So, let me get this straight...

[agilebrit]

Say, for the sake of argument, I write a story that gets published this year. (And, yes, I do have a specific story in mind for this little mental exercise.) Say also that it gets enough buzz to actually be nominated for an award.

I'm really proud of this story. I worked hard on it. I think it says important things and deals with important issues, while still being a fun read (for certain values of "fun"). It's one of the best things (if not the best thing) I've ever written. I'd be thrilled if it was nominated.

But. Suddenly, I'm supposed to turn this nomination down (on a story I adore, remember) because someone I have no control over put me on a slate? I'm supposed to think my nomination is "tainted" somehow, and should have an asterisk next to it?

You know what, how about: no, fuck that.

And if it happens (hahaha!), I'd be super happy if folks would let me be excited about it for five whole seconds before exploding in rage.

Comments

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

Yes, I'm serious. Vox Day neither calls for nor condones acts of violence against others justified on grounds of one's race or one's victim's race. I know you know your history better than to imagine merely stating that races differ on the average in capabilities of their members is "hardcore," unless you have a very low threshold for "hardcore."

Yes, I am saying that minorities should not side with people who's stated goal is to create a whites-only nation when they are taking actions against other minority groups they dislike.

Then you are arguing that members of "minority" groups are morally obliged to restrict their political choices in ways which whites are not obliged, which is to say that the members of those minority groups are by virtue of their racial identity morally inferior in their freedom of action. That is racism, pure and simple.

You are also trivializing any racial animosities in which neither of the parties involved fit your definition of "white."

[yamamanama.livejournal.com]

Spoiler alert, he has. And since I don't associate with fascists, nazis, and other assorted rabid nationalists, I do have a low threshold.

To hell with their animosities, they shouldn't be siding with the scum of the scum. Perhaps I'll ask Rachel what she thinks of not putting animosities aside against a greater enemy.

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

And since I don't associate with fascists, nazis, and other assorted rabid nationalists ...

What do you imagine are the PLO, Hamas or Hezbullah?

To hell with their animosities, they shouldn't be siding with the scum of the scum.

Ah, so "they" (members of "minorities") should just put aside their opinions as to who there enemies are, and simply agree with yours? What gives you the right to do "their" thinking for them?

Perhaps I'll ask Rachel what she thinks of not putting animosities aside against a greater enemy.

Don't know who is this "Rachel" whose opinions are of such cosmic significance, but it seems not to enter your head that the greatest animosities are often between peoples who actually border the other's territory. For instance, to the Indians and Pakistanis, each other is the greatest enemy, not Northwestern Europeans or Americans, who by comparison have little interest in attacking them. Even racist anti-Aryan Europeans or Americans are less of a threat to the Indians and Pakistanis than are their fellow Aryans of the opposite religious fanaticism.

And that's reality, and you're simply being absurd by claiming the right to think for them.

[werewolf-hacker.livejournal.com]

I was wondering "who's Rachael" myself. Andrew has this terrible habit of bringing up uninvolved people into threads that have nothing to do with them, and then expecting us to know who they are. He has no idea what a wholly weird non sequitur that is every time he does it.

[yamamanama.livejournal.com]

Who cares? When the Indians and Pakistanis are in North America or Europe or Australia, their greatest enemy is not each other but white nationalists like Day.

Don't know who is this "Rachel" whose opinions are of such cosmic significance,
You of all people.

Treblinka had Ukrainian guards, the result of not putting animosities aside against a greater enemy.

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

Who cares? The Indians and Pakistanis might care, since most of them live in India and Pakistan, rather than North America or Europe or Australia. And actually, in Britain, the greatest threat to Indian Hindu immigrants is currently Muslims, rather than white nationalists.

Your assumption that hostile whites are always a "greater" enemy than hostile non-whites is implicitly based on profoundly racist assumptions of white superiority, even supremacy. Right now a Filipino, for instance, must logically worry far more about the Moros and the Red Chinese than about the Ku Klux Klan or the Neo-Nazis.

You're not talking about Rachel freaking Corrie, are you? The idiot who got herself killed by sitting down in front of an operating, armored bulldozer whose driver had only a limited field of view, because she sympathized with the Nazi-like Hamas against Israeli Jews because they were Jews?

[yamamanama.livejournal.com]

I'm not talking about India and Pakistan, I'm talking about white dominated countries, and if the Filipinos want to side with the white nationalists against Moros and Chinese, then they are worse than fools.

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

I know you're talking about white dominated countries, because to you -- convinced as you are that only whites are "really real" -- countries dominated by non-whites are never going to control their own destinies anyway. The degree of blindness you manifest to your own racism is truly amazing.

The Philippines are objectively threatened by the Moro Muslim rebellion, and by the Red Chinese military. They are not, for the most part, threatened by white racism.

You're also assuming that white racists have to hate all "non-white" groups equally. What prevents, for instance, a white racist group from considering Filipinos okay, but hating Arabs? Or, if bigoted on the basis of religion rather than race, hating Pakistani Muslims but having no problem with Hindu Indians?

And why, in those cases, would the Filipinos or Indians then logically side with those who want to KILL them against the white racists or Christian bigots who don't want to kill them?

You are looking at non-whites and non-Christians as just so many pawns to be moved in your political and diplomatic games, and ignoring that they are themselves PLAYERS.

[yamamanama.livejournal.com]

Once again, I'm not talking about their home countries, I'm talking about Filipinos abroad, like Drow, who are siding with people like Vox Day.

Nothing prevents white nationalists from thinking Filipinos are pretty ok but supporting genocide on Arabs or thinking Hindu Indians are cool but hating the Pakistanis. But the Filipinos and Indians shouldn't side with them. What are the white nationalists going to say once all the Pakistanis and Arabs are gone?