really shy. Or it could be because the whole \\\"masterpiece\\\" is made for people with foot fetish, by the person with foot fetish. Or maybe it is a parody of foot fetish porn? \\\"I don\\\'t know, could go either way\\\" says the tvtropes page.
The defense of Victoria is two-fold: Either things are true from the point of view in the story or the things are so over the top to be a parody. So, what is it? Is it supposed to be taken seriously or is it a parody? If we take it seriously, then it is extremely vile. If we take it as a parody, then what is it parodying?
How would I explain the book to somebody who didn\\\'t read it and has no intention to do so? Imagine a guy so steeped in a certain fandom that he knows all of their inside beliefs, both fringe and widespread. That he knows all of their assumptions, all of their inside jokes, all the buttons and the triggers and \\\"the tickles\\\", all the things that make them happy and nostalgic, all the things made to titillate. And that guy decides to write a book and fills it to the brim with inside jokes, innuendos and double meaning and those little hints that would make a true fan say \\\"I recognize that! I like that!\\\" and feel smart/good about it. That fandom is far-right ultra-religious fascism and Victoria is \\\"Ready Player One\\\" for fascists.
And when Lind makes a joke, it is a racist, sexist or homophobic inside joke. Or an innocent line is a dogwhistle for \\\"people in the know\\\". And things are just enough over the top that somebody could say \\\"Oh, it\\\'s a parody\\\". If it is a parody, then it is a bad parody. And Lind leaves just enough holes in the narrative, implies just enough things that it could be deniable. \\\"Yeah, all the black people suddenly became conservative, agriculture focused, simpler-times-are-better Christians and decided to go live on big farms, growing crops for white people (and picking cotton, wink wink nudge nudge), under threat of extreme punishments. And those who didn\\\'t... Well, there were none of those (after we shot and /or hanged them, wink wink, nudge nudge). \\\"
I have described reading it as watching porn for fetish I don\\\'t have. I recognize the parts that are \\\"bees knees\\\" for somebody who has it, parts specifically written to cause a targeted reaction, but just deniable enough for those innocent of what is going on. Why is that pizza delivery boy looking at the girl\\\'s naked feet and camera is showing us his field of vision for five whole minutes as they chat? Well, it could be done to show how the pizza delivery boy is really, really shy. Or it could be because the whole \\\"masterpiece\\\" is made for people with foot fetish, by the person with foot fetish. Or maybe it is a parody of foot fetish porn? \\\"I don\\\'t know, could go either way\\\" says the tvtropes page.
The defense of Victoria is two-fold: Either things are true from the point of view in the story or the things are so over the top to be a parody. So, what is it? Is it supposed to be taken seriously or is it a parody? If we take it seriously, then it is extremely vile. If we take it as a parody, then what is it parodying?
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
If you read my review of this work, you\'ll notice that I also wished the page was deleted. Nobody should read it and it shouldn\'t have been written in the first place. If you could use one sentence to describe that book, it is \
to:
If you read my review of this work, you\\\'ll notice that I also wished the page was deleted. Nobody should read Victoria and it shouldn\\\'t have been written in the first place. If you could use one sentence to describe that book, it is \\\"Plausible deniability for fascism.\\\" . Idumean Patriot makes a comparison to Starship Troopers, as if the book was a parody. That is not really the case.
How would I explain the book to somebody who didn\\\'t read it and has no intention to do so? Imagine a guy so steeped in a certain fandom that he knows all of their inside beliefs, both fringe and widespread. That he knows all of their assumptions, all of their inside jokes, all the buttons and the triggers and \\\"the tickles\\\", all the things that make them happy and nostalgic, all the things made to titillate. And that guy decides to write a book and fills it to the brim with inside jokes, innuendos and double meaning and those little hints that would make a true fan say \\\"I recognize that! I like that!\\\" and feel smart/good about it. That fandom is far-right ultra-religious fascism and Victoria is \\\"Ready Player One\\\" for fascists.
And when Lynd makes a joke, it is a racist, sexist or homophobic inside joke. Or an innocent line is a dogwhistle for \\\"people in the know\\\". And things are just enough over the top that somebody could say \\\"Oh, it\\\'s a parody\\\". If it is a parody, then it is a bad parody. And Lynd leaves just enough holes in the narrative, implies just enough things that it could be deniable. \\\"Yeah, all the black people suddenly became conservative, agriculture focused, simpler-times-are-better Christians and decided to go live on big farms, growing crops for white people (and picking cotton, wink wink nudge nudge), under threat of extreme punishments. And those who didn\\\'t... Well, there were none of those (after we shot and /or hanged them, wink wink, nudge nudge). \\\"
I have described reading it as watching porn for fetish I don\\\'t have. I recognize the parts that are \\\"bees knees\\\" for somebody who has it, parts specifically written to cause a targeted reaction, but just deniable enough for those innocent of what is going on. Why is that pizza delivery boy looking at the girl\\\'s naked feet and camera is showing us his field of vision for five whole minutes as they chat? Well, it could be done to show how the pizza delivery boy is really, really shy. Or it could be because the whole \\\"masterpiece\\\" is made for people with foot fetish, by the person with foot fetish. Or maybe it is a parody of foot fetish porn? \\\"I don\\\'t know, could go either way\\\" says the tvtropes page.
The defense of Victoria is two-fold: Either things are true from the point of view in the story or the things are so over the top to be a parody. So, what is it? Is it supposed to be taken seriously or is it a parody? If we take it seriously, then it is extremely vile. If we take it as a parody, then what is it parodying?
How would I explain the book to somebody who didn\\\'t read it and has no intention to do so? Imagine a guy so steeped in a certain fandom that he knows all of their inside beliefs, both fringe and widespread. That he knows all of their assumptions, all of their inside jokes, all the buttons and the triggers and \\\"the tickles\\\", all the things that make them happy and nostalgic, all the things made to titillate. And that guy decides to write a book and fills it to the brim with inside jokes, innuendos and double meaning and those little hints that would make a true fan say \\\"I recognize that! I like that!\\\" and feel smart/good about it. That fandom is far-right ultra-religious fascism and Victoria is \\\"Ready Player One\\\" for fascists.
And when Lynd makes a joke, it is a racist, sexist or homophobic inside joke. Or an innocent line is a dogwhistle for \\\"people in the know\\\". And things are just enough over the top that somebody could say \\\"Oh, it\\\'s a parody\\\". If it is a parody, then it is a bad parody. And Lynd leaves just enough holes in the narrative, implies just enough things that it could be deniable. \\\"Yeah, all the black people suddenly became conservative, agriculture focused, simpler-times-are-better Christians and decided to go live on big farms, growing crops for white people (and picking cotton, wink wink nudge nudge), under threat of extreme punishments. And those who didn\\\'t... Well, there were none of those (after we shot and /or hanged them, wink wink, nudge nudge). \\\"
I have described reading it as watching porn for fetish I don\\\'t have. I recognize the parts that are \\\"bees knees\\\" for somebody who has it, parts specifically written to cause a targeted reaction, but just deniable enough for those innocent of what is going on. Why is that pizza delivery boy looking at the girl\\\'s naked feet and camera is showing us his field of vision for five whole minutes as they chat? Well, it could be done to show how the pizza delivery boy is really, really shy. Or it could be because the whole \\\"masterpiece\\\" is made for people with foot fetish, by the person with foot fetish. Or maybe it is a parody of foot fetish porn? \\\"I don\\\'t know, could go either way\\\" says the tvtropes page.
The defense of Victoria is two-fold: Either things are true from the point of view in the story or the things are so over the top to be a parody. So, what is it? Is it supposed to be taken seriously or is it a parody? If we take it seriously, then it is extremely vile. If we take it as a parody, then what is it parodying?
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
If you read my review of this work, you\'ll notice that I also wished the page was deleted. Nobody should read it and it shouldn\'t have been written in the first place. If you could use one sentence to describe that book, it is \
to:
If you read my review of this work, you\\\'ll notice that I also wished the page was deleted. Nobody should read it and it shouldn\\\'t have been written in the first place. If you could use one sentence to describe that book, it is \\\"Plausible deniability for fascism.\\\" . Idumean Patriot makes a comparison to Starship Troopers, as if the book was a parody. That is not really the case.
How would I explain the book to somebody who didn\\\'t read it and has no intention to do so? Imagine a guy so steeped in a certain fandom that he knows all of their inside beliefs, both fringe and widespread. That he knows all of their assumptions, all of their inside jokes, all the buttons and the triggers and \\\"the tickles\\\", all the things that make them happy and nostalgic, all the things made to titillate. And that guy decides to write a book and fills it to the brim with inside jokes, innuendos and double meaning and those little hints that would make a true fan say \\\"I recognize that! I like that!\\\" and feel smart/good about it. That fandom is far-right ultra-religious fascism and Victoria is \\\"Ready Player One\\\" for fascists.
And when Lynd makes a joke, it is a racist, sexist or homophobic inside joke. Or an innocent line is a dogwhistle for \\\"people in the know\\\". And things are just enough over the top that somebody could say \\\"Oh, it\\\'s a parody\\\". If it is a parody, then it is a bad parody. And Lynd leaves just enough holes in the narrative, implies just enough things that it could be deniable. \\\"Yeah, all the black people suddenly became conservative, agriculture focused, simpler-times-are-better Christians and decided to go live on big farms, growing crops for white people (and picking cotton, wink wink nudge nudge), under threat of extreme punishments. And those who didn\\\'t... Well, there were none of those (after we shot and /or hanged them, wink wink, nudge nudge). \\\"
I have described reading it as watching porn for fetish I don\\\'t have. I recognize the parts that are \\\"bees knees\\\" for somebody who has it, parts specifically written to cause a targeted reaction, but just deniable enough for those innocent of what is going on. Why is that pizza delivery boy looking at the girl\\\'s naked feet and camera is showing us his field of vision for five whole minutes as they chat? Well, it could be done to show how the pizza delivery boy is really, really shy. Or it could be because the whole \\\"masterpiece\\\" is made for people with foot fetish, by the person with foot fetish. Or maybe it is a parody of foot fetish porn? \\\"I don\\\'t know, could go either way\\\" says the tvtropes page.
The defense of Victoria is two-fold: Either things are true from the point of view in the story or the things are so over the top to be a parody. So, what is it? Is it supposed to be taken seriously or is it a parody? If we take it seriously, then it is extremely vile. If we take it as a parody, then what is it parodying?
How would I explain the book to somebody who didn\\\'t read it and has no intention to do so? Imagine a guy so steeped in a certain fandom that he knows all of their inside beliefs, both fringe and widespread. That he knows all of their assumptions, all of their inside jokes, all the buttons and the triggers and \\\"the tickles\\\", all the things that make them happy and nostalgic, all the things made to titillate. And that guy decides to write a book and fills it to the brim with inside jokes, innuendos and double meaning and those little hints that would make a true fan say \\\"I recognize that! I like that!\\\" and feel smart/good about it. That fandom is far-right ultra-religious fascism and Victoria is \\\"Ready Player One\\\" for fascists.
And when Lynd makes a joke, it is a racist, sexist or homophobic inside joke. Or an innocent line is a dogwhistle for \\\"people in the know\\\". And things are just enough over the top that somebody could say \\\"Oh, it\\\'s a parody\\\". If it is a parody, then it is a bad parody. And Lynd leaves just enough holes in the narrative, implies just enough things that it could be deniable. \\\"Yeah, all the black people suddenly became conservative, agriculture focused, simpler-times-are-better Christians and decided to go live on big farms, growing crops for white people (and picking cotton, wink wink nudge nudge), under threat of extreme punishments. And those who didn\\\'t... Well, there were none of those (after we shot and /or hanged them, wink wink, nudge nudge). \\\"
I have described reading it as watching porn for fetish I don\\\'t have. I recognize the parts that are \\\"bees knees\\\" for somebody who has it, parts specifically written to cause a targeted reaction, but just deniable enough for those innocent of what is going on. Why is that pizza delivery boy looking at the girl\\\'s naked feet and camera is showing us his field of vision for five whole minutes as they chat? Well, it could be done to show how the pizza delivery boy is really, really shy. Or it could be because the whole \\\"masterpiece\\\" is made for people with foot fetish, by the person with foot fetish. Or maybe it is a parody of foot fetish porn? \\\"I don\\\'t know, could go either way\\\" says the tvtropes page.
The defense of Victoria is two-fold: Either things are true from the point of view in the story or the things are so over the top to be a parody. So, what is it? Is it supposed to be taken seriously or is it a parody? If we take it seriously, then it is extremely vile. If we take it as a parody, then what is it parodying?
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
If you read my review of this work, you\'ll notice that I also wished the page was deleted. Nobody should read it and it shouldn\'t have been written in the first place. If you could use one sentence to describe that book, it is \
to:
If you read my review of this work, you\\\'ll notice that I also wished the page was deleted. Nobody should read it and it shouldn\\\'t have been written in the first place. If you could use one sentence to describe that book, it is \\\"Plausible deniability for fascism.\\\" . Idumean Patriot makes a comparison to Starship Troopers, as if the book was a parody. That is not really the case.
How would I explain the book to somebody who didn\\\'t read it and has no intention to do so? Imagine a guy so steeped in a certain fandom that he knows all of their inside beliefs, both fringe and widespread. That he knows all of their assumptions, all of their inside jokes, all the buttons and the triggers and \\\"the tickles\\\", all the things that make them happy and nostalgic, all the things made to titillate. And that guy decides to write a book and fills it to the brim with inside jokes, innuendos and double meaning and those little hints that would make a true fan say \\\"I recognize that! I like that!\\\" and feel smart/good about it. That fandom is far-right ultra-religious fascism and Victoria is \\\"Ready Player One\\\" for fascists.
And when Lynd makes a joke, it is a racist, sexist or homophobic inside joke. Or an innocent line is a dogwhistle for \\\"people in the know\\\". And things are just enough over the top that somebody could say \\\"Oh, it\\\'s a parody\\\". If it is a parody, then it is a bad parody. And Lynd leaves just enough holes in the narrative, implies just enough things that it could be deniable. \\\"Yeah, all the black people suddenly became Christians and decided to go live on big farms, growing crops for white people (and picking cotton, wink wink nudge nudge), under threat of extreme punishments. And those who didn\\\'t... Well, there were none of those (after we shot and /or hanged them, wink wink, nudge nudge). \\\"
I have described reading it as watching porn for fetish I don\\\'t have. I recognize the parts that are \\\"bees knees\\\" for somebody who has it, parts specifically written to cause a targeted reaction, but just deniable enough for those innocent of what is going on. Why is that pizza delivery boy looking at the girl\\\'s naked feet and camera is showing us his field of vision for five whole minutes as they chat? Well, it could be done to show how the pizza delivery boy is really, really shy. Or it could be because the whole \\\"masterpiece\\\" is made for people with foot fetish, by the person with foot fetish. Or maybe it is a parody of foot fetish porn? \\\"I don\\\'t know, could go either way\\\" says the tvtropes page.
The defense of Victoria is two-fold: Either things are true from the point of view in the story or the things are so over the top to be a parody. So, what is it? Is it supposed to be taken seriously or is it a parody? If we take it seriously, then it is extremely vile. If we take it as a parody, then what is it parodying?
How would I explain the book to somebody who didn\\\'t read it and has no intention to do so? Imagine a guy so steeped in a certain fandom that he knows all of their inside beliefs, both fringe and widespread. That he knows all of their assumptions, all of their inside jokes, all the buttons and the triggers and \\\"the tickles\\\", all the things that make them happy and nostalgic, all the things made to titillate. And that guy decides to write a book and fills it to the brim with inside jokes, innuendos and double meaning and those little hints that would make a true fan say \\\"I recognize that! I like that!\\\" and feel smart/good about it. That fandom is far-right ultra-religious fascism and Victoria is \\\"Ready Player One\\\" for fascists.
And when Lynd makes a joke, it is a racist, sexist or homophobic inside joke. Or an innocent line is a dogwhistle for \\\"people in the know\\\". And things are just enough over the top that somebody could say \\\"Oh, it\\\'s a parody\\\". If it is a parody, then it is a bad parody. And Lynd leaves just enough holes in the narrative, implies just enough things that it could be deniable. \\\"Yeah, all the black people suddenly became Christians and decided to go live on big farms, growing crops for white people (and picking cotton, wink wink nudge nudge), under threat of extreme punishments. And those who didn\\\'t... Well, there were none of those (after we shot and /or hanged them, wink wink, nudge nudge). \\\"
I have described reading it as watching porn for fetish I don\\\'t have. I recognize the parts that are \\\"bees knees\\\" for somebody who has it, parts specifically written to cause a targeted reaction, but just deniable enough for those innocent of what is going on. Why is that pizza delivery boy looking at the girl\\\'s naked feet and camera is showing us his field of vision for five whole minutes as they chat? Well, it could be done to show how the pizza delivery boy is really, really shy. Or it could be because the whole \\\"masterpiece\\\" is made for people with foot fetish, by the person with foot fetish. Or maybe it is a parody of foot fetish porn? \\\"I don\\\'t know, could go either way\\\" says the tvtropes page.
The defense of Victoria is two-fold: Either things are true from the point of view in the story or the things are so over the top to be a parody. So, what is it? Is it supposed to be taken seriously or is it a parody? If we take it seriously, then it is extremely vile. If we take it as a parody, then what is it parodying?
