I didn’t see it until later, but yeah, it’s been around for years. It crops up every now and then from right-wingers trying to test the waters for being overtly anti-democracy. What I found scary was how much more common it got, and at higher levels. I remember a fucking senator repeating that line.
I also use the square vs. rectangle analogy. Granted, we’re not going to convince fascists acting in bad faith, but it plays to an audience.
I do think the problem is rooted in Joss Whedon, or rather, movie studios looking at Avengers and thinking, “This, all the time.” People got tired of Joss Whedon himself (among other problems with him), much less more corporate, soulless imitations.
I just found it by chance a couple years ago, and its entered regular Halloween rotation. It’s also a very silly movie at times, but it has something to say. If it weren’t played straight, it would undercut the whole thing.
I can’t help but imagine that, if they tried to make it today, it’d just be noted to death by the studio. “Say less, quip more.” Then you’d get a ho-hum vampire action-comedy with a whiff that it was something better in a previous draft… like Renfield.
Daybreakers.
First, it’s a mid-budget movie, and Hollywood doesn’t make much of those nowadays.
Secondly, it commits to a wild premise: vampires become the dominant life form in the world. It’s fun, but the actors play it straight. If the tried to do that now, it’d be full of quips and winking at the audience rather than committing to the bit.
One near me got into trouble for their “In Trump We Trust” sign, because it violated town codes. It was a BIG ass sign. I never need ice cream so badly I’d put money in a fascist’s pocket.
Also… how does anyone look at that sign and not immediately see that it’s a cult?
Of course, I think it’s undeniable that there’s anti-Chinese racism, and it can play into attacks on China, especially from the right. The thing is, my criticisms of China are things that I hate about the US and its allies. It’s not that China is some strange, unique evil. On the contrary, they’re similar.
In another comment, you talked about how genocide requires mass killings, but I wouldn’t limit it to that (nor would the UN). And yes, that makes the US complicit. The genocide of Native Americans didn’t stop with murder, but included stealing children to “reeducate” them. The eugenecist movement sterilized women without so much as their knowledge, much less their consent—and they were predominantly Black, Asian, and Native American. The Tuskeegee experiments also left people sterilized, and that’s just part of how it ruined and ended lives. Obviously we’ve seen “Islamic extremism” used as an excuse to demonize Muslims in general, ignore material conditions that lead to violent resistance, and justify brutal repression.
We’ve already talked about evidence, and I don’t know what to tell you. You also said that you don’t trust any citation in the Wikipedia article, so that’s cutting out sources I would absolutely lend weight: the UN, the Asspociated Press, Reuters, academic journals… and if your response to the UN report isn’t “technically this would mean it’s ethnocide,” then I don’t think we’re going to have a productive conversation.
A while back, I read an article by Dara Horn about the failures of Holocaust education, and the rise of antisemitism. One point that really struck a chord with me was that Holocaust education focuses too much on the “They were just like us” angle. Jews weren’t oppressed for their similarities, but their differences. To focus on the similarities to conemn their oppression carries with it the implication that, if people are different, it’s okay, and the more different they are, the more you can justify hate and oppression.
So imagine my disappointment when I read an article of hers condemning student protests. She repeated the lie about “From the river to the sea (Palestine will be free)” being a genocidal slogan. She juxtaposed it with antisemitic attacks, implying a connection. She denied that it was a genocide, which would of course justify demonstrations. She praised cracking down on student protests in general. She mournfully talked about overlooking Harvard, disappointed that the school she went to was awash in antisemitism, and all I could think was… Harvard is still standing, Gaza is in ruins.
Is the treatment of Uyghurs the same as the treatment of Palestinians? No, not as far as I can tell. It’s just that that isn’t the threshold. The genocide of Palestinians doesn’t only slightly cross the line. And while both antisemitism and sinophobia are undeniably real, have lead to attacks and oppression, and color some of the criticisms of Israel and China, that doesn’t represent real criticisms of states, not people. And those criticisms aren’t new, they are familiar. It’s the banality of evil. It’s capitalist empires doing what capitalist empires do.
The point about common ground was to give you a clear opportunity to present your position and intentions. I had my assumptions, but didn’t want to unfairly ascribe them to you. It turns out I was right, unfortunately, but as a matter of difference between us, I wanted to address what you actually think, feel, and say. I would appreciate it if you did the same, but you haven’t so far.
So to address another position you ascribed to me: I can easily aknowledge that the US is complicit in genocide, war crimes, slavery, and other crimes against humanity, and has been throughout its history. That does not mean the US has a monopoly on evil. That kind of campism is silly.
I’ve had a remarkably similar conversation to this a while back, except the topic was Palestine, and the other user was a hardcore Zionist. It literally began when I said, word for word, “killing civilians is bad.” To paraphrase the rest:
“So it’s bad when Hamas kills Israeli civilians?”
“Of course. Is it bad when Israel kills Palestinian civilians?”
Then the same kind of argument followed. Deflections, straw men, selective interpretation and acknowledgement of evidence, personal attacks… the works. It doesn’t matter what the protesters say or do, or how many of the protestors are Jews; they’re pro-Hamas, anti-Semitic. Any source supporting Israel is valid, anything condemning them is fake news. I was an idiot, I was the one arguing in bad faith… you know. That kind of stuff.
I don’t know you, or what’s in your heart. I hope that the aggression is coming from discomfort rooted in a sense of doubt, which I can also hope you pursue. You can believe me or not—so far, you haven’t—but I really mean it when I say I hope you have a better go of things from here on out. If the nature of this conversation changes, I’m here, but if it doesn’t, then it’s run its course.
No, it’s not.
My points were twofold. First, to find out if we could find some common ground. Second, to find out if you actually care about sources and evidence, or judge them retroactively based on whether or not you like the conclusions.
The latter makes the conversation a non-starter, because even within a single report, you’ll interpret it in different ways. Within the very constrained lens of not containing the word genocide, to you, it ought to be sufficient. When it comes to crimes against humanity, you don’t want to talk about it, start attacking, and dismiss it as “a distraction.” On the prior point, I hope that your frustration comes from some doubt within you, causing you discomfort. Keep pulling on that thread.
Good luck with everything. I hope things get better going forward.
That’s not even remotely what I said, implied, or believe. Would you like to respond to what I did say, or put words in my mouth?
Before going any further, can we at least agree that the treatment of Uyghurs by the government of China rises to the level of crimes against humanity?
deleted by creator
The UN thing is a perfect way of finding out how serious someone is.
Genocide apologists will say “The UN did not call it a genocide,” or even stronger, “The UN determined it is not a genocide.” The thing they leave out is that the UN did call the treatment of Uyghurs crimes against humanity.
Seems like a pretty big thing for them to leave out, huh?
I also think it would be a funny way of directing the bride’s guests and the groom’s guests. The bride’s will be directed to “Laura’s Wedding, Featuring Greg,” and the groom’s to “Greg’s Wedding, Featuring Laura.”
deleted by creator
It sucks that I was unsure at “unemployed minors,” because the party is overtly pro-child labor and that bad at optics.
That’s what I found funny about it. It’s something that could have been resolved in an instant of people said either “Yes, it’s on page whatever whatever,” or “We just read it, and no, it’s not there.” It took longer to resolve because of how few people have read it recently, or were willing to read it now.
I am perfectly happy with how I presented myself, actually. And I think you also revealed a lot about yourself, too. If you’re happy with what that is, then that’s all there is to it.
I do think it’s worth pointing out that the thing that really seemed to set you off was asking you the same question you asked me. I answered it easily, and you took great offense while hurling insults and misrepresenting positions I’ve already put down in words. Why should I get into the facts when you don’t really care about the facts, or what I have to say?
If the question of whether Israel killing civilians is bad (not even unjustified, not even criminal, just bad) bothers you… maybe that’s a good thing. I certainly have no problem supporting Palestine while condemning Hamas, or supporting Jews while condemning Israel. It’s possible you just didn’t want to voice an unpopular position, but maybe it bothers you that you can’t say “yes, it’s bad.” If that’s the case, keep pulling on that thread. I think you could use some self-reflection, especially given this last post. I’m sorry, but this was a lot of the pot calling the kettle black.
I sincerely hope you have a better tomorrow. I know you’re angry and frustrated, but I hope you can find peace and understanding.
Alright.
Firstly, I think a lot of how you’re framing the pro-Palestine protests is either unfair or inaccurate. That’s not to say that you are being unfair or inaccurate, but the sources where you get your information might be. (I will agree that antisemitism is on the rise, and demands a response. I just see more of it from the right, even from Zionists who either want to remove diasporic Jews or support a model of an ethnostate). So, if you don’t draw a distinction between supporting Palestine and supporting Hamas, there’s no conversation to be had, because we’re not really dealing with what protestors do, say, or believe. While you compared this to MAGA, it’s the exact same rhetoric used by MAGA to attack BLM, which itself mirrored the rhetoric used against the Civil Rights Movement.
But it’s also not worth getting into the weeds unless we can find some common ground, so I’d like to ask you the same question again: Is it bad when Israel kills civilians?
So Hamas killing civilians is a bad thing too?
Yes, obviously. Why do you ask? Since you asked, I may as well ask, is Israel killing civilians a bad thing?
Gonna start calling out people showing support for Hamas at protests?
Sure, if you see them, kick them to the curb. Do you agree that there’s a difference between supporting Palestine and supporting Hamas?
I’m depressed at how often right-wingers try to win an argument by creating a fictional reality in which they’re right. (If that, even. Sometimes the dreamscape exists purely to make their opponents look hypocritical, pathetic as that is.)