you may not know this, fabric of reality, but....

[seperis]

Dear Universe,

Dystopias are not meant to reflect the actual future.

Fiction: 1984. Not Fiction: School Administrators, Webcams, and Students at Home: Do I Need to Draw a Picture of How FUBAR This Is?

Fiction: The Handmaid's Tale. Not Fiction: Miscarriages Are Always a Criminal Offense By Women: Come on, Convince Me to Join the Republican Party Now, I Fucking Dare You

Not Fiction: Coward Who Kills People With Plane Heroic: So It's Okay to be a White Terrorist, Really? That's the Lesson? - also, note from an Austinite. Fuck yourself, apologists.

Not Fiction: Anti-Semitism Alive and Well in Fandom: Summarizing This Will Require Projective Vomiting, Read at Your Own Risk

Dystopias are not meant to reflect the present, either. Just a note in case this can still be fixed. Thanks.

Love,
Seperis

Comments

[vehrec.livejournal.com]

The fourth one really makes me angryface, because it is perfectly possible (http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/RantMode/MiddleEast.html) to object to the state policies and goals of the nation of Israel without hating on unwilling conscripts. People and nations are separate things, but apparently the poster there doesn't have enough 'monkeyspace' in his brain to consider anyone in the IDF as a separate individual. So I'm not mad at his Israel hate, I'm angered that he doesn't have a more nuanced and complex opinion to articulate.

[traveller.livejournal.com]

unless I missed something, the anti-IDF anon there never identified its gender. I'm interested in how you (and some others in that thread) came to the conclusion that the anon was male. did I accidentally skim over its identification?

and purely academically, arguing that a soldier has no choice is basically arguing the Nuremberg Defense, which in international law is countered by the Fourth Nuremberg Principle -- that following orders of superior officers or other government actors is not a valid defense for participation in war crimes or crimes against humanity, and there is quite a sizable case against the IDF for having perpetrated crimes against humanity. the law provides that individuals may and must be charged under those circumstances.

I don't, however, disagree that the anon was taking its stance to an unreasonable and anti-Semitic point. the anon was far, far over the line of rational political discourse and obviously had an axe to grind.

RE: Anon gender.

[vehrec.livejournal.com]

Partly playing the odds, partly the attitude of the Anon, which may be described as cocksure and taking an agressive stance that gives the impression of masculinity. Since the english gender-neutral pronoun fell out of favor centuries ago, my hand was kinda forced so I defaulted based on the above to male.

Re: Anon gender.

[traveller.livejournal.com]

I'd be very surprised to find out the anon was male. the odds are overwhelmingly in favor of any commenter in a given fannish situation being female -- and anonymity fosters that kind of aggression regardless of gender. it jumped out at me because I saw people in the thread itself saying "he" as well.

hrm hrm.

[nefreed.livejournal.com]

The IDF has been shown to be responsible for some pretty horrific things even pointed out by the UN human rights commission. Perhaps the poster has been personally affected by it. Who knows. But I hate it when people call critisisms against Israel anti-semitic. A lot of people criticise Israeli policies because of what they are, not because they are jews. No other country in the world gets to do this. As Americans we know the hate and controversy we get abroad because of our wars. Does anyone say its anti-christian? Does protesting Indian policies in Kashmir make us anti-hindu? Does protesting Iranian policies make us anti-islam? Then why does protesting anything Israeli make us anti-semitic? This confuses me...

[traveller.livejournal.com]

You're right that there is a huge amount of conflation between being anti-Israeli policy (which, for the record, I am - and strongly so) and being anti-Semitic. in my reading I felt, however, that the anon in that thread was attacking everything about Israel, including the racial & religious makeup of its citizens, which is why I stated that I felt s/he/it had gone over the line from rational criticism to out and out anti-Semitism. if one feels that Israel's actions and policies with regard to its "settlement" areas and the Palestinian people are abhorrent that can be easily expressed without wishing death (as that anon did) on Israel's people.

part of the trouble is because Israel functions on a theocratic basis as well as a democratic one - the establishment of Israel and its annexation of neighboring lands cannot be viewed solely through a political lens. Zionism is a religiously motivated philosophy - Zionists do not believe the land is theirs because of treaties and accords, but because God promised it to Moses. that's what the word means. this fact creates a very gray area for people who dispute the settlement policies, and we must examine our motivations in ourselves.

[nefreed.livejournal.com]

I went back and read through it and you are right, the anon did go over the line and was being anti-semitic. I stopped after reading a couple of comments because I thought it was the typical Israel is great commentary. I am a bit sensitive on the topic because I have been labelled anti-semitic when I criticised Israeli policy and I know a friend who lost his job because he criticised Israel. So when people just fling around the word anti-semitic it bugs me a big deal :)