This is why Mr. Fry will always have a seat at my table.
Amen.
I was having a conversation about religion with this guy and he asked me what I would do if I got into heaven and had to sit next to God. I told him I wouldn’t take the seat.
1. Tfw a reylow shipper uses a legal term–one redefined by the Bush administration to authorize torture–to justify wiping out an entire village. No, people don’t just “die” in SW, they are killed for justifiable or unjustifiable reasons and the village massacre was clearly unjustifiable. The massacre of Tuanul was also a direct callback to the Holocaust in a movie written and directed by Jewish creators, and yes, the Jewish and Romani villagers in these villages fought back which, according to you, would makes them enemy combatants and thus the Nazis justified in killing them for the crime of defending themselves and their children 🙂 fuck you 🙂
A further fuck you from an international law scholar because the term “enemy combatant” has NEVER EVER meant you can kill people after disarming them and rounding them up, which is what Ren did. The term is one used under the Geneva Conventions to define who could be imprisoned as a prisoner of war, who had rights including the right not to be KILLED OR TORTURED. Not even the Bush admin went so far as to argue they could kill “enemy combatant” prisoners out of hand, holy shit. You fucking heartless, dangerously disingenuous ignoramus.
2. Quite aside from the all sorts of fucked up erasure and dismissal in that comment, it’s amazing that the very crimes that made the Nazis so infamous, like mass murder, torture, and genocide, are fine when non-Nazis do it! Whew! Who knew one set of rules applied to Nazis and different rules to everyone else? Glad we cleared that up.
@starawr thought I should let you know about this, since OP here doesn’t have the guts to tag you apparently, even though she has your blog name on full display so she and her followers can mock you behind your back.
Thanks for letting me know @hothmess. Wow, where to start…
For context, here’s the (MONTHS-OLD) conversation between me, @bai-xue and @decoffinated which @lj-writes dug up to stir some drama:
And because of this conversation, OP accused me of Holocaust apologism, nazi apologism, war crime apologism, torture apologism, etc:
So, let me see if I can follow OP’s logic:
10+ years ago, Bush redefined “enemy combatant” for his own purposes, and that changed the plain meaning of the words “enemy combatant” all over the world, I suppose. According to OP the International Law Scholar (lmao), the phrase “enemy combatant” must now mean whatever the fuck Bush wanted it to mean. Instead of, idk, the plain and obvious meaning of the words.
OP says that Kylo Ren, a fictional space wizard and his fictional stormtroopers, have breached the Geneva Convention by killing villagers. Obviously, according to OP the International Law Scholar, this means that if you support Kylo, you’d also support every possible real-world breach of the Geneva Convention, such as Nazis killing Jewish and Romani villagers.
Everyone who supports Kylo also supports Nazi war crimes now! Also, the Bush administration, I suppose. (Now that’s a new one.)
(Oh, and you know what’s really funny about all this? OP and I had a pretty civil conversation about Black Panther’s reception in China a few months back. So OP knows that I’m Chinese, and that I’d have no reason to know or care whatever the fuck Bush got up to a decade ago:)
But hey, I guess I’m worse than Bush because I don’t care that my favourite space wizard killed a bunch of fictional space villagers in a star war ¯_(ツ)_/ ¯
Imagine having this little reading comprehension/strawmanning this hard to “win” in one’s own mind. Obviously the term “enemy combatant” does not mean what Bush said it means, that was my point. The point, since it flew over @starawr ’s head or they chose to ignore it, is that the moment someone starts to use it to mean “it’s ok to do whatever the fuck you want to people” they’re going into some terrifying Bush-style territory–a worse twisting of the term, as I said, because they took the meaning way further.
Nor do I think this person necessarily cares about Bush, I just think they’re a big enough idiot to parrot American war crimes apologist rhetoric that’s rampant in their particular echo chamber. At what point in their study of the Geneva Conventions or world news did they pick up that very specific term, I wonder, and if so how did they get it so terrifyingly wrong? Nah, either they picked it up from fandom without the faintest idea of what it actually means, or they just independently decided to distort the hell out of a real world term to justify a fictional character’s actions.
Look how adorable they are, retreating from their point because they can’t defend it! If they really thought being fictional made real world morals irrelevant, they could have said that instead of, idk, bringing in very fraught real life terms and attempting to justify crimes that draw directly from very real and traumatic history. If they’re going to stand by a repugnant point at least they could have the courage of their convictions lol. Typical disingenuous, passive aggressive reylow bullshit.
And I won’t even try to explain tagging etiquette to them smh, or the fact that some of my followers might not want to be exposed to the kind of rhetoric they were spouting. Understanding this requires they have any kind of consideration for systematically marginalized people’s trauma, and that’s too much to expect of them.
Oh lookit, @starawr blocked me, taking their reply and mine out of the thread. Probably hopes to make it look like I blocked them lol. Anyway, if you’re interested in the actual “conversation” that took place here it is above this addition.
1. Tfw a reylow shipper uses a legal term–one redefined by the Bush administration to authorize torture–to justify wiping out an entire village. No, people don’t just “die” in SW, they are killed for justifiable or unjustifiable reasons and the village massacre was clearly unjustifiable. The massacre of Tuanul was also a direct callback to the Holocaust in a movie written and directed by Jewish creators, and yes, the Jewish and Romani villagers in these villages fought back which, according to you, would makes them enemy combatants and thus the Nazis justified in killing them for the crime of defending themselves and their children 🙂 fuck you 🙂
A further fuck you from an international law scholar because the term “enemy combatant” has NEVER EVER meant you can kill people after disarming them and rounding them up, which is what Ren did. The term is one used under the Geneva Conventions to define who could be imprisoned as a prisoner of war, who had rights including the right not to be KILLED OR TORTURED. Not even the Bush admin went so far as to argue they could kill “enemy combatant” prisoners out of hand, holy shit. You fucking heartless, dangerously disingenuous ignoramus.
2. Quite aside from the all sorts of fucked up erasure and dismissal in that comment, it’s amazing that the very crimes that made the Nazis so infamous, like mass murder, torture, and genocide, are fine when non-Nazis do it! Whew! Who knew one set of rules applied to Nazis and different rules to everyone else? Glad we cleared that up.
@starawr thought I should let you know about this, since OP here doesn’t have the guts to tag you apparently, even though she has your blog name on full display so she and her followers can mock you behind your back.
Thanks for letting me know @hothmess. Wow, where to start…
For context, here’s the (MONTHS-OLD) conversation between me, @bai-xue and @decoffinated which @lj-writes dug up to stir some drama:
And because of this conversation, OP accused me of Holocaust apologism, nazi apologism, war crime apologism, torture apologism, etc:
So, let me see if I can follow OP’s logic:
10+ years ago, Bush redefined “enemy combatant” for his own purposes, and that changed the plain meaning of the words “enemy combatant” all over the world, I suppose. According to OP the International Law Scholar (lmao), the phrase “enemy combatant” must now mean whatever the fuck Bush wanted it to mean. Instead of, idk, the plain and obvious meaning of the words.
OP says that Kylo Ren, a fictional space wizard and his fictional stormtroopers, have breached the Geneva Convention by killing villagers. Obviously, according to OP the International Law Scholar, this means that if you support Kylo, you’d also support every possible real-world breach of the Geneva Convention, such as Nazis killing Jewish and Romani villagers.
Everyone who supports Kylo also supports Nazi war crimes now! Also, the Bush administration, I suppose. (Now that’s a new one.)
(Oh, and you know what’s really funny about all this? OP and I had a pretty civil conversation about Black Panther’s reception in China a few months back. So OP knows that I’m Chinese, and that I’d have no reason to know or care whatever the fuck Bush got up to a decade ago:)
But hey, I guess I’m worse than Bush because I don’t care that my favourite space wizard killed a bunch of fictional space villagers in a star war ¯_(ツ)_/ ¯
Imagine having this little reading comprehension/strawmanning this hard to “win” in one’s own mind. Obviously the term “enemy combatant” does not mean what Bush said it means, that was my point. The point, since it flew over @starawr ’s head or they chose to ignore it, is that the moment someone starts to use it to mean “it’s ok to do whatever the fuck you want to people” they’re going into some terrifying Bush-style territory–a worse twisting of the term, as I said, because they took the meaning way further.
Nor do I think this person necessarily cares about Bush, I just think they’re a big enough idiot to parrot American war crimes apologist rhetoric that’s rampant in their particular echo chamber. At what point in their study of the Geneva Conventions or world news did they pick up that very specific term, I wonder, and if so how did they get it so terrifyingly wrong? Nah, either they picked it up from fandom without the faintest idea of what it actually means, or they just independently decided to distort the hell out of a real world term to justify a fictional character’s actions.
Look how adorable they are, retreating from their point because they can’t defend it! If they really thought being fictional made real world morals irrelevant, they could have said that instead of, idk, bringing in very fraught real life terms and attempting to justify crimes that draw directly from very real and traumatic history. If they’re going to stand by a repugnant point at least they could have the courage of their convictions lol. Typical disingenuous, passive aggressive reylow bullshit.
And I won’t even try to explain tagging etiquette to them smh, or the fact that some of my followers might not want to be exposed to the kind of rhetoric they were spouting. Understanding this requires they have any kind of consideration for systematically marginalized people’s trauma, and that’s too much to expect of them.
1. Tfw a reylow shipper uses a legal term–one redefined by the Bush administration to authorize torture–to justify wiping out an entire village. No, people don’t just “die” in SW, they are killed for justifiable or unjustifiable reasons and the village massacre was clearly unjustifiable. The massacre of Tuanul was also a direct callback to the Holocaust in a movie written and directed by Jewish creators, and yes, the Jewish and Romani villagers in these villages fought back which, according to you, would makes them enemy combatants and thus the Nazis justified in killing them for the crime of defending themselves and their children 🙂 fuck you 🙂
A further fuck you from an international law scholar because the term “enemy combatant” has NEVER EVER meant you can kill people after disarming them and rounding them up, which is what Ren did. The term is one used under the Geneva Conventions to define who could be imprisoned as a prisoner of war, who had rights including the right not to be KILLED OR TORTURED. Not even the Bush admin went so far as to argue they could kill “enemy combatant” prisoners out of hand, holy shit. You fucking heartless, dangerously disingenuous ignoramus.
2. Quite aside from the all sorts of fucked up erasure and dismissal in that comment, it’s amazing that the very crimes that made the Nazis so infamous, like mass murder, torture, and genocide, are fine when non-Nazis do it! Whew! Who knew one set of rules applied to Nazis and different rules to everyone else? Glad we cleared that up.
I didn’t know Indiana Jones was by Jewish creators, that’s good to know! I wasn’t presenting these movies as examples of claimed goyische ownership of Nazi/Holocaust imagery, though Triumph of the Will would certainly count in that category. I was pointing out that no movie, outside of maybe rigorous academic documentaries, can meet the precise academic standard some fans demand of Star Wars for the FO to be “true” Nazis. Not even, or maybe especially,Triumph of the Will, which depicts actual real-life Nazi officials including Hitler. My point was that the portrayals of Nazis real and fictional has always been partial; even Triumph showed only the parts the Nazis themselves wanted you to see. Why demand such an unrealistically high standard for historical realism of Star Wars, a space action flick? Doesn’t that seem to be aimed at delegitimizing the use of Nazi and Holocaust imagery by a Jewish creator to depict some of the horror and trauma experienced by Jewish people?
Why is it that when a goy uses Nazi imagery for fictional villains as a short hand for Evil Bad Guys ™ or just for the Aesthetics ™ no one, literally not one of you goyische assholes ever went:
divorcing the Nazi Party and its supporters from its historical/cultural context in that way can be seen as trivialising the very real horrors committed leading up to/during WW2
Can you answer me that?
And yet when a Jewish person dares to make the analogy not just visually undeniable, but trying to do in-universe justice to the parallel, to show exactly the kind of horrors these people committed, this is exactly what you all will say in some version.
None of you are even remotely subtle at this point. We – Jewish people – are only acceptable as long as we let goyim appropriate our trauma and the Aesthetics ™ of the people who committed them. Personally we should not ever dare apply, or use it because then you’d all have to face what Nazis actually were and not just your acceptable, goywashed bad guys.
It seems to me like a lot of white goyim think that Nazism and Holocaust imagery are theirs to claim and use, not Jewish and Romani people’s. Few say so out loud, of course, though I did see a German blogger say only Germans (meaning German goyim, I presume) are allowed to define who is a Nazi. They don’t need to say Nazi imagery belongs to them, though, because it’s obvious in the way they treat these images, in the double standard that you point out for Jewish and goyim creators using Nazi and Holocaust imagery.
Another way I suspect this supposed goyim ownership of Nazi imagery manifests is the sudden fixation on how the depiction of the FO has to conform to the precise academic definitions of Nazism, the 17 ideological markers or whatnot in order for it to “count” as a depiction of Nazism. Not only is this a laughable demand for a blockbuster movie, it’s perpetrator-centered thinking and not victim-centered. Seriously. When you’re being subjected to every brutality under the sun, who CARES about the ideological basis for destroying you? I seriously doubt that the experiences of those who were targeted for destruction centered around the precise academic definitions of their tormentors’ ideology. All that’s clear is the plain and empirical fact that they hate you. That hate did not start with the Nazis and did not end with them.
JJ Abrams didn’t lay out the ideology and the full range of the FO’s policies, but this works on three levels. First, it’s a space opera action flick, of fucking course it’s not going to be an academic documentary about Nazism. People are demanding an impossible standard of proof there, and by this standard no Nazis have ever appeared onscreen in the history of cinema. Certainly not in Indiana Jones. Not in Triumph of the Will. Not even in Schindler’s List.
Second, why should Abrams have engaged with a hateful ideology in his movie for it to be a valid use of Nazi and Holocaust imagery, exploring Nazism intellectually and giving it an airing as though it deserved serious thought? That’s how you get the Thanos situation, where people “see their point” and “understand” the villains. That’s how you spread this kind of vile ideology, by trying to be “fair” and showing “both sides.” No.
Third, I’d argue that Abrams did show Nazi ideology in TFA, the only parts that count: the senseless murders in Tuanul, Hux’s terrifying speech, the destruction of Hosnia, Finn’s trauma, Poe and Rey’s torture. I think that’s what makes people so uncomfortable, that Abrams showed a small amount of what the Nazis actually did, or would have if they could. He showed what it was like for the victims, and that’s what’s really unforgivable here. That’s what people call “trivializing,” because he claimed and used Nazi and Holocaust imagery without turning it into torture porn, because he showed the victims as strong and vital people who were allowed–especially in Finn’s case–to experience their trauma fully and fight back without apology.
In doing my research for this paper, I stumbled across the coldest take I have ever seen. This bitch is trying to say that the Dred Scott case and Roe v Wade show equal disregard for strict definitions of who counts as human under the protections of the constitution, and I tell you what I’m not fucking reading this shit.
Fuck these anti-abortion fake comparisons, I’m done.
Like! Listen to this shit this is in the abstract:
Both Dred Scott and Roe v. Wade erred not by engaging substantive moral questions but rather by denying, in different ways, the natural rights of human persons.
idk man but uhhh I seem to remember Roe v Wade having some science somewhere in there you fucking troglodyte what the fuck??
Also what is the natural “right” to an unwilling person’s body parts asdfdklgl
What a great fucking question! I tried reading some more but it just got messier like b u d d y. I cannot fathom how far up your own racist ass you have to be to even remotely entertain discussion that “yeah slaves are cool” is in any way equitable to “you have a right to an abortion” like???
Oh it’s one of anti-abortionists’ favorite comparisons, right up there with the Holocaust. I’ve never seen a human tragedy they don’t like to appropriate for their own agenda.
If your response to the incredibly stupid question “have there been an SW version of the Holocaust” is to begin to list one or more of the genocides in the universe you’re kinda being an Antisemitic asshole.
First off, the Holocaust was one specific genocide – namely that of the Jewish and Romani people – it is not a short hand for any and all genocides. I know that’s difficult for a lot of people to comprehend, but try to wrap your mind around it.
And while we can discuss parallels between the genocides committed in the SW universe and real world ones, including the Holocaust, it completely misses to address the actual point. That there does not need to be an in universe equivalent to the Holocaust for the First Order to be based on Nazis/Neo-Nazis, you don’t have to even address it. It’s an indisputable fact that JJ and Lawrence based them on those group.
(And it’s funny how many people are trying to pull whatever hate or terrorist group they don’t like into this, but will squirm around the Nazi bit. Yes it’s fucking both sides, none of you are any better than the other.)
In closing. It was really funny to see that not a single person in that discussion brought up the one case that did have strong connotation to the Holocaust, namely the massacre of Tuanul.
But I suppose JJ’s analogy is too real and close to how things actually went to to be bothered mentioning.
@tuptaju I’m really tired of explaining to Polish people about how they’ve been lied to by their revisionist, anti-Semitic government re: being heroes/victims, so let me just copy and post one of the many posts I’ve written on the topic:
they’re too lazy to even read the wikipedia they linked, considering there were only 3.3 million polish jews before the shoah, 3 million of whom were murdered
L.J.'s Obsessions 