It did not end there, of course. Another individual, (let's call her Mackenzie, not her real or fandom name, for the sake of her privacy) on the uncivil end of the spectrum started a little hate club over on DW telling readers not to even read this work - so much for respecting people's ability to form their own opinions - and inventing a series of baseless and at times bizarre accusations just to "poison the well", as the examiners of logical fallacies in argumentation say.

That is, when individuals want to discredit their opponent but lack the ability to do so though logical argumentation, they simply defame them ad-hominem, frequently through blatant lies as in this case, and manipulate potential readers/listeners into not approaching an argument/work with an open mind.

Among the accusations of me having several handles and being dumb enough to use them stupidly, never mind the fact that the people I think I'm apparently accused of being don't even agree with most of my long-stated views, (but of course in arrogance this person thinks that anyone who disagrees with them has to be one "creep", "freak", "weirdo", etc, because of course only they are right^TM, and by default the rest of humanity bar one must agree with them,) and complaining that 2% of words in bold for emphasis (italic and underline were taken) was "a majority of the text in bold" in my first meta - a shameless lie anyone could disprove with a simple count-, she has also wrongly slandered me as a:

1) RL genocide denier: A blatant lie, completely apparent to every single reader especially in how I have treated real life genocides in my datadump first meta (my only published fanwork), of which the whole point is exactly how indescribably horrific and permanently traumatizing real life genocides and atrocities are. Case in point again that Mackenzie is conflating fact with fiction to an unhealthy degree.

2) "Genocidy", who knows what that means, but it's sure a nice sounding slur on someone's character, isn't it?.

3) "a genocide apologist", in real-life no less, which is a whole new level of dishonesty and stupidity, but a darn effective smear (as well it should! be) on someone's character. Let's just look at this with a bit of logical analysis.

My stance on the issue of calling the Earth-Minbari war a genocide is that if it fits any of the internationally accepted or genocide-scholar-provided definitions we'll look at in ch 4, even if incomplete, we absolutely have a responsibility to call it a genocide, and remember how much horrific trauma that entails. If it doesn't, though, than yes, I think it's dangerous to use the term, especially if there is much divergence between the fictional events and factual genocide, especially since fiction does shape our worldviews, and if we start to think of "genocide" as something that's not so horrific as it actually is, we may loose sympathy for the victims of real-life genocide, as the scholars in the field have warned of.


Let's assume the conclusion is the latter (because if it's the former there's absolutely no argument, so I'm a little unclear on why those who insist bayond even a smidgen of a doubt that it is the former are so worried).

To be an apologist for something means to justify it or defend it.

A Christian apologist, say as the term was coined, defends his/her faith or the actions of said faith against detractors.

The term has nothing to do with the common usage of apology as a declaration of guilt, or worse, the conflation of guilt with defense, as in "we're guilty but justified".

Despite connotations it's a simply translated term.

Whether apologetics are a good thing or not depends on what's being defended, and naturally, being a genocide apologist is pretty much the most abhorrent thing one can be - which is why Mackenzie is using this baseless accusation to smear my character.

But to be a genocide apologist, there has to be a genocide, and one has to be sick and twisted enough to be defending that it should have happened, was justified, etc. Not only is that something I have never done or ever will do (I challenge any reader to hold me to that), but it's disgustingly atrocious.

Saying that if a fictional event doesn't fit the definition of a genocide, one ought to be concerned if we call it that is not 'defending genocide'. In fact according to all the leading genocide scholars? It's defending the victims of genocide by not trivializing their suffering [see ch. 1].

Now, yes, I could get it wrong in this particular analysis. Sure.

I'd love to have someone come and say to me, here are the facts on this fictional war, here's the genocide convention, or such-and-such respected genocide scholar's definition, here's the reasoning that proves why you're dead wrong and the two do fit together, and then I could get in the same bandwagon with everybody else in good conscience and be happy as a clam - and I'd have learned something and be grateful for it.

But even if I was wrong on a matter of fiction, in my effort to heed the warnings of genocide scholars (who are extremely worried about the trivialization and overuse of the term such that it is loosing the horror it should carry), that does not translate to getting it wrong in real life. There is an even further distinction and divergence between 1) not thinking that something fits the criteria of a legally defined genocide and 2) defending the criminals who perpetrate an actual real world genocide, or any other atrocity for that matter.

So this latest pathetic accusation? Probably the best case yet for how mixing up fiction with real life can influence people's behavior.


Why, one asks? Why all this hostility, such that it is necessary to twist facts and invent accusations? I can only guess that this 'Mackenzie' who I have had no interaction with at all, ever, took offense to my desire to examine a term in fiction and she's now on a moral crusade (in real-life, inspired by the serious issues around real-life genocide, in her definition of course rather than the plethora of actual genocide scholars) to effectively silence this examination on a work of fiction, so deeply has she conflated fiction with fact.

Fine, however hurtful, it proves exactly my thesis that words matter, labels matter, fiction matters. Thanks, I suppose.

Apparently a fellow DW user who has taken to slandering me, viciously, (I'm not even sure for what)and twisting everything I say beyond belief and reason, operates as Marcus Tullius Cicero diagnosed: "When you have no basis for an argument, abuse the plaintiff." Pro Flaco, Cicero

They are apparently having a problem with a meta-essay I wrote, as a very rough draft, on my A03, and am in the process of reworking to make more coherent.

Now I am aware people may disagree with my logic and will happily reverse position if someone has a better argument (that's the scientist in me, we don't get attached to defunct theories). I respect and welcome that.

Instead of debating my thesis, however, she has exclusively attacked me as a person (here and in comments on my original meta) with no regard for sticking to at least accusing my factually, and gotten the people on her threads to do the same (even people I'd began to consider friends), without even a chance for me to tell my side of the story, and with no regard for how badly she is perverting the point of my meta (with out-of-context quotes and plain lies), or the utter preposterous oddity of the latest accusations she has leveled.

And all this for a publicly accessible work and publicly accessible interactions.

How depressing.