She Has A Wart!

[bloodyrosemccoy]

Fred Clark has made this point before, but it bears repeating: Witch Hunts are Dangerous; Witches are Not.

I have enough trouble with historical fiction when it tries to be true to what happened, because my rather literal brain can't get over the fact that no matter how much research you do, there's no getting around that it didn't really happen that way. I suspect that's why I like speculative fiction so much. You don't have to believe it. It's right there in the name, like, twice. Speculative. Fiction. "Historical fiction," regardless of what they're trying for, is an oxymoron to me.

But I admit, some examples are worse than others. Like, for example, if you try to tell me that a victim of a historical atrocity had it coming. I don't know if that's what the show Salem will do, but it's pretty much what the trailer for it does, and that's just ... yeah, not great for me. It doesn't take that much to file the serial numbers off!

Plus, the actual Salem Witch Trials are interesting enough without adding bullshit to them. I was bugged enough with Arthur Miller's artistic liberties in The Crucible. The bizarreness of it was enough without adding the scandalous sexy affair, dangit! That was just stupid.

Although the timing of reading The Crucible was interesting, though. I was in high school and it was 2002. We were discussing how Arthur Miller was using the witch trials to parallel his own era's McCarthyism and Red Scare. The teacher asked if we could think of any other instances of such hysteria, and I cheerfully piped up, "The War on Terror!"--And my classmates just about jumped on me. "That's different!" "There REALLY ARE terrorists!" "How would THAT be like a witch hunt?" It was ... telling. And it illustrates the same thing Fred Clark is saying: witch hunts aren't all in the past. People just don't always recognize them until they are past.


EDIT: I seem to have picked up a troll. There's a delicious irony in there somewhere, but I can't be bothered, so don't worry y'all, I'm taking care of it.

Comments

[beccastareyes]

Because all terrorists are Islamic. I'll have to ask Dad when my Irish grandfather (who apparently did freelance work for the IRA during the Troubles) converted and if that caused problems with his Catholicism. (I can even think of plenty of modern domestic terrorists if my semi-historical example isn't appropriate.)

Stepping on the Koran offends me, despite my atheism, because it's bloody stupid and useless and offensive to assume terrorist = Muslim and disrupting two million residents' (plus visitors') ability to fly on a goddamn plane is worth the dubious assumption that terrorists can't plan around this when they already plan on not looking like a conservative Muslim.

[beccastareyes]

Really? So Ted Kaczynski? Timothy McVeigh? The fellow who steered his private plane into a building because of high taxes*? The folk who set fire to abortion clinics? Eco-terrorists? All Muslims?

* I don't recall his name, or which state it happened in, but I think it was in Texas several years ago.

[beccastareyes]

So, destroying important political-cultural buildings in the economic and political capital of the United States because one disagrees with their policies is 'murdering people randomly', while blowing up health care facilities because you disagree with their policies is not. OKAY!

Also, I'm on the side that doesn't purposefully fly planes into buildings. The minute you think your right to protest anything involves flying planes into buildings, you are no longer on my side.

[beccastareyes]

I was repeating what I understood your argument to be. You argued that the terrorists on 9-11 'murdered people randomly', while abortion clinic bombers didn't, therefore one was terrorism and one wasn't. I countered that neither was random: in both cases the targets were chosen to send a message.

You also asserted that "Labeling a tax protester an enemy of America is an admission of whose side you are on", and I affirmed that I am on the side that does not crash planes into buildings on purpose. If one would like to carry around signs and have rallies on the Mall, I might disagree with your position, but I agree you have those rights. You do not have the right to crash planes into buildings without permission*. I also wouldn't call someone that reckless an 'enemy' when the word 'criminal' works fine.

* I mean, I could imagine that one might wish to test building designs by flying drones into them. In which case, there better be a lot of precautions taken for safety. Or I guess you could build an airfield and buildings on your own land and fly planes into your buildings all you want if you don't hurt anyone.

[yuuo.livejournal.com]

Wow, asshole. Way to grab something out of context to 'prove' your point. You must be a Christian.

[yuuo.livejournal.com]

Yes, I know, that mirror doesn't do a thing for that pimple you have on your nose, does it? Tsk tsk tsk. Silly Christian, don't you know that Jesus isn't the balm for everything?

[padparadscha.livejournal.com]

I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at for the most part, but I really want to point out that Islam and terrorism are two different things.There may be an overlap on the Venn diagram, but yeah, requiring travelers to stomp on their holy book because if they refuse then it PROVES they're terrorists (or if they do then it PROVES they're not) is nuts.

[padparadscha.livejournal.com]

Okay, yeah, that's just bullshit. You're welcome to keep thinking it, but please quit trying to convince me. It's not working.

[kuchenhexe.livejournal.com]

There's a tree somewhere that you owe an apology to for the careless waste of the oxygen it produced.

[kuchenhexe.livejournal.com]

Yes, I've heard of that village and its idiot. Fortunately, I know it's not me. So tell me, what IS it like to be a such a paranoid little ball of bigoted hatred? Were you born that way or were you turned bigot by watching too much FOX News? Is it painful to be that bigoted, or is it more of a vague buzzing sensation? I can't fathom how you function with such a tiny mind.

[yuuo.livejournal.com]

It's preaching hate to tolerate all the world's religions?

[yuuo.livejournal.com]

In extremist areas, yes. Same with the Jewish faith. Same with Christianity. I seem to recall the Crusades....

[yuuo.livejournal.com]

1) It is not, you are an Islamphobic conspiracy theorist who is a bigoted asshole. This will be my last reply to you.

2) The Islam faith, as with the Chrsitian faith, is based back originally on Jewish faith and its early holiness code rules. All three are Abrahamic faiths. All three are guilty of some awful atrocities in the name of their god, be he Jesus, Elohim, or Allah.

3) Any Muslim, (you can't spell, by the way) that behaves the way you claim is not by true definition a Muslim.

4) Everyone was provoking everyone in the Crusades (also, depends on which one, there were several) because all three major monotheistic faiths were fighting over the same stupid city because it was holy land to them. Thus proving that monotheism and organized religions are stupid and full of the same sort of hatred you seem to be full of.

I'd say I hate you and your kind, but I'm too busy pitying your tiny world view.

[padparadscha.livejournal.com]

Good GRIEF, dude. I asked you to stop and THIS mess is what I come back to. Good bye.

[pixel39.livejournal.com]

Now that you've deleted all the troll posts it's like listening to one side of a very animated telephone conversation. Or possibly a Bob Newhart routine.

[padparadscha.livejournal.com]

I don't ... THINK I deleted them. I did ban further comments, but I'm not sure if LJ applies bans retroactively, and his comments on other posts stayed. I think it's possible HE deleted them? I dunno, but it does make for a confusing half-conversation.

[stormteller.livejournal.com]

Most of my friends are witches, so I tend to be biased on this issue.