Benjanun Sriduangkaew and RotyH

[Darth Richard II]

I've been informed years ago (under the Lesifore name); that her dadda owned some hotels. Maybe bullshit.

Eh, I don't even know if that matters for two shits anyway. Not that anyone can see my posts anymore apparently, so I;m just shoutin gin the dark at this point. Maybe I'll sing a song.

[Serious Callers Only]

drama is the most powerful force of the internet. And PR for that matter.

[kuenjato]

This is ridiculous, but I'm glad you got to get your digs against "SJWs" in there.

I still think that Prince of Misogyny piece is hilarious, and even RotYH noted it wasn't a review of TDTCB. But before you get on your high horse, if you check out Larry's blog, Foz Meadow's blog, and Liz Bourke's Sleeps with Monsters Tor blog for their posts mentioning Bakker you'll see me noting that it's important to separate Bakker as a person from textual evaluation of his work.

As for the blowout, Bakker's problems began when he wrote on his blog about how Larry was clearly manipulated into liking some of RotYH's reviews. Even Larry noted a private email to him would've worked better. After that, Bakker's personality carried him into deeper waters.

Regarding her vileness, years ago I discussed this with Ran & Linda in one of the Lit threads. I noted I was focused on the arguments in her reviews and wasn't defending whatever it is she apparently did on other sites.

But if you want me to repeat what I've already said - I don't plan to buy anything from her as I think she actively played a game of ramping up her vileness then seeing who would still support her.

Yeah, that's why I think a lot of authors who got criticized are now raising such a stink. But I think a lot of RotYH's criticisms continue to ring true - for example I recall Kiernan's original defense regarding her depiction of PoCs being rather weak.

Outside of this forum, which has taken a contrary position, SJW is a derisive term intended for extremists like RH -- those who use social justice issues as a mask to justify vanity posturing and hate speech, and so defile the actual purpose. It's not a term for actual feminists or progressive issues people who can communicate without the need to constantly powergame everything.

Bakker's foibles are well documented, he is clearly clumsy online and engaging with RH as an 'experiment' was one of his dumber ideas. Still, this doesn't excuse the blatant tokenism that arose from that by-any-definition hit-piece (one of many dozens, of course); it validated certain agendas, and thus became valued in that context.

I read RH off and on, myself, because she could be funny at times and she did broach some interesting concepts regarding depiction in F/SF and other media avenues, in a somewhat uniquely caustic way. But she often went wayy out of line just for the sake of being shocking/getting cookies/stirring the pot, and her other actions (especially as winter fox) are frankly inexcusable.

[sologdin]

Eh, I don't even know if that matters for two shits anyway. Not that anyone can see my posts anymore apparently, so I;m just shoutin gin the dark at this point. Maybe I'll sing a song.

I read your posts. and don't apologize. am not recalling anything 'vile' on your end.

[kuenjato]

I've been informed years ago (under the Lesifore name); that her dadda owned some hotels. Maybe bullshit.

I didn't know that. She's ethnically Chinese, which places her in a relatively privileged position in Thailand regardless of income. She's bragged about studying in the UK, which indicates a wealthy background.

Most importantly, she has lots and lots of free time to endlessly engage in forums, blogging, etc., which is a lot more free time than the average lower-to-middle class Thai person.

[kuenjato]

double post

[Serious Callers Only]

A foreigner pursuing higher education the UK is the mark of cain to me, i believe it completely now.

[Darth Richard II]

I read your posts. and don't apologize. am not recalling anything 'vile' on your end.

Well, I'm trying to apologize for being an ass lately, but if everyone has you on ignore...I don't know what to do.

Honestly all this bickering back and forth is probably exactly what she wants. I know she reads this forum.

[Darth Richard II]

Outside of this forum, which has taken a contrary position, SJW is a derisive term intended for extremists like RH -- those who use social justice issues as a mask to justify vanity posturing and hate speech, and so defile the actual purpose. It's not a term for actual feminists or progressive issues people who can communicate without the need to constantly powergame everything.

Bakker's foibles are well documented, he is clearly clumsy online and engaging with RH as an 'experiment' was one of his dumber ideas. Still, this doesn't excuse the blatant tokenism that arose from that by-any-definition hit-piece (one of many dozens, of course); it validated certain agendas, and thus became valued in that context.

I read RH off and on, myself, because she could be funny at times and she did broach some interesting concepts regarding depiction in F/SF and other media avenues, in a somewhat uniquely caustic way. But she often went wayy out of line just for the sake of being shocking/getting cookies/stirring the pot, and her other actions (especially as winter fox) are frankly inexcusable.

Yes, but we don't know FOR SURE ONE HUNDRED PERCENT that she was winterfox, even though more than one person in here remembers when she proudly admitted to it.

And SJW means so many different things to different people it's become useless as a term. Someone will use it as an insult on some one for whom it is a praise worthy term, and then both parties just look confused.

[kuenjato]

Well, I'm trying to apologize for being an ass lately, but if everyone has you on ignore...I don't know what to do.

Honestly all this bickering back and forth is probably exactly what she wants. I know she reads this forum.

When attention is the end-game...

Yes, but we don't know FOR SURE ONE HUNDRED PERCENT that she was winterfox, even though more than one person in here remembers when she proudly admitted to it.

And SJW means so many different things to different people it's become useless as a term. Someone will use it as an insult on some one for whom it is a praise worthy term, and then both parties just look confused.

Oh, I remember her & the double posting on the old blogs (plus the general similarity in admitted background, posting style, tactics etc) from years back, so I guess I feel OK in making the comparison. The comparison isn't anything new, either. Regardless, her actions as RH are bad enough. For example, although I don't always agree with them, Sci and Kalbear and a few others have approached the issue of SF/F gender depiction with considerable thought and nuance. RH was capable of nuance and displayed it occasionally, but she was much more about stirring the pot and gaining power through hate speech and harassment. Writing invectives about fantasy novels is one thing. Harassment campaigns on multiple social media fronts, violent/threatening language towards those who do not kowtow, & hypocritically using social justice to score points while hurting the movement, then constructing a twee cartoon persona--the very thing RH railed against ad nauseum--upon gaining professional stasis ... that's something else entirely. Winterfox is bad; RH was just as bad; this leopard didn't attempt to change her spots until respectability sniffed at the door and it was time for a rehabilitation campaign, with a whole lot of whitewashing and bullshit on the part of her PR team.

At westeros, SJW was adopted during the recent gamergate garbage, which began as an expose in corruption in independently-financed games but quickly spiraled out to encompass extremists on both sides and the larger issues with gaming in general, with predictable if dismaying results. Elsewhere it has been, for some time now, a derogatory term for those who don't like the more extremist emphasis of "agree or u're cis scum"/"trans people die" bullshit. It is really a debased designation by this point.

[Serious Callers Only]

Doritogate was funnier.

[Callan S.]

Scot, of course it isn't. If your asking if I think there was something wrong with some(many) of them then of course I say yes. But deleting them isn't an admission of guilt; it is an admission that she doesn't want it tied to her public persona.

What I was responding to specifically was Sci saying the accusations that near criminal ie harassing through private messages are hearsay, and the poster below him basically countering with 'we all know she did it.'

Sort of like the blog post where a woman describes having been raped, but the police just shrug and do nothing - it's just hearsay to them. Same goes for her, in the same post, describing how she was treated by BS. Just hearsay.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Kuenjato,

Insulting people for believing in and fighting for social justice is really stupid as has been pointed out ad nauseum in the video game culture threads.

[Darth Richard II]

I never understood why Social Justice was a BAD thing.

[Callan S.]

Because of the ambiguities in the notion and the sort of people who are attracted to and exploit ambiguities.

Which is most of the human population.

Unless were talking some unambiguous, technically written thing, in which case smiley face :)

[kuenjato]

Kuenjato,

Insulting people for believing in and fighting for social justice is really stupid as has been pointed out ad nauseum in the video game culture threads.

And? If certain people 'believing in and fighting for' commit repulsive and/or stupid acts over and over again, including hate speech towards other minorities, should they be held exempt because their heart was in the supposedly in the right place e.g. social justice? This is the central conundrum concerning RH. She talked about some good things. She did a lot of really, really bad things, including bullying, which runs counter of social justice in the first place. Some will say that RH's 'message' is what's important. Others, like myself, feel she corrupted and diluted and basically wiped her ass with that message.

[Zorral]

Inquiring minds inquire -- is the BS - ROTYH person worse, better, the same as #gamergate threats and behaviors? Is one more honestly dangerous than the other? Is there a relationship to be found among these behaviors which begin online, and have repercussions in real life as well?

[Darth Richard II]

I find them both vile and disgusting, and I say this as someone whose first game was pong. I dunno if you can compare one person's vile actions to a group of vile persons actions though. I mean, maybe you can? I honestly don't know.

[AverageGuy]

The idea of reading good guy authors strikes me as particularly silly. I'm wondering how many of you won't read works by slave owners, colonialists, racists, sexists... after a few hundred or more years dulls the wrongs of the authors.

Sure. We all have our own thresholds, and some people can completely separate art from artist, but I at least am more forgiving of dead authors than living ones, moreso the longer they've been dead. I have a higher threshold for non-fiction than fiction, and using farseer's example, my tolerance for the opinions of a medical researcher working on vaccines, or other such work closer to basic human needs, is much higher than for non-fiction writers. This is something I actually sat down and thought about after reading a couple of Card's essays; before that, I considered myself one of the "separating art from artist" crowd. But I found myself standing at bookshelves, picking his books up, and putting them back. At the same time, I decided to consciously read non-fiction I didn't agree with to try to make sure my opinions didn't end up in an echo chamber, so I kind of had to have a higher tolerance there. Finally, I did consider the scientist angle, which is at such a high threshold that, while I definitely do not approve of some of her actions, Sriduangkaew really doesn't come close.

So that's my own stance. It's not about financial support. My buying one of Card's books being seen as financially supporting Card is laughable considering the actual impact one book sale or its lack will have. But I do see my buying his work as, to use Altherion's language, tacit acceptance of his stances. Same applies here. I'm not asking other people to adopt my value system, or judging them for not doing so. This is a belief I hold that I tend to reexamine every few months, every time we see a new example, because I do see where those who separate art from artist are coming from. But I can't do so.

[Eponine]

Sure. We all have our own thresholds, and some people can completely separate art from artist...

Fair enough. I understand where you're coming from and respect that. It's hard to keep straight at this point, all the outrage and who now thinks that I'm a horrible person who endorses bullying. I do think it's hard with authors because some bring a lot of their experience and viewpoints to their work while others seem to have no problem writing characters and plots that seem to have little relationship to their personal values, so you end up feeling like you might know one person through their work while keeping art and artist completely separate in another case.

Many years ago, I was piled on by a few certain people for expressing disgust over a line in Stranger in a Strange Land. I was assured by these people (close personal friends of Heinlein no doubt) that Heinlein would NEVER EVER believe or endorse what his character was saying, even though the character was otherwise an unambiguous good guy with no real acknowledged character flaws and all the other good guys didn't seem to have any problem with the terrible thing she'd just said. Long discussions followed about whether it mattered if an author was a known wonderful person if his work endorsed something bad. Whether we as readers had an obligation to know this about the author. Whether we were supposed to take any cues from the presentation of characters, or if characters stood entirely on their own merits. If the "hero" of the book saves the day and is adored by all, but also tends to use racial slurs and no one ever comments on this or acts like it's wrong and the character never has any self-reflection about this, is the character a good guy who's flawed and has a weakness, or is the author definitely a racist, or is the author a decent person who really fucked up this characterization?

Someone said they hoped she goes to jail if she's actually pushed someone toward a suicide attempt, and I wonder if the feeling that buying her work is supporting her would be different if she actually did go to jail. What if she served her time, then proceeded to use the rest of her life writing literature (that was thematically unrelated either to bullying or time in jail)? I think if we found out about a situation like that in retrospect, there'd be a lot less concern about tacit acceptance - she was a criminal but now she's served her time and become a writer, so her writing would stand on its own and she "deserves" to rebuild her life and career after being punished. When I look at it that way, I can hope that she suffers the direct consequences for however she's wronged people, while not seeing it as my place to decide where to arbitrate sufficient justice in situations where I don't know all the facts.