Andor

Andor : Star Wars
   ::
The Wire : cop shows
   ::
Deadwood : Westerns

It uses Star Wars as a setting to talk seriously about how authoritarian governments actually work, and how to actually fight them, without getting hung up on any historical or contextual specifics. And like those other series, it as well-crafted and entertaining as it is serious. And of course now timely.

Nemik’s Manifesto

Of course it’s my favorite thing. I am very fond of this little adaptation with some very graceful allusions to Star Wars at large.

There will be times when the struggle seems impossible. I know this already. Alone, unsure, dwarfed by the scale of the enemy.

Remember this, Freedom is a pure idea. It occurs spontaneously and without instruction. Random acts of insurrection are occurring constantly throughout the galaxy. There are whole armies, battalions that have no idea that they’ve already enlisted in the cause.

Remember that the frontier of the Rebellion is everywhere. And even the smallest act of insurrection pushes our lines forward. And …

Remember this: the Imperial need for control is so desperate because it is so unnatural. Tyranny requires constant effort. It breaks, it leaks. Authority is brittle. Oppression is the mask of fear.

Remember that. And know this, the day will come when all these skirmishes and battles, these moments of defiance will have flooded the banks of the Empires’s authority and then there will be one too many. One single thing will break the siege.

Remember this: Try.

A wise internet acquaintance says of it [spoilers]:

I’m sort of a cruel cynic because while that monologue is genuinely stirring, I can’t help but remember the incredibly cynical beat where the idealistic little “read theory!” guy writing his manifesto is literally crushed to death by money (the real power of a rebellion) after achieving very little. Like yes, the monologue is great, but Andor is also cold enough to recognize that what sparks the rebellion after decades of Imperial oppression, is a theft of cold hard cash deliberately conducted to provoke reprisal, not just stirring words alone.

Despite being someone sentimental about the stirring words, I agree. It’s part of what I love about Nemik’s story and Andor more broadly. The series insists that revolution against authoritarianism is no one thing. It warns of the danger of resting the movement on any one thing. Some moves just won’t pay off.

I assume that Star Wars lore will eventually succumb to making Nemik’s Manifesto the rallying cry of the Rebellion. But at least as of today, while we just have Season One, Andor is wise enough to hint that Cassian Andor — Nemik’s “ideal reader” — is the only person who read it and no, the Manifesto didn’t radicalize Cassian Andor.

At first.

By itself.

But even the smallest act of insurrection pushes our lines forward.

A hero

Rescuing a thread from the Bad Place which explains why I caught feelings from a glimpse of a tiny little street sign in the background at the 15-second mark in the first proper trailer for Fantastic Four: First Steps.

I will never, ever locate and re-read Marvel Two-In-One Annual ^#7 because I want my memory of it from when I was twelve to remain pristine, because when I think of a hero, I think of that comic and the ever-lovin’ blue-eyed Thing.

In the comic, this big blue zillion-year-old alien guy The Champion comes to Earth. He loves to box and travels the Cosmos challenging people to boxing matches. So when he arrives at Earth, of course he teleports a bunch of Marvel superheroes to his boxing gym.

The heroes are like, dude, we are not getting into the ring with you for your entertainment. The Champion is like, I am not asking, I am telling. Defeat me in a boxing match or my spaceship will blow up the Earth. So it’s superheroes vs. The Champion for all the marbles.

Cut to a huge stadium. The boxing match will be simulcast on all the TV channels.

One by one, The Champion squares off against various brawny superheroes. They get quickly dispatched or disqualified. The Hulk cannot keep his composure and obey Queensbury rules. Thor refuses to put down Mjolnir. Wonder Man probably just got KO’d with one punch because he’s such a doof. I do not recall all of the details.

The important thing is that the last hero left is The Thing.

The Champion soliloquizes: Woe is me, I have traveled from one end of the Universe to the other seeking a worthy challenge, but I am just too good at boxing.

The Thing asks do ya plan to win the fight by boring me to death?

Fans of The Thing know what time it is. But alas, it is immediately apparent that it is not The Champion who will get clobbered. The Thing is outmatched!

Ding. The first round ends and The Thing staggers back to his corner. The Champion soliloquizes some more about how sad he is that his might is peerless. The Thing tells the Champion I’m just gettin’ warmed up.

Ding. Round two. The Thing keeps taking a pounding. The Champion brags that the fight is a foregone conclusion. The Thing says my Aunt Petunia throws a better punch than you.

Ding. The round ends. The Thing is bleeding. The Thing. Bleeding. Twelve-year-old Me was very not okay with this. I had seen him take hits from wrecking balls, kaiju, howitzers, lasers, and what have you … and just dust himself off. This is scary.

As The Thing catches his breath in the corner, the Fantastic Four are there. Reed is like, don’t do this to yourself, Ben. The Thing is all, sorry Egghead but ya know I am just too dumb ta know how ta quit.

Ding. Round three. The Champion continues to mock The Thing while beating the tar out of him. He moans once again I have been denied the glory of a real fight. The Thing tells him I’m from Yancy Street so I know more about a real fight than you ever will.

The Champion lands a punch on The Thing which lays him out on the canvas. People in the stadium and around the world gasp. The ref starts counting.

Just as the count is about to run out, The Thing stands back up and puts up his fists, of course. But he looks bad.

The Champion mocks him some more. Why get up? You are bleeding and your ribs are broken and you can barely stand, Loser. I’m not even winded. It’s over.

The Thing says: The deal here is that when the fight ends the world ends, right?

The Champion says: Yeah, that’s the forfeit since you are such a loser.

The Thing says: Then I’m gonna keep gettin’ up, no matter how many times ya knock me down.

Ding. The fight is back on. But the Champion lowers his fists.

The Thing is all are we gonna fight or what?

The Champion tells him: No. The fight is over. Sure, I could knock you out, eventually. But you will not be defeated, will you? Not really. Not ever. I travelled billions of light-years seeking a worthy opponent and never even knew what one was.

Superheroes are silly. That story is silly. And of course that story is in no way original. It’s older than the written word. But I first got it in the form of The Thing.

I got teary retelling it.

So it was good seeing a little sign announcing “Yancy St”. I know a hero from that neighborhood.

Starship Troopers

In my wasted youth, I read most of Robert A. Heinlein’s published writing. I cannot recommend doing that. But that inheritance from my younger self has me frustrated with the state of Discourse around his novel Starship Troopers. At the risk of talking about the orangutan, I have something to add which I am puzzled no one else seems to have said. I feel an itch over failings I see in both defenses & critiques of the novel.

Yes it is fashy

One cannot talk about fascist themes in the novel without addressing the other Starship Troopers, Verhoeven’s film, a satire offered as if it were propaganda from a fascist society. Many Heinlein fans grumble, with some cause. The film cutting so directly against the novel whets my own appetite to see its strengths somehow presented in film. I am nerd enough to want to see a depiction of a capable Mobile Infantry in powered armor, and I am sentimental enough that I feel moved whenever I re-read how Flores dies on the way up.

But people who reject the film because the novel is Not Fascist At All misunderstand both the novel and fascism. The book is fashy as heck.

In the world of Troopers, civic vigor results from martial valor, because it restricts the franchise to people who have volunteered to fight in endless frontier wars.

According to Dubois, the teacher of the required History And Moral Philosophy class taught in high school (who speaks in Heinlein’s unmistakable Author Mouthpiece Voice), their political order emerged after ruthless brownshirts arrogated power to themselves to replace decadant liberal democratic governance, in an echo of the history of You Know What:

⋯ With national governments in collapse at the end of the XX^th century, something had to fill the vacuum, and in many cases it was returned veterans. They had lost a war, most of them had no jobs, many were sore as could be over the terms of the Treaty of New Delhi, especially the P.O.W. foul-up — and they knew how to fight. But it wasn't revolution; it was more like what happened in Russia in 1917 — the system collapsed; somebody else moved in.

The first known case, in Aberdeen, Scotland, was typical. Some veterans got together as vigilantes to stop rioting and looting, hanged a few people (including two veterans) and decided not to let anyone but veterans on their committee. Just arbitrary at first — they trusted each other a bit, they didn’t trust anyone else. What started as an emergency measure became constitutional practice in a generation or two.

Dubois explicitly rejects our political order of universal human rights:

But the society they were in told them endlessly about their ‘rights’. The results should have been predictable, since a human being has no natural rights of any nature [⋯] And that was the soft spot which destroyed what was in many ways an admirable culture [⋯] a greater sickness; their citizens (all of them counted as such) glorified their mythology of ‘rights’ … and lost track of their duties. No nation, so constituted, can endure.

These are fascist dreams. Considering them plausible — not even good, just plausible — is fashy thinking.

David Forbes’ superb long essay The Old Iron Dream (summarized here) situates Heinlein in a context of the far right strain in golden age science fiction; Noah Berlatsky observes how entangled far right fantasies and SF have been with each other. My favorite single commentary on Troopers is a series of long video-essays contextualizing Troopers in Heinlein, Verhoeven, and the essayist’s family (!) which defends having a soft spot for the novel while registering unmistakably fashy elements in its foundations.

But all that said, I do not read the novel as simply fascist propaganda, and taking Heinlein as a fascist badly misunderstands him.

Politics in Heinlein’s fiction gets weird

Heinlein’s harshest critics look past how protean and strange both his fiction and his personal politics really were. SF writer Charlie Stross’ comment Dread Of Heinleinism contextualizes the ideas expressed in his fiction.

Heinlein, when he wasn’t cranking out 50K word short tie-in novels for the Boy Scouts of America, was actually trying to write about topics for which he (as a straight white male Californian who grew up from 1907-1930) had no developed vocabulary because such things simply weren’t talked about in Polite Society. Unlike most of his peers, he at least tried to look outside the box he grew up in. (A naturist and member of the Free Love movement in the 1920s, he hung out with Thelemites back when they were beyond the pale, and was considered too politically subversive to be called up for active duty in the US Navy during WW2.) But when he tried to look too far outside his zone of enculturation, Heinlein often got things horribly wrong. Writing before second-wave feminism (never mind third- or fourth-), he ended up producing Podkayne of Mars. Trying to examine the systemic racism of mid-20^th century US society without being plugged into the internal dialog of the civil rights movement resulted in the execrable Farnham’s Freehold. But at least he was trying to engage, unlike many of his contemporaries (the cohort of authors fostered by John W. Campbell, SF editor extraordinaire and all-around horrible bigot). And sometimes he nailed his targets: The Moon is a Harsh Mistress as an attack on colonialism, for example (alas, it has mostly been claimed by the libertarian right), Starship Troopers with its slyly embedded messages that racial integration is the future and women are allowed to be starship captains (think how subversive this was in the mid-to-late 1950s when he was writing it).

In contrast, Heinlein’s boomer fans rarely seemed to notice that Heinlein was all about the inadmissible thought experiment, so their homages frequently came out as flat whitebread 1950s adventure yarns with blunt edges and not even the remotest whiff of edgy introspection, of consideration of the possibility that in the future things might be different (even if Heinlein’s version of diversity ultimately faltered and fell short).

We need to get that to get Heinlein’s portrayals of strange politics. One should never take him as simply advocating for the political order presented in any of his fictions.

Stross points to how many read Luna in The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress as a libertarian utopian fantasy despite how it depicts an anarchist culture muddling through in the context of a very neglectful authoritarian rulership and very peculiar material conditions. In Double Star, the Emperor Of The Solar System offers a spirited defense of constitutional monarchy! I take these stories, and others, and Troopers as provocations, letting illiberal socieites make their best case for themselves on their own terms. Each is a different exercise in pushing against how the core principles of liberalism-as-in-liberal-democracy are sacred cows in American society — inadmissible thought experiments indeed.

Part of why I read Heinlein in my youth is how I share his taste for looking the Devil in the eye, though I have learned that one must tread carefully. Heinlein was not careful enough, but his failures are interesting and twisty.

What I read RAH trying to do

The social & political order in Troopers has unmistakably fascist characteristics, but also includes a few breaks from the pattern of fascism. Importantly, it has no dictator, no cult of personality.

The core of its unique political system is now famous because Verhoeven’s explicitly satirical film adapation points directly to it:

• Only people honorably discharged from military service may vote (so people in service cannot)
• The military must accept all volunteers
• People in service may generally retire at will, but then they do not get the franchise

I read this What-If emerging from a tension between his romanticization of the military (which animates many of his stories, including my favorite) versus the liberatarian-unto-anarchist aspect of Heinlein’s worldview (evident throughout his work, loudest in Moon, which he wrote a few years after publishing Troopers).

Heinlein assumes not just that war emerges inevitably from human nature but that this reflects nobility, in protecting one’s society with violence. He dreads democracy devolving to lazy, destructive “bread & circuses” populism. Fashy sentiments. But Troopers also reflects Heinlein’s libertarian-ish disgust at conscription, and his sober dread of authoritarian alternatives to democracy. The world of Troopers tries to square the circle of these conflicting sensibilities through what Heinlein imagines could act as a tidy, clever system of checks-and-balances:

1. Requiring service as a test & training for a sober and truly public-minded electorate addresses his anxieties about electoral democracy — to vote, one must demonstrate willingness to commit to the public good.
2. Requiring that service accept every volunteer is meant to be quasi-democratic in spirit — since any can serve, none are disenfranchised. (I find it telling how in later commentary on the novel, Heinlein mis-remembered it as including the enfranchisement of people unsuited to the military by allowing for other forms of service.)
3. People in service cannot vote, to keep them from bending the military away from serving society.
4. Since voters have all Been There, that deters them from abusing the people in service.

But if one thinks about this with any depth, it falls apart.

Consider, f’rinstance, how this system would still allow a racist society to prevent the enfranchisement of people of color, simply by assigning Black & brown people in service to far more dangerous and degrading duty and refusing to ever discharge them from service. People of color would never become veteran voters who could prevent such abuses. Such shenanigans are so obvious to anyone familiar with the sham faux democracy of Jim Crow that one might suspect Heinlein of trickery.

I don’t. I see a naïve sincerity.

Heinlein’s good heart enabled this bad idea

If one has read much Heinlein, one cannot miss his disdain for bigotry. He wrote a lot of smart, capable women. He often would make that mid-20^th-century move of revealing that a hero was a person of color midway through a work. But as Stross observes, he had the sincere commitmment combined with shallow analysis of injustices like racism & sexism characteristic of white men of the era. He could not see the misogyny threaded through his Strong Woman Characters, and wrote tone-deaf tranwrecks when making unmistakable attempts to stand against bigotry.

I submit that the potential for a racist version of the Troopers political order just did not occur to Heinlein. This kind of mistake is why we need to be no less wary the dangerous short-sighted-ness of white male privilege than we are wary of overt bigotry and cruelty.

Someone as fundamentally pessimistic about human nature as Heinlein presented himself as being would have seen this and countless other potential abuses of the system in Troopers. Heinlein’s fundamental decency paradoxically hobbled his imagination.

I suspect that decency also protected him from sliding down the libertarian-to-fascist pipeline. Among the anarchist fantasies, prescient warnings about American Christian theocratic totalitarianism, and other inadmissable thought experiments, Troopers was the high water mark of his fascist sensibilities in a writing career which lasted almost thirty more years. He probably would have voted for GWB in 2004 as the “lesser evil” had he lived so long, but I am confident that he would have hated Trump.

I think Heinlein’s libertarian-ish impulse won out because he wasn’t mean enough to turn to fascism.

The skeptical, satirical Heinlein

Heinlein’s faux-cynicism also reflects another virtue which softens my disgust at Troopers. Despite the smug, didactic, that’s-just-how-it-is tone of his writing, he was too cheerfully skeptical of everything to entirely buy any of the suggestions implied in his fiction, even from his own mouthpiece characters.

Some of his work is outright satirical — he named Stranger In A Strange Land explicitly as a satire. Even in works not intended as satires, the satirical note bubbles up often. I think of an aside in Friday depicting an independent Republic Of California with an exaggerated version of the state’s realworld ballot initiative process. In that example, though Heinlein lampoons “too much democracy”, the fictional political order is harmlessly goofy rather than sinister; he couldn’t help blunting the teeth of his own critique.

Indeed, a few defenders of Heinlein’s novel claim that Verhoeven’s film makes overt a critique of fascism covertly embedded in the novel. I don’t buy that, but Heinlein’s sensibility creates openings to read it that way. Consider a counter-reading which finds that the novel presents a dystopia of slavery and mind control.

There is evidence, however, that enslavement is ubiquitous in Starship Troopers in the form of coercive mass hypnosis. Such a plot device occurs in no other RAH book, so it can’t be dismissed as an accidental trope. RAH included it on purpose.

[⋯]

The purpose of war is to support your government’s decisions by force. [⋯] to make him do what you want him to do. [⋯] But it’s not your business or mine to decide the purpose of the control. [⋯] that belongs to the statesmen and the generals. [⋯] other people — ‘older and wiser heads,’ as they say supply the control.

Implication: the Politburo, made up of and selected by a single party state of Komsomol veterans, control the rest of the population through mass hypnosis. That’s not to say the book is not a paean to duty and patriotism, but that it’s primarily a cautionary tale of enslavement by mind-control of diligent patriots by Soviet-style communism. And, to that extent at least, the book is intended as a satire.

That linked post describes that reading to debunk it — and I don’t find the Mind Control Dystopia reading convincing myself — but the argument in full does demonstrate that reading as very available.

That satirical impulse makes it hard to measure the sincerity of Troopers ….

How plausible did Heinlein consider the political order in Troopers?

Having argued that depicting the world of Troopers does not mean that Heinlein thought it was a good society, we still have to grapple with him considering it a plausible society. That depends on invoking a lot of fashy ideas.

Dubois mocking the decadent failure of 20^th century liberal democracy:

Law-abiding people hardly dared go into a public park at night. To do so was to risk attack by wolf packs of children, armed with chains, knives, homemade guns, bludgeons … to be hurt at least, robbed most certainly, injured for life probably — or even killed.

[⋯]

Were [those criminal kids] spanked? Indeed not! Many had never been spanked even as small children; there was a widespread belief that spanking, or any punishment involving pain, did a child permanent psychic damage.

[⋯]

the time-tested method of instilling social virtue and respect for law in the minds of the young did not appeal to a pre-scientific pseudo-professional class who called themselves ‘social workers’ or sometimes ‘child psychologists.’

Disgusting. Research has overwhelmingly demonstrated that authoritarian parenting is harmful and indeed produces worse-behaved adults. This exemplifies authoritarian myths offered uncritically throughout the book.

Earlier I quoted Dubois rejecting universal human rights. In the context of the novel, it connects directly to the point above:

“⋯ Nobody preached duty to these kids in a way they could understand — that is, with a spanking. But the society they were in told them endlessly about their ‘rights.’

“The results should have been predictable, since a human being has no natural rights of any nature.“

[⋯]

Librety is never unalienable; it must be redeemed regularly with the blood of patriots or it always vanishes.

[⋯]

“⋯ There never was, there cannot be, a ‘juvenile delinquent.’ But for every juvenille criminal there are always one or more adult dilinquents — people of mature years who eiterh do not know their duty, or who, knowing it, fail.

“And that was the soft spot which destroyed what was in many ways an admirable culture. The junior hoodlums who roamed their streets were symptoms of a greater sickness; their citizens (all of them counted as such) glorified their mythology of ‘rights’… and lost track of their duties. No nation, so constituted, can endure.”

Repellant.

And yet.

In that same passage, Dubois claims that moral philosophy has become an “exact science”:

⋯ the tragic wrongness of what those well-meaning people did, contrasted with what they thought they were doing, goes very deep. They had no scientific theory of morals. They did have a theory of morals and they tried to live by it (I should not have sneered at their motives) but their theory was wrong — half of it fuzzy-headed wishful thinking, half of it rationalized charlatanry.

[⋯]

We have such a theory now; we can solve any moral problem, on any level. Self-interest, love of family, duty to country, responsibility toward the human race — we are even developing an exact ethic for extra-human relations.

Later, in the version of History And Moral Philsoopshy class taught to military officer candidates, the instructor expects students to do this.

Very well, is one prisoner, unreleased by the enemy, enough reason to start or resume a war? [⋯] This is an exact science. You have made a mathematical statement; you must give proof. [⋯] Bring to class tomorrow a written proof, in symbolic logic ⋯

Oh, really?

This science-fictional conceit of an exact science of morals is asserted by propagandists for the state. In moments like that — as when Heinlein gives us an Emperor rationalizing constitutional monarchy, or an anarchist philosopher recruiting revolutionaries on the Moon, or countless other advocates for Inadmissible Thought Experiments — I sense Heinlein’s tounge reflexively drifting toward his cheek, perhaps without him even realizing it, asking us:

”Do you believe that the people of this world are right to be so smug about having this all worked out?”

I sure don’t. And I suspect that Heinlein isn’t confident in them, either.

Bad and complicated

So. I want to embrace a nuanced reading of Heinlein’s relationship with the world of Troopers without brushing off problems with Heinlein’s thinking by calling him “complicated”.

Heinlein’s political provocations are always weird, often dumb, sometimes ugly, and in the particular case of Starship Troopers, odious.

And complicated.

Feral Historian and civic virtue

Added in September 2025, together with some refinements of the post above

The Feral Historian is a videoessayist who talks about the political implications of science fiction worldbuilding. He has a liberarian-ish sensibility which bubbles up in stuff like using the word “statist”, but he’s neither stupid nor a crypto-fascist. I think of him as the not-exactly-evil twin to left-ish Damien Walter (who says that in Verhoeven’s film, Buenos Aires was a false flag) and I enjoy and recommend checking out both of their commentaries.

Feral has a wry videoessay The Federations: It’s The Same Picture which asks whether the worlds of Troopers and Star Trek are really all that different. I think they are different, or at least should be if we are doing Trek correctly, but it’s exactly the kind of playful, astringent challenge which I talk about admiring from Heinlein at his best.

I want to look closely at his videoessay Starship Troopers: Service Isn’t The Point, which raises some points worth digging into. It’s worth watching the whole thing, but here’s most of his punchline at the end:

1. It’s asking us to consider that maybe voting — exercising political force — isn’t a right but a responsibility that should be earned by demonstrating in some way that it won’t be squandered or used to the deriment of society as a whole.
2. This is illustrated perhaps most directly in the History And Moral Philosophy course that officer candidate Rico must attend late in the book. Unlike the public school version of it earlier, he must pass to the instructor’s satisfaction. [quoting the novel]: “If he gave you a downcheck, a board sat on you [⋯] deciding whether to give you extra instruction … or just kick you out and let you be a civilian.”
3. Simply giving a few years of your life to the public good isn’t the point; it’s about molding responsible citizens. The whole thing is a civics course wrapped in an enlistment …
4. … to make most people not bother, the uncommitted drop out, and the stubborn but genuinely unfit fail.
5. It’s a process of tempering the politically active class to be worthy of the power they wield based on an understanding that people exercising that power without the commensurate responsibility and restraint brings slow ruin to their society.
6. Instead of saying that citizens must be infused with virtue if the republic is to endure, Starship Troopers asks “what if only virtuous people can become citizens?” [⋯] Exercising the power of the state is a responsibility that must be earned, not a right that one simply acquires thanks to an accident of birth. It’s a story that says voting is not about having a voice but about directing state force. While today disenfranching people is seen as a grave injustice, the book shows us a world that views enfranchisement as a grave responsibility and filters its people to determine who will have that power and who will not.
7. The overall point is that a healthy republic requires its citizens to have civic virtue. The book uses military service as the mechanism for presenting people with a choice […] It doesn’t have to be military service per se, but the mechanism requires that the choice be one that has a significant short-term downside commensurate with the power they receive on the other end.

There’s a lot going on in there.

Where does Feral think the society of Troopers locates civic virtue?

As I hope is clear from my original post, I agree with his read that the novel is, among other things, a thought experiment in how one can guarantee that an electorate has the necessary civic virtue to govern well. But there’s an ambiguity in how Feral describes the world of the novel doing that.

Feral titled his piece “service isn’t the point” and points 2, 3, and 5 suggest that he reads the society in the book believing that citizenship requires not just a process for identifying people with civic virtue, but a process which creates virtue in citizens.

But in points 4, 6, and 7, Feral suggests that Heinlein thought the choice to serve was a filter which demostrated the civic virtue of willingness to commit to the common good which the book’s society considers necessary for responsible citizenship.

Either way, Feral says in 7 that “it doesn’t have to be military service per se” that performs this function. But he underlines how the society presented in the book does require specifically military service.

I cannot speak for Feral Historian, but I can point to evidence from the novel which I think clearly answers what the society in the world of the novel thinks about these questions.

How the society in Troopers thinks about civic virtue

Before getting into where that society grounds the virtue necessary for voters, I’ll note again how their society is also interested in civic virtue short of what people need to vote responsibly. It talks about the virtue required to participate responsibly in society at all, holding that without beating children, society cannot be healthy.

Fashy.

I think the book offers clear answers to the ambiguities in Feral’s read. Their society grounds the necessary virtue for a voter not in the process of service, but in passing the test of choosing to serve. And they believe that only military service provides an adequate test.

The need to choose service

Consider this from Dubois, naming the need to identify people with the necessary virtue to vote rather than cultivate them:

“The unlimited democracies [of the twentieth century] were unstable because their citizens were not responsible for the fashion in which they exerted their sovereign authority [⋯] No attempt was made to determine whether a voter was socially responsible to the extent of his literally unlimited authority.”

Dubois explicitly names this as “civic virtue” in another segment from that lecture which made its way almost directly into the film adaptation:

Suddenly, he pointed his stump at me. “You. What is the moral difference, if any, between the soldier and the civilian?”

“The difference,” I answered carefully, “lies in the field of civic virtue. A soldier accepts personal responsibility for the safety of the body politic of which he is a member, defending it, if need be, with his life. The civilian does not.”

“The exact words of the book,” he said scornfully. “But do you understand it? Do you believe it?”

When Rico takes his second History And Moral Philosophy course as an officer candidate — the only classroom experience from officer training described in the novel — his instructor Major Reid underlines the importance of choice over cultivation:

“Young man, can you restore my eyesight?”

“Sir? Why, no, sir!”

“You would find it much easier than to instill moral virtue — social responsibility — into a person who doesn’t have it, doesn’t want it, and resents having the burden thrust on him. This is why we make it so hard to enroll, so easy to resign. Social responsibility above the level of family, or at most of tribe, requires imagination — devotion, loyalty, all the higher virtues — which a man must develop himself; if he has them forced down him, he will vomit them out. ⋯”

The specific necessity of military service

Reid walks through the many “failures” of history demonstrating that only military service provides an effective test:

“⋯ Throughout history men have labored to place the sovereign franchise in hands that would guard it well and use it wisely, for the benefit of all. An early attempt was absolute monarchy, passionately defended as the ‘divine right of kings.’

“Sometimes attempts were made to select a wise monarch, rather man leave it up to God ⋯

“Historic examples range from absolute monarch to utter anarch; mankind has tried thousands of ways and many more have been proposed, some weird in the extreme such as the antlike communism urged by Plato under the misleading title The Republic. But the intent has always been moralistic: to provide stable and benevolent government.

“All systems seek to achieve this by limiting franchise to those who are believed to have the wisdom to use it justly. I repeat ‘all systems’; even the so-called ‘unlimited democracies’ excluded from franchise not less than one quarter of their populations by age, birth, poll tax, criminal record, or other.”

[⋯]

“The sovereign franchise has been bestowed by all sorts of rules — place of birth, family of birth, race, sex, property, education, age, religion, et cetera. All these systems worked and none of them well. All were regarded as tyrannical by many, all eventually collapsed or were overthrown.

“Now here are we with still another system … and our system works quite well. Many complain but none rebel; personal freedom for all is greatest in history, laws are few, taxes are low, living standards are as high as productivity permits, crime is at its lowest ebb. Why? Not because our voters are smarter than other people; we’ve disposed of that argument. ⋯

[⋯]

“⋯ So what difference is there between our voters and wielders of franchise in the past? We have had enough guesses; I’ll state the obvious: Under our system every voter and officeholder is a man who has demonstrated through voluntary and difficult service that he places the welfare of the group ahead of personal advantage.

“And that is the one practical difference.

“He may fail in wisdom, he may lapse in civic virtue. But his average performance is enormously better than that of any other class of rulers in history.”

Fashy.

Implied virtues

I’m grateful to Feral Historian for pointing me back to the officer candidates’ version of the History And Moral Philosophy class, because it clarified a point that the society in Troopers finds choosing military service a necessary test for a voter, but not a sufficient test.

As Feral points out, instructors in that class can not just flunk a soldier out of the class, if the soldier does badly enough the trainers will “kick you out and let you be a civilian”, losing the franchise.

In basic training, we get an episode in which a recruit strikes the company commander, foolishly talks himself into a hasty court-martial, and — denied legal counsel — he narrowly escapes hanging to be sentenced to “ten lashes and a Bad Conduct Discharge”. This inherits from military justice, and there are obvious reasons to consider those systems necessary. But they carry an extra weight when a dishonorable discharge denies a person’s vote.

So apropos of my point above about it not occurring to Heinlein how this system could easily maintain racist aparteid or other inequities in access to the franchise — since voters who survived military service could run the military unjustly to maintain a majority which supports that injustice — we see again how volunteering for military service is not in fact sufficent to become a voter. One must survive service. While in service one must demonstrate both obedience and ideological alignment with the regime.

Fashy.

Cas = Carlo !

It is well-known that in the original conception of the TV series Supernatural, road-tripping monster-hunting brothers Sam & Dean Winchester are inspired by road-tripping beatniks Sal Paradise & Dean Moriarty in Jack Kerouac’s novel On The Road, who themselves were based on Kerouac and his real-life friend Neal Cassidy.

To my delight, the Tik Tok algorithm has decided that I am a lesbian nerd, so I recently stumbled across a clip arguing that Dean’s bisexuality in On The Road bled into his Supernatural counterpart even before (some of) the show’s production team decided to lean into fans’ enthusiasm for reading Dean that way. The Tok further speculates that this was a big part of why there was so much “Wincest” fanfic about a romance between the brothers starting very early on: actors Jared & Jensen had great screen chemistry, Dean’s bisexuality is Just There, and Dean didn’t have a standing love interest because the show wanted him to be a ramblin’ man, so fans with a taste for slash fiction (non-canonical gay romance, created by and for women fans) just took the next step on the love Dean had already demonstrated, just as they had done when creating the first slashfic about Kirk & Spock.

I said “(some of) the show’s production team” above because for the entire fifteen-year run they were divided about how to respond to queer readings by fans. Some of the team fought against it, others enthusiastically embraced it. Episodes oscillate between deliberate homophobia and the Xena: Warrior Princess thing of maxxing out the Subtext it could fold in while maintaing plausible deniability.

That Tok creator also speculates that the character of Anna The Fallen Angel Who Loves Dean was an attempt to neutralize queer readings by providing the missing love interest for Dean. It didn’t work; either Anna wasn’t compelling enough on the merits (I had forgotten that she existed!) or the audience refused to accept him loving a girl that much. The show abandoned Anna, figuring whaddaya know, it did have another angel on hand whom the audience did like. Castiel got Anna’s planned storyline, minus the explicit romance … but the romance tropes were still there in the story, leading to infinite “Destiel” fanfic.

Persuasive.

That got me thinking about my favorite passage from On The Road, in which Carlo Marx, based on the very gay poet Allen Ginsberg, joins the story:

⋯ And that was the night Dean met Carlo Marx. A tremendous thing happened when Dean met Carlo Marx. Two keen minds that they are, they took to each other at the drop of a hat. Two piercing eyes glanced into two piercing eyes — the holy con-man with the shining mind, and the sorrowful poetic con-man with the dark mind that is Carlo Marx. From that moment on I saw very little of Dean, and I was a little sorry too. Their energies met head-on, I was a lout compared, I couldn’t keep up with them.

[⋯]

They rushed down the street together, digging everything in the early way they had, which later became so much sadder and perceptive and blank. But then they danced down the streets like dingledodies, and I shambled after as I’ve been doing all my life after people who interest me, because the only people for me are the mad ones, the ones who are mad to live, mad to talk, mad to be saved, desirous of everything at the same time, the ones who never yawn or say a commonplace thing, but burn, burn, burn like fabulous yellow roman candles exploding like spiders across the stars and in the middle you see the blue centerlight pop and everybody goes “Awww!” What did they call such young people in Goethe’s Germany? Wanting dearly to learn how to write like Carlo, the first thing you know, Dean was attacking him with a great amorous soul such as only a con-man can have. “Now, Carlo, let me speak — here’s what I’m saying …” I didn’t see them for about two weeks, during which time they cemented their relationship to fiendish allday-allnight-talk proportions.

I doubt that anyone on the Supernatural production team ever connected Castiel to Carlo, but now I cannot un-see it.

GURPS Lux

My friend Zed Lopez has bravely attempted to create a clarified introduction to Steve Jackson’s tabletop roleplaying game GURPS — “the generic universal roleplaying system”. (Cue joke based on Voltaire’s famous snarky comment about the Holy Roman Empire.)

This is a tutorial for GURPS 4^th edition. If you have basic familiarity with tabletop RPGs but are new to GURPS, this is for you. I hope it will provide the basic GURPS literacy [⋯] to convey GURPS’ concepts, but ultimately won’t present a playable game. [⋯]

We’ll begin with an extremely barebone set of rules and then add things a few at a time. In service of simplicity, I’ll say a few things I’ll take back or qualify later. A lot of things I’ll qualify later, but I’ll keep to a minimum the things I take back altogether.

Lengthy, carefully-considered, and headings are nicely witty where opportunity presents.

Yes, 300 is fascist

Unintentional fascism

Both Frank Miller’s comic 300 and Zach Snyder’s film adaptation have deeply fascist sensibilities. I feel certain that neither creator intended this, or even knows it, but there it is.

I have read most of Miller’s work. I am sure he would reject any reading of his work as fascist since he sincerely hates Nazis and US conservatives, and he often is a political satirist. But fascist themes recur in his work. Someday I have to write a thorough examination of them in his masterwork The Dark Knight Returns, but that is a big undertaking; for now, I will just note that at the climax of the story has Batman arrive as a man on horseback (literally), his mere presence immediately turning the violent energy of young men away from the perversion & chaos permitted by decadent elites, turning them toward a restoration of purpose & order, and that then spreads through society.

I also confess to enjoying many of Snyder’s films as a guilty pleasure, including 300. Patrick H. Willems’ video-essay Our Himbo Auteur examines Snyder’s whole filmography; like me, he concludes that Snyder’s tendency toward fascist themes is unconscious. Snyder is well known for seeing himself as a libertarian — he dreams of someday making a film adaptation of Ayn Rand’s The Fountainhead — which I feel confident that he would offer as inherently opposed to the authoritarianism of fascism. But the fascist sensibility includes more than just authoritarianism.

Both creators describe 300 as apolitical, just a gripping yarn animated by romanticized ideas of heroism and bravery. In that too I take them as sincere … and wrong. I think both were trying to embrace the violence as self-consciously Bad Wrong Fun but stumbled into reproducing fascist themes along the way. All stories have politics, and it is difficult to imagine a more thoroughly fascist work in either medium which is not intentional propaganda.

Fascist themes

• Presenting & romanticizing the Spartans as a society in which men define themselves entirely as warriors, in which war is necessary, noble, and good for the creation of a strong society. Every man a violent hero.
• Presenting this warrior ethos as making the Spartans superior to the other ancient Greeks — superior as men and superior as guarantors of civilization — because the other Greeks are devoted first to their trades and crafts. (A familiar, ahistorical reactionary fantasy.)
• Presents the Spartans as defending Western civilization from decadent, perverse, dark-skinned, monstrously inhuman queer-coded hordes from distant countries with different cultures determined to destroy their society.
• Offering just a glimpse of the other institutions of Spartan society, casting them as hopelessly corrupt in contrast to the soldiers. Miller emphasizes the parasitic priests, Snyder the cowardly ruling council which demonstrates that “democracy” is a sham.
• Depicting Spartan society as made great through ruthless eugenic elimination of the unfit and traumatizing training of boys to be men who refuse to admit any fear, pain, or weakness.
• Presenting Leonidas pitching Xerxes’ herald into a pit as a seeming mistake which proves to save Greece, romanticizing visceral emotion producing violent action as superior to calm, reason, openness, and such.
• Romanticizing the bodies of athletic men, framed in terms which vigorously insist that this is not eroticized.

These fascist themes are not inherent in the story of the Battle of Thermopylae, even as the Greek propagandist-historian Herodotus told it. Miller thanks Victor Davis Hansen at the start of 300; Hanson is a notorious militarist racist neocon enthusiast for the Iraq war whose misreading of Thucydides has long been notorious and pernicious. Every change to the real history in both the book and the film point in the same, fascist direction.

And I have to underline that 300 offering the Spartans in contrast to the decadent queerness of Xerxes, his army, and the other Greeks is a particularly funny and ugly touch if you know anything about the historical Spartans.

B-b-b-but satire!

Defenders of 300 say that its divergences from history are justified by the ending, which presents everything we have seen as actually a telling by the surviving Spartan Dilios, who has romanticizized Thermopylae to gain Greek support for the war against the Xerxes.

Thus, they claim, the hidden meaning of 300 is a satire of fascist propaganda, just as Snyder’s Sucker Punch attempts a critique of its surface text.

Snyder would make this point in an interview with Total Film, stating that he sought to place audiences in a tight spot by showing the Spartans’ savagery in blunt terms as people who are prepared to throw newborn children off a cliff if they’re insufficiently healthy, and posing the question “These are the people you’re supposed to go with on this journey?” Elaborating on the point, Snyder felt that “part of the fun” of 300 was to depict a society leaving its sons to fend for themselves as children and only prepared to allow them to return home if they survive, and asking “Those are your heroes?”

But that does not stand up on examination of the actual film. When we see the “real world” of Dilios telling the story, it looks exactly the same. Nothing in the text of either work suggests that the fascist themes are deceitful, or bad in any way.

“But it shows the Spartans doing obviously bad things!” cry its defenders. But everything bad is shown to us as not bad but romantically badass.

These defenses point to its portrayal of Spartan eugenicist infanticide as showing that the story is unsympathetic to the Spartans. Yes, the sensible reader or viewer should find infanticide morally repulsive. But does the story itself share that reading? Both book and film offer the infanticide quickly, to frame other events which it lingers over.

It shows us King Leonidas as a child, facing a test of manhood in the wilderness, fighting a wolf. That he would be compelled to do such a thing is abusive, but the story revels in how this shows that Leonidas is a badass.

It shows the Spartans encountering the deformed Ephialtes, who survived infanticide and aspires to join the Spartans in their ranks. Ephialtes is presented as disgusting. Leonidas gently turns down his help, which is not just portrayed as a kindness but too much a kindness, since the story goes on to have Ephialtes betray the Spartans to the Persians, who seduce him with queer-coded debauchery with other deformed figures. Ephialtes in the story proves as weak in spirit as he is in body, another fascist theme.

Contrast 300 with Verhoeven’s film adaptation of Starship Troopers, which is a satire of fascist propaganda. Troopers does what 300’s defenders claim 300 does: it presents fascist propaganda on its own terms, expecting the audience to supply its own ironic reading. But unlike 300, the fascist voice of Troopers is not remotely seductive. The soldiers are not badass, they are incompetent. We get not the glorious sacrifice of 300 but screaming agony and mutilitated soldiers. The fascist sensibility is never cool, it is cringe-inducingly absurd. Fascist aesthetics get marked increasingly unambiguously, culminating in a major character wearing an imitation of an SS uniform. 300 includes nothing similar.

It is not satire when a work presents bad ideas. It must actually, y’know, satirize them.

Land of the Lost

A hundred hokey old movies and TV shows got stupid gritty reboots in the last couple of decades. But not the one which is a natural for that treatment.

Fanfic

Indexing a few favorites. Most quotes are just a taste to get readers interested. Titles are links.

Trek

The Thing About The Kobayashi Maru

Do they, Bones? We’ve been at this for three years. Tell me, Bones, how many times have we faced a real no-win situation? A certain death in face of helping people? I write the logs, Bones. The answer is never. Not once. Sure, we lost feathers, and couldn’t always save everybody. But each time we made it, Bones, and each time, we saved people. The only reason the Maru is a no-win situation is because someone decided it should be. To make a point.

See also: Superman

Wars

Instruments of Destruction

Jerjerrod constructed a new timetable. Using his most reasonably optimistic estimates, the second Death Star would be completed in sixteen years, taking four times longer than the original timeline.

Jerjerrod could have sent a message to the Emperor informing him of this fact, but enough time had passed since Jerjerrod had been put in charge of the project that blame would almost certainly fall on him, especially given the rosy reports that the Emperor had been receiving. Announcing that the schedule was too optimistic would be seen as a matter of personal failure. Under the Emperor’s regime, failure on this scale didn’t mean demotion or court martial, it meant death. So what was Admiral Tian Jerjerrod to do?

A New Sith, or Revenge Of The Hope

Twenty years earlier, Chewbacca was second in command of the defence of his planet. He was there in the tactical conferences and there on the front lines and was a personal friend of Yoda's. So when he needed reliable people to join the embryonic Alliance, who else would Yoda turn to but his old friend from Kashykk? Given his background, it makes no sense that Chewbacca would spend the crucial years of the rebellion as the second-in-command to (sorry Han) a low-level smuggler. Unless it was his cover. In fact, Chewie is a top-line spy and flies what is in many ways the Rebellion's best ship.

Middle Earth

The Truth About Tom Bombadil

Tom Bombadil and the Witch-king of Angmar are the same person.

Oldest and Fatherless: The Terrible Secret of Tom Bombadil

Now, in his conversation with Frodo, Bombadil implies (but avoids directly stating) that he had heard of their coming from Farmer Maggot and from Gildor’s elves (both of whom Frodo had recently described). But that also makes no sense. Maggot lives west of the Brandywine, remained there when Frodo left, and never even knew that Frodo would be leaving the Shire. And if Elrond knows nothing of Bombadil, how can he be a friend of Gildor’s?

What do we know about Tom Bombadil? He lies.

A question: what is the most dangerous place in Middle Earth? First place goes to the Mines of Moria, home of the Balrog, but what is the second most dangerous place? Tom Bombadil’s country.

Fear No Evil: On Sorting Hats and Forest Gods

Stay on the path. Follow him. Trust him. Obey him, because he is friendly, and because he is Iarwain Ben-adar, Eldest and Fatherless, who saw the first of everything. Try not to notice the way the One Ring doesn’t stir any evil in him. It corrupts everyone who wears it, but not this man. Try not to wonder about what kind of purity is incorruptible; try not to wonder what he is made of, that a thing of perfect evil does not change him at all.

Marvel

Captain America meets Blade

Transcribed all of this one:

Blade:
help me murder every single vampire to satisfy my own deep-seated issues with my parentage and (film version) the genocidal spite of my mentor figure

Captain America:
wait a second. (pause) so you want to kill this entire group of queer-coded reputed blood-drinkers

Blade:
yeah they’re a monstrous conspiracy of blood-drinking abominations who control and corrupt society

Captain America:
hey bucky does this song and dance sound familiar?

Bucky:
lil’ bit

Blade:
pardon?

Cap:
… yeah, no offense Blade, I’m sure a lot of ’em are awful, but … look, if they hunt and kill folks yeah we have laws for dealing with that, but this looks bad, dude.

Blade:
what do you mean?

Cap:
this looks just … a smidge? a smidge. fashy, man.

Blade:
but they’re vampires! they are impure minions of Evil!

Cap:
not helping your case! look I’m just saying genocidal campaigns of extermination for distinct demographics are not Hero Things, man

Blade:
but they’re vampires

Cap:
dude, depending on whether we’re in film or comics canon, so are you, and you explicitly used to eat homeless people. ease back, yo.

Blade:
you’ve killed vampires!

Cap:
yeah, Nazi vampires, I am all about some Nazi-killing, and supervillain vampires, but Nazis don’t bite people and turn ’em into more Nazis, they’re a political identity.

Blade:
so you’re saying my anti-vampire crusade sounds awkwardly like classic anti-Semitic tropes of blood libel, all-powerful Jewish-coded conspiracy and “sexual corruption” mixed with queerphobia? Right down to purifying the corrupted with murder?

Cap:
it rhymes

Blade:
aw, fuck. can you at least help me kill Dracula? he's getting his doom fortress overlord of darkness thing on again

Cap:
oh sure, give me the stake and let’s go.

Blade:
wait what?

Cap:
there’s no creed against killing supervillains for being monstrous assholes. shoulda started there

Steve Rogers, PR disaster

He was bound to figure it out someday. Steve was a determined guy, and even if he somehow never discovered Wikipedia, if nothing else, he had a library card. Still, something in the way his eyes narrowed made her stammer,

“Uh, nothing, never mind, it’s fine. The word ‘socialist’, uh, means something different now, so it’s no longer really accurate to describe yourself like that. Just, if reporters ask or something.”

Captain America, red diaper baby

All those things add up to a very interesting, potentially shocking, probably fascinating backstory that’s never been touched on. Namely, that Steve Rogers probably grew up in a Communist household. He might not have been a card-carrying Communist himself, but his parents almost certainly were.

I actually blogged that one before, along with some other good reflections on Cap.

Tony Stark & Bruce Banner, science bros

You can see the look on Natasha and Steve’s faces when Tony asks if Bruce turned up yet. They’ve counted Bruce out. Guy’s a mess, right? He’s too volatile. Doesn’t play well with others. He could never work as part of a team. No-one thinks he’ll come through when it matters. Except Tony.

Others

The Raven

Transcribed the whole of this little ditty.

Poe:
Once upon a midnight

Beastie Boys:
DREARY

Poe:
While I pondered,

Beastie Boys:
WEAK

Poe:
and

Beastie Boys:
WEARY

[⋯]

Mike D:
Tell me what thy lordly name is

MCA:
On night’s Plutonian shore

Both:
QUOTH THE RAVEN

Bird squawk sample

Ad-Rock:
ᴺ ᵉ ᵛ ᵉ ʳ ᵐ ᵒ ʳ ᵉ

TV commercials for insurance

“Like a good neighbor, State Farm is there,” we chant, and another agent appears in the pentagram. He screams. The Dark Lord feasts tonight.

Pride and Extreme Prejudice

At this moment the path through the shrubbery took a sharp dogleg to accomodate a stately lime tree. To Patience’s discomfiture Mr. Connor was lounging on the bench around the bole, just striking a match on the sole of his boot. His glance at Mr. Terminus was distinctly cold. He drew on his pipe until the tobacco was well alight before saying, “My dear Patience, clockwork and machinery is properly the sphere of the lower orders. The delicately nurtured female can have no commerce with the denizen of a factory. May I escort you back to the terrace?”

The Lego Movie is cosmic horror

Copied from Tumblr:

was explaining to my mom on the phone the concept of a cosmic horror and she hit me with the one hit k.o. ⋯

me: yeah so basically a cosmic horror is the fear of a godlike being or entity so much bigger than yourself and your perception of the universe that your brain cant possibly comprehend it, often leading to some sort of madness in the stories because of this “break” in your perception of reality because this entity is so incomprehensible to your limited worldview. the concept is credited to h.p. lovecraft because of stuff like cthulu but the guy was also a massive —

my mom, interjecting: ah, so like horton hears a who. i get it.

---

# wait so like # does the LEGO movie count # they manage to escape into the human world and it’s all hazy because they don’t understand # and the people were controlling them the whole time

SURE
SURE THE LEGO MOVIE IS A COSMIC HORROR
WHY NOT

---

The LEGO Movie absolutely counts, and it’s treated that way from the characters’ points of view. Emmett describes The Man Upstairs as having “hands like giant pink sausages, like eagle talons mixed with squid” which sounds like a human trying to describe an eldritch horror.

Just think, everyone and everything in his world is made of Lego pieces. They are as fundamental as the subatomic particles that make up our world.

From the characters’ perspective, the humans are gods that created these fundamental elements as drastically simplified playthings imitating their own world. Imagine finding out that the periodic table of elements was constructed by gods in order to build a simulation of something thousands of times more complex, and we are just simulations being puppeted by these gods for their amusement.

This also explains why objects like the Kragle and the Scepter of Q-Tip are considered “relics” with unnatural powers — they are discarded items from the higher, far more complex reality that follow the rules of THAT reality, not the characters’ reality. That is why they can influence the characters’ world in ways not normally permitted by that reality.

This puts a whole new perspective on the scene where Lord Business uses the nail polish remover on Good Cop / Bad Cop to ERASE HIS FACE.

Against the Big Bad Boycott

Posts on this subject are obviously fraught, so a few things up front:

• the moral question is simple: Palestinian liberation is right & necessary
• the praxis is complicated: antisemitic entryism into the movement for liberation is subtle, pervasive, and unacceptable
• the history is complicated: I have a survey of it which addresses many common misunderstandings on all sides
• I keep an index of resources — my posts and others’

Big Bad Con is a tabletop roleplaying convention founded with a deep commitment to social justice and a healthy community space. This year, people have organized a Big Bad Boycott demanding a strong “anti-Zionist” statement from the Con organization.

I have been itching to clean up my long Twitter thread about it into a crisp post, but have not been able to carve out the time. Because the issue is pressing, I am settling for this somewhat clumsy capture of the thread (with just a few tweaks for clarity and legibility) for sharing elsewhere.

Initial thread

I oppose Israel’s genocidal attack on Gaza, and Israel’s longstanding apartheid military policing of Gaza & the West Bank. I am not a Zionist.

So I oppose the ill-informed, irresponsible Big Bad Boycott with sadness in my heart. I feel sadness because the Boycott organizers obviously speak from a sincere commitment to justice. All people of conscience must stand in opposition to Israel’s genocidal attack on Gaza in this moment. But the terms of the boycott are irresponsible.

(I offer this commentary having never having attended BigBadCon, though I have given the Con modest financial support from the beginning, and I count many Con organizers & participants as part of my personal gamenerd community.)

Had the organizers of the Boycott called for the Con to make a public statement in opposition to Israel’s ongoing genocidal attack on Gaza, I would have considered it outside the scope of the Con’s responsibility, but noble.

This is not that.

The Boycott’s core statement has a host of problems. They summarize their position as a “stand against the normalization of genocidal views within our spaces”, but that summary is misleading.

The Big Bad Boycott demands

a public values statement indicating that Big Bad Con is an anti-Zionist space

That is a far stronger demand than expressing opposition to genocide, in ways which I assume that the boycott organizers do not understand.

“Zionism” does not mean support for the current genocide, or for the Nakba, or for the disenfranchisement of Palestinians. Zionism means neither more nor less than support for the continued existence of the state of Israel in some form.

Again, I am not a Zionist. I respect, even agree with, many anti-Zionist arguments. But given what “Zionism” actually means, even if one faults it as wrong one must respect it as a legitimate position. Many Jewish Israelis who have worked hard for justice for Palestinians understand themselves as Zionists, by which they mean that they love the only home they have ever known. Demanding an anti-Zionist BigBadCon demands their exclusion.

The Boycott summary faults BigBadCon for having “censored anti-Zionist language from event programming”. This is a misleading description of the events documented in the Boycott’s own letter, in which the Con organizers asked for the omission of an event plan in which ‘all panelists were asked to sign onto a statement [which] included the phrases “anti-Zionist” and “from the river to the sea”’. That is much more than Language In Event Programming.

Many say “anti-Zionism” as a noble call for justice across Gaza, the West Bank, and Israel. But Jews have good reasons to also hear “anti-Zionism” as a call for the expulsion of Jewish Israelis from the only home they have ever known.

Many say “from the river to the sea” as a noble call for justice across Gaza, the West Bank, and Israel. But Jews have good reasons to also hear that as a call for the expulsion of Jewish Israelis from the only home they have ever known.

The Big Bad Boycott summary calls on BigBadCon to “commit to consulting with Palestinians, Arabs, Muslims, and anti-Zionist Jews”. Thinking about Zionism is hard. Excluding non-Zionist and liberal Zionist Jews from discussion is irresponsible. Placing conditions on Jewish participants but not Palestinians is irresponsible; Palestinian anti-Zionists who advocate genocide exist. And one should reflect on how, and why, the Big Bad Boycott assumes that non-Palestinian Arabs & Muslims have a stake in this conversation.

I have yet to read the Big Bad Boycott letter as closely as I would like. For now, I want to examine just one segment which worries me, an early email from one of the Big Bad Boycott organizers to the Con, saying that Big Bad Con …

… asked to remove anti-zionist language from its event description due to the presence of zionist staff and/or donors at Big Bad. I find this news troubling, given that zionists are currently participating in and supporting a genocide in Palestine.

This passage is true in a trivial sense. Yes, there are Zionists participating in & supporting the genocide in Gaza. Just as there are vegetarians with the same culpability. The passage obviously means something else; it clearly implies that Zionists all participate in, or at least support, the genocide in Gaza. That is simply not what “Zionist” means.

That passage, and the whole tenor of the Big Bad Boycott, says that Zionists should be excluded from the Con community. Much stronger than Anti-Zionist Language In Event Programming.

I recognize that the Big Bad Boycott sponsors believe that they are calling for nothing other than the exclusion of advocates for genocide. If they were, I they would have my support. But they are not. In their ignorance, the leaders of the Big Bad Boycott have actually called for the exclusion of Israeli Jews who oppose the horrors committed under the flag of the home they love.

It should be evident why Jews would be touchy about this.

Again, I respect what the leaders of the Big Bad Boycott sincerely believe that they are doing. But they are responsible for what they are actually doing. Their demands are irresponsibly sloppy & ill-informed; they are harmful to the community.

Because I respect the noble motives behind the Big Bad Boycott, I urge BigBadCon to engage in good faith dialogue with its leaders, and to publicly address their demands. But I also urge BigBadCon to firmly refuse the current demands.

Little follow-ups

The Boycott organizers say:

Any claims to being both pro-Palestine / anti-genocide and a Zionist are inherent contradictions.

That is offensively false.

It occurs to me that it would be better to instead demand that BigBadCon commit to confronting the legacy of colonialist ideologies in TTRPGs more generally.

Seeing BigBadCon talking about doing “staff education about Zionism and Palestine”. I offer some resources I keep handy:

• Settler colonialism & history
• What “Zionism” means
• What “anti-Zionism” implies

It really itches me that the Big Bad Boycott faults the BigBadCon organization for “censoring” an event description. A con organization does not just have a right to edit the con program, they have a responsibility to.

A decade back, I played a part in protest against a different con because they allowed an event description which insulted trans people. Con organizers have an obligation to ensure that the program welcomes & supports all members of the community.

Reasonable people may differ about whether BigBadCon made the right editorial decision in response to the event description submitted to them. But the Boycott is wrong to suggest that it was wrong for them to exercise editorial control at all.

I saw that a Quillette pseudo-journalist is criticizing the Big Bad Boycott, and I vigorously reject any support from them. I keep an index of resources about how Quillette respectability-wash the far right.

I have not seen anyone calling the Big Bad Boycott “financial violence”, but for what it’s worth, I concur with critiques of that position. I think the Boycott is wrong. But it is a legitimate instrument for pursuing a legitimate aim.

A long exchange with a Boycott supporter

This exchange starts with me saying how I want to speak to a couple of things about this post in support of the Big Bad Boycott which represents things which I find frustrating about the Boycott in general:

After the most recent update from BigBadCon, I and [others] will be joining #bigbadboycott. I love Big Bad Con, and believe that while likely most of the staff have their hearts in the right place, their failure to roll back their censorship is unacceptable —

This was the most simple and central demand of the boycott. I was so certain it would be addressed I hadn’t even considered it a possibility that they wouldn’t, so I didn’t originally sign on. I was clearly wrong.

Additionally, their insistence that “from the river to the sea” has multiple meanings is, whether intentional or not, a dangerous concession to genocidal propaganda.

I sincerely hope they will change their course in the next seven days before the boycott becomes official.

From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free 🇵🇸

I respect the Boycott pushing back against the Con’s editorial choices about event descriptions. A con program is an instrument by which the con defines its community; the community absolutely has a stake in it.

I am frustrated by the Boycott characterizing the Con’s editorial control of the program as “censorship”. Con organizers do not just have a right to exercise editorial control over event descriptions, they have a responsibility to, as custodians of the con community. I take the point about con organizers’ editorial control over the program very seriously because I am a veteran of a different con suffering a crisis over the org’s failure to protect vulnerable members of its community in its program.

Second, I am mortified to see the con saying “‘from the river to the sea’ has multiple meanings” characterized as “a dangerous concession to genocidal propaganda”. The multiple implications of the phrase is a fact.

I am confident that this individual and all organizers & participants in the Boycott mean nothing other than liberation & justice for all people in the Levant when they say “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free”. But no, that is not the only implication. The phrase “from the river to the sea” has long been used by people advocating the expulsion of Jewish Israelis. It has long been used by Israel hardliners who advocate the expulsion of all Arab Palestinians. It. Has. Multiple. Meanings.

The phrase “from the river to the sea” evokes “push them into the sea”, which has been used to advocate the expulsion both of Jewish Israelis and of Arab Palestinians. Anyone well-informed about the history of Israel-Palestine recognizes this. It is simply a fact that the phrase “from the river to the sea” comes burdened with multiple meanings. It is, frankly, chilling to see people call recognition of this bare fact “a dangerous concession to genocidal propaganda”.

Boycott organizers have echoed that refusal to accept facts:

claiming that “anti-Zionist” and “from the river to the sea” have a “plurality of meanings” is a Zionist capitulation, whether it is intended as such or not

Fergawdsake, actual f•cking Nazis commonly call themselves “anti-Zionist” as a coy way of claiming not to offer antisemitism. Damm straight it has a plurality of meanings. Claiming otherwise is unsafe for Jews.

Understand, I would vigorously support a boycott of a con which forbade the use of the expressions “anti-Zionist” or “from the river to the sea” in con events. The Big Bad Boycott is doing something very different.

I admire the organizers & supporters of the Big Bad Boycott working to have the Con community clearly stand against the ongoing genocide in Gaza, as it should. I urge them to reconsider the terms on which they do this.

The author of the thread I was criticizing showed up in my mentions with a very generous-spirited reply:

Hey, first of all I appreciate the fact that you censored my name and pfp [blurring out those identifying details from a screenshot of the thread, to deter harassment] and it seems you are interested in good faith discussion. I can’t fit everything I want to say in one tweet so bare with me for a few minutes—

First of all, my position on the boycott will not be changing. It is tragic, especially when it seems to me that many of the Big Bad staff are in agreement with Palestinian liberation. It sucks that a battle is happening here rather than against worse organizations like the DNC. But I also think it is perfectly reasonable that a group is threatening to boycott an event after the language they want to use in their event has been restricted. Whether or not “Censorship” is the correct term seems immaterial here.

Secondly and more importantly, as far as I am aware, every “official” use of the river-sea slogan is explicitly NOT anti-Jewish / a call for removal. The 1968 PLO charter and its later revisions explicitly say that Jews will not be evicted, only people who oppose liberation. The 2017 Hamas charter also explicitly states that it “rejects the persecution of any human being or the undermining of his or her rights on nationalist, religious or sectarian grounds”. If there are more similar official uses of the phrase, please let me know about them.

Of course there will be racists and antisemites who try to co-opt the movement and its terminology. In my expirience both in my local community and online, the liberation movement has been very proactive about calling them out and ousting them from pro-Palestine spaces. But I think giving their interpretations of the phrase credence is akin to saying that because equal rights for lgbtq people has been used to justify imperialist projects (including in Palestine), we shouldn’t use pro-lgbtq language.

I’ve spent a lot of time studying this but I am not an expert so please do let me know if there are things I am missing here. I do believe we are ideologically aligned for the most part and do want to hear what you have to say. I can promise to at least look into it

I replied:

Delighted to have you come to me this way, I really appreciate it. Let me reïterate: I respect you and the Boycott movement on two fundamentals. Doing the Boycott is legitimate, and all people of conscience must stand against the genocidal attack on Gaza and for Palestinian liberation. I say that partly because I have been trying to think of a way to respond which does not land at sounding pretty harsh, and feel that I have failed. So I want to be very clear where I am coming from.

I share your sense of tragedy over this conflict. There is stuff to say about [that], but I don’t want to start [there].

Editorial decisions about the Con program affect the Con community, so the community has a stake in those decisions. I both think the Boycott is a bad idea and consider it wholly legitimate. This distinction between “good” and “legitimate” is important in addressing the way the Boycott talks about the Con org “censoring” the event description.

The semantic weight of “censoring” is far from the most important thing, but it is substantive. It is fair for the Boycott to fault the editorial choices the Con org made over the event description in the program. It is very bad for the Boycott to imply that the Con org is wrong to make any editorial choices about event descriptions.

It is very easy to imagine event descriptions which you and I would vigorously agree that the Con org should forbid. The term “censorship” is pejorative and suggests that doing so would be illegitimate.

Further — and again, this is not of central importance, but it is worth naming — faulting the Con for “censoring anti-Zionist language” is weirdly incomplete. The issue is not that the language was anti-Zionist, it was the particular form it took. We can imagine a proposed event description including “kill all Zios” which we would all agree the Con would be right to forbid. So the question is whether the Con was right to forbid this particular anti-Zionist language.

It is reasonable to fault the Con org for having made the wrong decision about that event description. I’m going to mount a defense of their decision, but honestly I don’t feel all that strongly about it. I do feel strongly about the Boycott demands extending far beyond calling for a reversal of that decision about that event description.

So let’s talk about “from the river to the sea”.

Your invocation of “official” use of the slogan is strange. Why should that matter?

In objecting to the use of “from the river to the sea” (FTRTTS) and “anti-Zionist”, the Con org were addressing how those would be read, not what the event organizers meant. [The BigBadCon organization’s] evaluation may not be right, but [the Con organizers grounding their decision in] this standard is correct. I am confident that you are sophisticated enough in social justice advocacy principles to recognize that the Con should be considering impact, not intent.

As I said upthread, I both read most use of FTRTTS (including this one) as a call for liberation which I support and still feel dread when I hear it. I grit my teeth through that because supporting Palestinian liberation is more important than my feelings. But no, it is not unreasonable for Jews — especially Israeli Jews — to feel more threatened by [FTRTTS] than I do. (In a bit, I’ll address some of the historical particulars that you bring up.)

And “anti-Zionism” is even more charged than FTRTTS. I know that you and most “anti-Zionists” mean that you oppose disenfranchisement and worse of Palestinians. But that arrogates the meaning of “Zionism” away from actual Zionists [who] understand Zionism to mean nothing more or less than supporting the continued existence of Israel in some form. Zionism includes opposition to the oppression of Arab Palestinians, from its beginnings through the present. Israeli Jews who have actively worked against the oppression of Palestinians understand themselves as “Zionists” simply because they love the only home they have ever known. The event description excluded them.

Saying, “golly, the ‘anti-Zionist space’ the event description named and the Boycott now demands across the Con is not an attack on Israeli Jews who oppose the genocide in Gaza” is disingenuous. Why should they read it that way?

I have had exchanges with left “anti-Zionists” who say that celebrating Israel’s independence day is cause enough to drive someone out of their community. Why would someone reading the Con program assume that an “anti-Zionist space” means otherwise?

Understand, I am not necessarily defending celebrating Israel’s independence day. Heck, I am critical of celebrating the US’s Independence Day! But I think it is obvious why it would be unreasonable to demand that — since US history is riddled with slavery, genocide, and other brutality — the Con should exclude anyone who celebrates the US Independence Day.

Again, I don’t take you or the Boycott or most advocates for Palestinian liberation as meaning that Israeli Jews who love their home should be excluded from the community. But all y’all are responsible to know that you are saying something which will be heard that way.

OK, so finally I can come to your historical observations arguing that no one should read FTRTTS or “anti-Zionist space” these ways. Frankly, I find this naïve in accepting disingenuous arguments from the Palestinian liberation movement. There is a whole body of rhetoric by the movement for Palestinian liberation which says that Arab Palestinians have only ever wanted to live together in the Levant in peace and harmony, while “Zionists” all sought a violent purge of Arab Palestinians.

Horseshit.

Again, I know that you and the Boycott organizers & supporters and most people standing up for Palestinian liberation in the face of genocide in Gaza want a just, inclusive Palestine in which no one is disenfranchised. But you raised the history.

I know the PLO Charter quite well. It states clearly that they seek an Arab state in the whole of Palestine. It only counts “Jews who had normally resided in Palestine until the beginning of the Zionist invasion” as Palestinians.

The PLO Charter says “Jews [⋯] are citizens of the states to which they belong”, not of their imagined Palestine. Most Israeli Jews are not just the descendants of refugees from genocide, they are descended from refugees from Arab states. It must be said that I am not offering Because The Shoah as justifying every wrong committed by pre-Israel Zionists or Israel. My point here is about the PLO’s vision, obviously significant in understanding Palestinian liberation movements.

In the vision of the PLO Charter, only a handful of Israeli Jews could be citizens of Palestine. Article 16 welcomes Israeli Jews as guests in Palestine, not citizens. So sure, the PLO Charter does not call for the murder or expulsion of Israeli Jews, it just announces plans to make them into stateless people, disenfranchised in the only home many of them had ever known.

And human rights language in the Hamas Charter is simply risible. Hamas are authoritarian theocrats. They don’t even respect the human rights of Arab Palestinians.

If you are pointing to the PLO & Hamas charters as reasons why Jews should not find FTRTTS and “anti-Zionist space” threatening, you are just not equipped to understand why the Con org responded as it did or why I am skeptical of the Boycott … you are just not equipped to gauge how diligent the movement for Palestinian liberation has been in avoiding bad allies … and you are just not equipped to understand how American Jews who support Palestinian liberation are touchy about antisemitism in this moment.

In demanding that BigBadCon declare the entire Con an “anti-Zionist space”, the Big Bad Boycott requires Jews to read that phrase more generously than [BigBadCon] can reasonably expect, and is calling for a lot more than [BigBadCon declaring] opposition to the ongoing genocide in Gaza.

That brings me back, finally, to the tragedy of the conflict over the Big Bad Boycott. Advocates for the Boycott are willing to crash an institution deeply dedicated to social justice over a stronger demand than y’all understand.

It is right and necessary that the Con community hold the Con org accountable for a truly inclusive space which supports marginalized people. It is unmistakable that the org are responding to the Boycott with the care & seriousness it merits.

I respect Boycott supporters like you who want to stand against the oppression of Arab Palestinians as we all should. I do not respect the Boycott organizers, who are responsible for escalating to bad demands.

This is doubly maddening because I think the Boycott is missing an opportunity to call for a broader reckoning with colonialism which would be relevant to both the TTRPG community and the horrors in Gaza.

I have gotten way too long-winded for Twitter here! And I have said things more harshly than I would like. This thread is clumsy in the name of not leaving you hanging too long. Please understand that I respect you acting out of good conscience, toward a good cause.

Threads from Thirsty Sword Dreadlord Latinx

On antisemitism

Big Bad Con Boycott has an issue with semantics, in that they hide behind it and then accuse their critics of doing the same. Of course, this is about Anti-Zionism. They want this term to be as broadly applied as possible without having to take responsibility.

Currently, Anti-Zionism has two definitions being used in discourse and that is:

1. opposition to colonial violence of a Jewish religious enthnocracy.
2. opposition to the existence of Israel and refusal to acknowledge imperial antisemitism and Jewish diaspora

The boycott’s Anti-Zionism is vehemently hostile and extends to demanding the names and ostracization of volunteers and donors who they accuse of harboring these sentiments, however they also get defensive and hostile when asked to explain what exactly they mean.

The most obvious reason BBC boycott doesn’t want to engage in defining Anti-Zionism is that leaves them open to accusations and straw-man fallacies and that definitely is a huge risk. I can’t play that down enough: there are people against the boycott are doing this.

However, bad faith accusations are never an excuse to engage in bad faith accusations which is what the boycott has done since mid August, almost a month before they threatened the convention to go public with accusations of being Zionist sympathizers. August 13^th, was the first time the boycott called Big Bad Con “Zionist sympathizers” here on twitter, less than one week after they declared their Anti-Zionism boycott of Gencon a failure.

I can’t remark on the Gencon boycott beyond that some of the same people who participated are now involved with the most recent Big Bad Con boycott, however, they have been has escalating the use of Anti-Zionism rhetoric from this point. Big Bad Boycott has so far accused volunteers and attendees of Zionism for the following:

• Censorship of the panel description
• Expressed concerns for the security risk the uncensored panel descriptions would bring to the con by Zionist supporters
• Expressed concerns about the convention’s charity status being jeopardized by making a public statement of being Anti-Zionist
• Expressed concerns that the boycott broad application of Anti-Zionism would be received by the Bay Area’s Jewish community.
• Expressed concerns about the boycott’s accusation that volunteers are protecting Zionist sympathizers who are a danger to people of color.
• And [expressed concerns] that the boycott is specifically targeting critics of the boycott as Zionist sympathizers.

Yet no clear definition of Anti-zionism

That is until last week when a member of the boycott stated on Discord …

• Israel itself is a colony on stolen indigenous land and Jews, as colonizers, have no right to that land.

and more importantly

• Palestinian pain takes precedence over antisemitism.

Malignant ignorance of this stance gives me chills especially when applied to Anti-Zionism. It has no regards to the marginalization of Jews, historical or in the present day.

The Big Bad Boycott’s definition of Anti-Zionism is to exclude and marginalize any Jew or gentile who has a connection to the people and the land of Israel regardless how we use that connection to oppose the crimes against humanity Israel commits. For advocating for that connection, and the refusal to set it aside, Jews and gentiles like me are accused of playing “semantics and tone-policing”, when, in actuality, we demand a free Palestine and condemnation of the state of Israel without denying Jewish pain.

I have seen screenshots of a key bit of this discussion on Discord. Thirsty Sword Dreadlord Latinx is distilling the sense of the exchange rather than simply quoting it. But I can attest that his summary is an astringent but fair representation.

On a troublingly naïve aspect of the Boycott

On the boycott’s and my views on censorship of the panel at Big Bad Con. Censorship is a loaded word and it is abused heavily in right-wing circles. It’s why I get really angry when I see it used, but in this case the term does fit the definition of what has happened, but censorship happens for multiple reasons, and in this case the staff stated it was for security purposes, which the boycott refuses to acknowledge beyond a heavy dose of skepticism. The relationship continues to break down because the boycott doesn’t recognize the threat.

As stated by the staff, through leaked communications between Big Bad Con and the boycott, the con was concerned about vulnerabilities to website and to convention itself. Despite the boycott’s incredulity and ignorance, this threat is real and is growing day by day. A journalist of a right-wing online magazine has already taken notice of the boycott as well has written about two of those involved in a prior incident [I won’t state who nor which magazine]. The boycott is joking about this, but this is exactly the concern the staff have.

My particular concern is about the website and its security. Those who are familiar with our community for the past few years know how much the volunteers struggle to keep the site functioning especially when it comes to assigning spots for attendee at events … least to say, the website is very important to the convention and there are groups hostile to social justice and marginalized people and there are those who can could take advantage of that fact from anywhere in the world.

Those familiar with alt-right online threats know what can happen, but examples are doxxing of volunteers, swatting and harassment of attendees and volunteers, especially if they have highly visible social media presence, and DNS attacks. This is what the staff were referring to.

Hence, this is why the staff of Big Bad Con thought the removal of those key terms from the panel was necessary and I agree with them, and why the boycott's ideological opposition and condemnation is so frustrating. This boycott is righteous, but they are often wrong.

Note that the change in language of the panel ALSO included requiring the panelist to give signed commitment to Anti-Zionism which has complicated relationship with Jewish identity and antisemitism, which I have little understanding of and so I shouldn’t comment beyond this note.

Apropos of which, in the email exchange shared in the long Boycott letter, they asked BigBadCon to name any Zionists in the org. It should be obvious why that is a scary request, as discussed here:

A thread from (Mike) Draco on the Boycott’s theory of change

I told boycotters that painting BigBadCon and staff as being pro-genocide is fucked up and really not “reaching out out of love” and got hit with “so your issue is with the tone of our language”.

No, I think suggesting “YOU ARE EVIL GENOCIDE APOLOGISTS UNLESS YOU DO WHAT WE WANT” is a thing you say to someone you love is deeply, horrifically warped.

I tried to be clear that no, I’m not against boycotts. If this was GenCon (which y’all mysteriously did not boycott despite their lack of masking and SJ [social justice] oriented statements), a huge convention that has actively chosen to, for example, not enforce masking and doesn’t have a history of going above and beyond for folks then fine. Or if you're boycotting a business that is explicitly making anti-LGBTQ or pro-Trump statements or whatever have at it!

I’m asking for people to consider that they are throwing rocks AT THEIR FRIENDS, INSIDE THE GLASS HOUSE YOU SHARE WITH THEM.

But I got “so boycotts are fine when you agree with them” in response.

And I sighed so damn hard.

To not be a hypocrite because I often criticize people who have complaints but no solutions:

I’m very curious why — when deciding to go more public with this issue — your group decided to immediately jump to a boycott instead of trying to first rally more public support. The boycott was the first I’d heard of the issue and hearing that y’all tried to go McCarthyist on con staff didn’t strike a good first impression. Did you ever apologize for that ridiculous demand or even admit it was wrong to make?

I know many people are likely not reading your whole (40 page long now) letter, including the 6 pages of e-mails. I’ve read most of it. I didn’t see any admissions of error, only continued brow-beating of staff, which matches my discord experience, and staff was much more polite. This is what I am referring to:

I’m emailing as a TTRPG professional who intends to attend Big Bad Con this year and a Scholarship Recipient. I have received troubling news from Esther, another Scholarship Recipient (CCed here), that one of the panels they are on was asked to remove anti-zionist language from its event description due to the presence of zionist staff and/or donors at Big Bad. I find this news troubling, given that zionists are currently participating in and supporting a genocide in Palestine. It would be beyond disappointing to learn that Big Bad is refusing to stand against genocide and is, in fact, supporting this genocide by siding with zionists. I hope that Big Bad does not make the same mistake that Gen Con made.

Can you please confirm the following?

• Who amongst Big Bad Con’s staff and/or donors identifies as a zionist?
• Does Big Bad Con openly and publicly hold anti-zionist values and support a free Palestine?

Please feel free to include in our email chain whomever among Bid Bad staff is relevant to address this concern. I hope to hear from you soon.

I really, truly, struggle to see how you leap from this response from BigBadCon staff …

Hello Hamnah and Esther,

We appreciate your concerns about Big Bad Con’s stance concerning the phrasing around [the panel organizer]’s panel. We want to make it clear that we do not track the political affiliations of any of our attendees, donors or staff and there have not been any demands made on us by any outside groups, individuals, donors, staff or otherwise. As an institution, no matter what our personal beliefs are, we do not want to draw Zionist attention to our public site, and Big Bad Con in general, through easily searchable phrases. We will not risk the safety of our marginalized attendees, staff, or volunteers.

As you know from attending Big Bad Con in years past, we go to great lengths to protect all of our attendees. Through our scholarship program we help women and people from marginalized genders, people of color, disabled, and lgbtqia+ individuals attend the con. Through Big Bad World we encourage and incentivize our attendees to live our community standards of respect, support, and kindness. Our anti-harassment, public health safety, and accessibility policies are all designed to ensure the wellbeing, safety, and inclusion of everyone who attends.

We are committed to taking action in lieu of statements when we can, in allyship with marginalized people. Every year, we have a fundraising run called the Wolf Run, which raises money for a charitable cause of our choosing. This year, we are donating the proceeds of the Wolf Run to Doctors Without Borders, a non-partisan group providing medical aid in Gaza.

To summarize: In the interests of protecting our staff and attendees, we asked that the more inflammatory language in the panel description be removed while keeping the majority of the values statement intact. We have made no other requests to [the panel organizer] or the other panelists, and have published the panel listing on our website with the amended values statement provided to us by [the panel organizer] in preparation to host the panel at our event this year.

Sincerely,
Nathan Black and the Big Bad Con Community Coordinators

… to accusing [the BigBadCon staff] of being pro-Zionism and complicit in genocide.

Endgame

BigBadCon: Our Stance in Support of Palestinians

Posted to the BigBadCon blog on 27 September:

Big Bad Con denounces genocide, apartheid, and human rights violations. We believe in every person's right to self-determination, autonomy, and liberty.

We believe in the decolonization of Palestine, which we define as full equal rights for all people who dwell on the land. We do not condone calls for violence or expulsion of anyone in the region.

We call for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and an embargo on US military support for Israel. We call for an end of Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, and the invasion of Lebanon.

What does this mean for Big Bad Con?

Big Bad Con is a gaming convention dedicated to our community standards of Respect, Support, and Kindness. While we cannot significantly affect the events on the world stage, we can however ensure that our own community is a safer and welcoming space.

When we use the terms “Zionism” and “anti-Zionism”, we base them on the definition provided by the Jewish Voice for Peace: “While it had many strains historically, the Zionism that took hold and stands today is a settler-colonial movement, establishing an apartheid state [in Israel] where Jews have more rights than others.” Using this definition, we align ourselves in opposition to the oppressive actions of this form of Zionism, and stand in allyship with those oppressed by it. This is what we mean when we say that we are an anti-Zionist space.

The claim that anti-Zionism is antisemitism is a means to deflect criticism of Israel’s governmental actions. We reject the claim that anti-Zionism is antisemitic, and reject the use of this claim as a silencing tactic against Palestinians and those who stand in solidarity with them.

We cherish the Jewish members of our community. We will not tolerate anti-Zionism being used as an excuse for harassment.

Our anti-harassment policy forbids hate speech and we expect everyone, especially when discussing difficult topics, to embody our community standards and treat each other with Respect, Support, and Kindness. Inclusion in our spaces is based on behavior, not by beliefs or identities.

The use of phrases and slogans to stand for complex sets of values is an important part of establishing a welcoming and supportive environment for those working to liberate themselves and others from oppression.

We acknowledge that phrases and slogans are used to stand for complex sets of values. Phrases such as “Black Lives Matter”, “never again”, “anti-racist”, “anti-Zionist”, and “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” are calls for the end of oppression and the liberation of oppressed peoples.

Context matters, and we presume the good faith of activists using these phrases. However, the use of these or any other phrase as a call for violence will not be tolerated in the Convention space.

We recognize that Palestinians, Arabs, and Muslims are often subject to Islamophobic discrimination, dehumanization, and violence. We recognize that Jews are often subject to antisemitic discrimination, dehumanization, and violence. We abhor Islamophobia and antisemitism, and will not tolerate them in our spaces.

Big Bad Con was called on by our community to demonstrate our position as a convention dedicated to supporting marginalized communities. We know that our allyship on these issues has been insufficient and we acknowledge the impact this has had on our community as we worked on this document.

What are we doing to help?

In addition to our above public statement, we are also responding with direct action. We call on our community in turn to join us in providing immediate support to the following relief efforts.

We have donated a total of ^$5,000 to the following relief funds. From now until October 27, 2024, we will match donations (up to another $5,000 total) to these causes:

• Crips for eSims for Gaza, a digital lifeline for people in Gaza cut off from the internet.
• Palestine Children’s Relief Fund, addressing urgent humanitarian needs and supporting long-term recovery efforts in Gaza.

To have your funds matched use this fundraiser link to donate to PCRF or email donate@bigbadcon.com with a receipt for your donation to Crips for eSims.

Big Bad Boycott response

The summary:

We have accepted Big Bad Con’s response to our demands. They have put out a pro-Palestine values statement, retracted anti-Zionist and pro-Palestine censorship, and committed to consulting with relevant groups in the TTRPG space over the next year. Though the statement is not as strong as we would have liked, we accept it in good faith as a demonstration of effort on the part of Big Bad's staff. We have given Big Bad our feedback on the statement and hope they will amend it to be more firmly anti-Zionist and pro-Palestine.

Since the boycott demands have been met, the #BigBadBoycott will not move forward on Oct. 1^st. As per the terms of the boycott, we will not be hosting an alternative convention.

At the same time, we understand that Big Bad's leadership has acted and failed to act in ways that have been harmful to the community, especially to people of colour (PoC). Many have expressed a loss of trust in Big Bad Con as a space as it currently stands. We have expressed as much to the staff and have suggested courses of action they can take to do the long, hard work of appropriately stewarding a space for PoC. It is our hope that, over the next year, we will see Big Bad’s leadership do that work.

Their long demand letter which has a lot of detail about their communications with Con organizers has more, including this comment on the Con’s response:

We have a few thoughts on ways in which the statement could be further strengthened:

“We believe in every person’s right to self-determination, autonomy, and liberty.”

While we agree with the sentiment behind this sentence, “self-determination” is a term that Zionists often use to justify and excuse the colonization of Palestine. In this instance, we would suggest revising the sentence to “We believe in every person’s right to dignity, autonomy, and liberty.”

“We believe in the decolonization of Palestine, which we define as full equal rights for all people who dwell on the land.”

This sentence could call for decolonization in stronger terms – as it is, it reads like a two-state solution redefinition of decolonization. Decolonization means land back. Hamnah and I advise at minimum removing the second clause, and ideally, changing the clause to “which we define as sovereignty over the lands returned to Palestinians.”

“We do not condone calls for violence or expulsion of anyone in the region.”

This sentence comes across as condemning resistance to oppression that must sometimes necessarily manifest in violence. There are a plurality of approaches to liberation among Palestinian communities, and it’s not for us as non-Palestinians to define the terms and methods of their liberation for them. In other words, it’s not our place to tell Palestinians what steps to take to decolonize their lands. Historically, across the world, social progress has been made in part due to violent arms of various resistance movements. We would, at the very least, remove this sentence. Ideally, we would change the sentence to “We believe all resistance to oppression is valid and justified.”

“We call for an end of Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza”

This sentence invalidates Israel’s occupation of Palestine as a whole. The lands we now call “Israel” are part of occupied Palestine. Thus, when we call for the decolonization of Palestine, we mean all of those lands. Hamnah and I would change this sentence to “We call for an end of Israel’s occupation of Palestine”. This is especially pertinent because the statement cites Jewish Voice for Peace in its opposition to Zionism. It is important to note that JVP actively does not support a two-state solution and does not support Israel as a state. It is inconsistent to cite JVP while using language that suggests anything less than full Palestinian sovereignty over their own lands.

“Context matters, and we presume the good faith of activists using these phrases. However, the use of these or any other phrase as a call for violence will not be tolerated in the convention space.”

We urge the con to continue to develop more precise understandings of how you will determine when these phrases are deployed as “calls for violence.” At the very least, there should be some assurance for folks who do choose to use these and other liberation-minded phrases that, for instance, they will not be expelled from the con due to another attendee taking offense to the phrases and reporting them as a “call for violence.”

Commentary

The BigBadCon response to the #BigBadBoycott declares the con an “anti-Zionist space”, taking care to explicitly define what that does and does not mean, so that antisemitic dogwhisles don’t sneak through that rhetorical door. Using the Jewish Voice For Peace description of Zionism not only rules out ‘zionism’ which exists only in the antisemitic imagination … it also explicitly sets aside numerous real forms of Zionism, including Israelis who oppose their government’s wrongs while still loving their home.

I have serious hesitations about JVP. For example, And their 21 Grief Technologies document says:

Hearing Hebrew language can be deeply traumatizing for Palestinians. Therefore, prayers are best said in English or Arabic, rather than Hebrew. It is not our place to redeem our tradition on the backs of Palestinians. Enough has been taken.

And one of their local chapters said:

“death to israel” is not just a threat. it is a moral imperative and the only acceptable solution. may the entire colony burn to the ground for good.

But drawing on JVP to specify clearly what “Zionism” BigBadCon opposes in making a statement against Zionism has advantages. It benefits from the credibility to strong opponents of Israel of being such strong opponents of Israel. And that description avoids the unwholesome implications of “anti-Zionism” I warned against above, so I support that usage by the Con.

I have a hard time not seeing a bad faith motte-and-bailey move in the Boycot organizers grumbling about an expectation of a more expansive conception of “anti-Zionism” et cetera after their loosely-framed demands were met.