I'm convinced the author became way too emotionally invested in her subject matter and has become an unknowing zealot for them because the acquaintance with her subject and her journalistic detachment have blurred to nonexistance.
It's a phenomenon of book authors known as "falling in love with your own villain", where an author loves the villain they created so much they can't bear to make them suffer or look bad after a certain point.
It's why the last book in the Hannibal Lecter series chronologically practically let him get away with his plans with no consequences, Harris just couldn't bear to screw over Lecter because he felt too much sympathy for his own villain.
That sounds about right, although I think there's probably a more active (well, obviously, compared with a fictional character) part played by Spink; the Silly Animal-Rape-Apologist Girl, who even recorded herself as being advised against becoming involved with Spink due to his psychopathy, got really emotional about these animals being put down. Spink saw this, and used it as his way to climb inside her psyche, as psychopaths are wont to do.
Then, our SARAG goes and gets "emotionally invested" by interviewing all of these people who are, well, "passionate" about fucking animals. Most of these people she's probably connected to through the Internet, many through Spink. There's probably some selection bias at hand here.
(You know how there's been various mainstream media coverage of "bronies" &c. that make it seems, like, not at all weird, like, not even do they ignore the sexual stuff, which may not be
every brony's cup of tea, but they seem to go ahead and try to pick like the 3 normal dudes out of the Brony Con to profile? Why do they do that? I dunno. It involves sexualizing horses and journalism, so I guess it's kind of relevant.)
The "zoos," as SARAG calls them, an affectionate term they use for each other, parrot the same arguments that they have refined over the Internet, probably espeically by the smarter and (at least at one time) articulate ones like Spink, which are
designed to appeal to animal-lovers, and they probably bond with her over shared distaste for skinning and eating animals or keeping chickens in tiny little cages or whatever the shit SARAG gets excited about as an "animal rights activist."
Then, Spink & a few others probably regale SARAG with rhetoric about oppression (cf. Spink's ridiculous prose above about fearing for him and his "partner's" lives) and touch the SJW buttons which, one might guess by her general demographics, might appeal to her, and, again, as a skilled sociopathic manipulator, he's drawn her
all the way down.
Going over her Internet history briefly, she has had a few blogs and so on about animal rescuing, most of which are dead. I really feel deeply disturbed now when I see her with pictures of cute animals, because I know that at least somewhere in her brain, it's probably occurred to her that it
might not be
entirely bad if someone were to fuck them.
Truly, she has gone off the deep end. I wonder if the animal rescue agencies &c. with which she volunteers are aware of her beliefs? They are likely aware she wrote the book, but it's quite possible, I'd imagine, that they'd
NOPE out at wanting to read it, and that she wouldn't per se disclose to them that she had become quite sympathetic to fucking animals. I wonder what they would think about her newfound sympathies for shit that reasonable people don't want to think about.
Well technically she left as soon as a PDF of her book got posted and she realized that no money would be made here, so yeah. Plus the valuable questions that was asked to her concerning Spink and the facts listed in this thread never really got answered and instead we were told the same thing as with Spink, as in "buy my book".
On top of that it's clear the book doesn't actually even do that and instead tries sympathizing with a bunch of animal fuckers. It was clear from her responses that she wasn't really interested discussing the content of her book in here, which is sad because this could have been valuable insight.
Exactly. Gotta say,
@AnOminous, I don't think that anything she was posting here from the get-go looked to have any promise except making a lolcow out of her own self.
Now that the book is dropped, it doesn't seem like she has anything to say here. And she made explicit (as you quote) she wasn't going to be going far beyond "buy my book."
As I said before she even showed up, she's a person of interest herself. Her book is totally her apologia for dogfucking; how she got from point A to point Z (heh) she clearly isn't saying, and that's the only interesting point to be gleaned.
That would be interesting. But I don't think we're getting there. She gets super-defensive.
Somewhere in what she ways saying, I think, she
knows she's wrong, but won't admit it, she's gotten so wrapped up in Spink's sociopathic manipulations and her own bizarre autistic variations on animal rights.
But we made fun of Spink for using the term "hagiography" to describe things that people had written about him. Turns out, there actually
is a hagiography, and she's written it.
