Opinions and actions expressed are those of characters in a story and are not necessarily ones held by the author.

http://i.cubeupload.com/lmAr37.jpg

Tis true. Everything in the story is either written or said by a fictional character.

Ye auld author tract though

Indeed, your larger point is that I wrote everything in there. I could write a character that is racist, I could write a character that is homophobic, I could write a character that is an fascist - and include their screeds and speeches. However, at no point could you honestly say that I personally am advocating those views.


I'm reminded of a question I asked of Eric Flint, much of whose work influenced me against Alexander Hamilton until the last few years, if he shared the same opinion of Hamilton as the characters in his books did. He gently reminded me that those were the opinions of one or two characters in his book, and as it was a historical fiction, appropriate to mention, but it in no way indicated what he personally believed.

Which I felt was a dodge, but the point was taken: You cannot always take what a character says as what the author says.

Honestly, you've been playing a game of chicken with the staff for at least a few weeks now as far as I can tell. It's like you're trying to get a suicide-by-cop for your account.

What I'm trying to say is that you can tell me all this is just what your characters are saying, and I could ordinarily buy that. There is a certain amount of vicarious living in writing. When I make Kahnso snort some coke and rape some bitches, there's some part of me that finds a lifestyle like that (unhinged decadence) very interesting, otherwise I wouldn't be writing it. In that vein, I'm sure there's a lot of you in this prose.

What makes it impossible for me to believe "these are just my characters talking" is everything leading up to this. You don't like Nazis, as you have made very clear, and you don't like the FA staff for reprimanding you over your dislike of Nazis (and honestly, I don't like them for reprimanding me just for existing near you). All of that is fine and well, and I'm not saying it's wrong to feel that way, but it makes it obvious that this is an essay written using your characters as mouthpieces.

Yet it is indeed an in-universe article written in my story setting, and canon for Uriel's World.

The fun bit is I've been working on developing the Silver Sun arc for a long while, and even posted about it in March. It was how I planned to have this guy introduced when I came up with him late year.

The Silver Sun Arc is shorter compared to the other Arcs of Uriel's life, maybe over the source of a year - whereas Jean's Project is at the start of the "Hedonistic" Arc, and lasts about as long.

Now, I will admit to being extra cautious, and normally I don't post disclaimers in my stories and submissions, but felt it important to note that these are the words of fictional characters.

Female Indy reporting for duty.

The important thing about Indiana Jones versus Nazism (IMO) is that he wasn't just physically opposing them with his fists, but ideologically opposing them. Nazis seek to pervert and distort history to support their worldview or quest for power; whereas Indy is Doctor Henry Jones Jr, a tenured professor of archaeology - a science where we study history through the artifacts left behind.

Nazis seek to pervert these artifacts for their own good. Indiana Jones, however, thinks they should be in a museum. It wasn't just a fight between Rugged American Hero and Regimented Evil Nazi, but a fight between preserving knowledge and culture versus perverting it.

You're absolutely right, and that's a perfect synopsis of the movie's storyline and the character of Indy. I would love to see the tools being used for hate removed from those that seek to pervert history, and place them into a museum away from those that can do harm. Honestly, that's been my thought on the statue removals. Instead of destroying the art, placing these symbols in a museum for historical context to remove them from the communities. Learn from history, try not to repeat it.




We could delve into the "it belongs in a museum" and how that's actually harmful to cultures, but that's another topic.

That being said, I've already done my part in playing wack a mole with nazi furs. (To be clear for anyone reading this, I have never laid a single finger on another person in regards to my statement. Instead, if you are aware of the Califur situation, I was Califur staff.)

There are plenty of ways to combat those that seek to harm others.

Indeed. Nazism is a threat that should be eliminated, but there are many ways to eliminate a threat beyond violence. Removing a threat's power or ability to be a threat eliminates the threat they present.

Exactly. That's exactly it. Without the ability to harm, you've removed the threat they present.

Knowledge is power.

Meh, I prefer violence.

As poor Jacob Weizman could have written, "Violence is attractive because it is a simple solution to resolve a threat, but one must be wary of simple solutions in our complex world. It might feel good to throw a punch, but unless you can show you had an imminent fear or threat, it is better to just be ready to throw the second. Violence could be a tactically good decision, but in this kind of fight it is often a strategically unsound one."

...Too many big words! *gets out the Laserkraftwerk* All right, I'm off!