Women, Men, SFF part deux

[Ran]

I'm not contesting that it's rude. (Though, are "folks like Valente" an authority that determines what is and is not rude? Is that Folks Like Valente, a committee title, and if so, is there a bulletin they send around updating us on what's rude or not?)

But was it racist or an ethnic slur? No. Sorry. As I recall, Peter Watts wasn't even aware of ACM's alleged ethnicity. Might it kind of vaguely sort of look like it might associate with something some racist might once have said at some point? Sure. "Pass the salt" might also be something a racist might once have said, as well. The point is that racists don't "own" language, that their use of some term suddenly means it's verboten to use the term except in some approved context.

It's silly. It's a reach. Why cloud perfectly sound statements by grabbing at something so out of left field?

And, I don't know, does the fact that Bakker is upset and tries to reason through -- however wrong headedly -- the accusations and tries to prove they're not true and so on and so forth suddenly means his fans get to be called "neckbeards" who "circlejerk" the author? WTF? There's a difference between going around complaining and going around viciously insulting people -- "neckbeards" (a favorite term of hers, I believe), in particular, is especially grotesque because it's basically using a superficial physical aspect of people and using that as a blanket insult knowing the associations it raises. And this is okay since when, exactly? It's uncivil. It's rude. You spend your life being rude, well, you can't very well complain when people are rude back.

(Though I should say that I don't think ACM has complained very much about people being rude to her. But other people complaining about people being rude to her -- like that awful reach of "rabid animal" being some kind of ethnic or racial slur -- seems mightily pointless, and largely seems to be ignoring her own "performance rage", if that's what you want to call it.)

You think he's being stupid and his acolytes are idiots, well, what does it matter? Ignore them, then.

[Prince Alexander]

My litmus test on it: would this person say these things in real life, given the opportunity? My feeling is "no". And if she did, in the manner she said them, well then there is a bigger issue. That's aside from her actual message and the response she got.

[Grack21]

I'd be a lot more willing to view "rabid animal" as being racist if someone could provide any actually evidence for it. Other than "some author agreed with me on his/her blog" or "well it obvious is and you are just ignorant".

:P

And my mind is still reeling over that Jay Lake excerpt from Green. Holy fucking shit.

[Sci-2]

I think the problem for some people was more when Watt's double downed after being told - by someone who thinks Moon is "toxic" - that the term was loaded.

I like Watts and it didn't really change my opinion of him, I just think he should have just said something like, "okay, you're an asshole then" or something along those lines. Regardless Valente's point was more about authors choosing to engage with critics.

As for Bakker's defense, he might have done okay if he'd just stuck to defending himself but he for some reason felt like launching a campaign against the site as a threatening feminism. The whole thing was like watching a major politician launch an extended battle against the Daily Show.

[Grack21]

I think the problem for some people was more when Watt's double downed after being told - by someone who thinks Moon is "toxic" - that the term was loaded.

I like Watts and it didn't really change my opinion of him, I just think he should have just said something like, "okay, you're an asshole then" or something along those lines. Regardless Valente's point was more about authors choosing to engage with critics.

As for Bakker's defense, he might have done okay if he'd just stuck to defending himself but he for some reason felt like launching a campaign against the site as a threatening feminism. The whole thing was like watching a major politician launch an extended battle against the Daily Show.

Ah, well, I didn't see any of the responses to his blog post, I just read the original post itself.

[Ran]

I did not know that about Watts. Myself, I wouldn't have doubled-down, because while I might continue to think "rabid animal" is not in fact loaded, I like to be civil and there's no reason that I need to insist on its use. But I'd still think it's not loaded.

Bakker's proven himself dippy time and again. But what you call a crusade really was just wringing his hands and complaining that she was mean. Weak sauce from him, but who cares?

Whereas, you know, she was terrible. And people condone this by bending over backwards to act as if her approach does not directly contribute to a corrosive, ugly atmosphere, that it doesn't become the frame in which all the communication takes place. Where's the Folks Like Valente committee to tut-tut about it? Nowhere in sight. It's genuinely baffling, especially after a bit of Googling makes me realize just who ACM is and just how corrosive she was in multiple LJ comms. On this forum I can put it down a bit to people personally knowing ACM and feeling protective, but in the wider community, I don't get it.

And, look, I know this is drifting away from the topic, so I'll leave it at that. There's good and important things to be said, and to be found in various posts all over, from Valente to Mamata and on down. But I keep getting lost when people wonder why people are rude back to rude people.

[Grack21]

Ran, your thoughts are intriguing to me and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

[Sci-2]

I can see Watt's position, I think he actually might have made more heady backing down. Personally, I don't think it's a sign of any deeper moral failing on his part.

Bakker's proven himself dippy time and again. But what you call a crusade really was just wringing his hands and complaining that she was mean. Weak sauce from him, but who cares?

Has anyone castigated Bakker for trying to defend himself? I don't think he's evil for his campaign, I think he wholeheartedly believes that Moon is damaging to the cause of feminism.

I just, honestly, find that to be a silly cause to pursue.

Whereas, you know, she was terrible. And people condone this by bending over backwards to act as if her approach does not directly contribute to a corrosive, ugly atmosphere, that it doesn't become the frame in which all the communication takes place. Where's the Folks Like Valente committee to tut-tut about it? Nowhere in sight.

I think many of reviews and commentary on her site are valuable, though I don't always agree with them. Beyond that, I guess I just don't really care about what she does on the rest of the internet.

[Grack21]

The internets is serious business!

[Ran]

I agree Bakker is very silly at times. No argument from me. He does himself no good many times.

Yes, ACM's an insightful reader and there's definitely good stuff there. But there's so much dross, and so much bile, that I don't care for it. Nor do I understand those who enjoy that aspect of her site, who encourage greater heights of invictive. But then I've recently learned that the idea of "trolling" sites and people for fun is becoming increasingly accepted as perfectly okay behavior (seriously, now we have people blithely saying "The internet is for trolling" as if it's self-evident), and I just do not get it.

[Linda]

Its absolutely hilarious to have found out who this crazy woman is and frankly, I have my doubts that anything remotely reasonable on her site is written by her. I never saw anything but utter insanity from her on LJ. Hatred and insults against authors, hatred and insults against anyone who liked said authors.

She's a lunatic attention whore.

[Kalbear]

Whereas, you know, she was terrible. And people condone this by bending over backwards to act as if her approach does not directly contribute to a corrosive, ugly atmosphere, that it doesn't become the frame in which all the communication takes place. Where's the Folks Like Valente committee to tut-tut about it? Nowhere in sight. It's genuinely baffling, especially after a bit of Googling makes me realize just who ACM is and just how corrosive she was in multiple LJ comms. On this forum I can put it down a bit to people personally knowing ACM and feeling protective, but in the wider community, I don't get it.

Plenty of people complain about ACM's tone, Ran. Or how angry she is. If you haven't seen it, you've just not been looking all that hard.

No one is defending her that I'm aware of, here, either. That - just like Bakker - is missing the point. The point is not that ACM is acerbic or an asshole; the point is that when a man is an asshole, they don't get death threats or get threatened with rape. Or simply get racist or sexist slurs thrown their way. No matter how much of an asshole they are.

Now, apparently Linda believes that rape threats are perfectly reasonable for being an asshole (this comes directly from her statement "She deserves to get every bit as much as she gives and then some."), but I tend to think that's a bit over the top. I don't know what you think, but it isn't the invective people are defending; it is the astounding reaction to it that is fairly insane. Bakker went on about how this fairly low-pop blogger insulted him for 8 months now AND got his friends involved; Pat's fans threatened to rape or kill her. All because what, she called Pat a neckbeard asshole? Because she doesn't kiss GRRM's ass and think that he has some problems?

I understand that you think she is the worst thing to hit the internet since sliced nyancat, and that's perfectly fine. I hope you can understand that that really wasn't Valente's point. The tut-tutting comes from folks like Alysssa Rosenberg; it's not hard to find other people who think ACM is off her rocker.

Also, Ran, the 'folks like Valente' means fairly well known authors and reasonable people in the community. If you don't think that that's reasonable - if you think hugo and nebula nominated authors aren't worth considering as a counterpoint to what you're saying - fair enough. It is entirely an appeal to authority, albeit one that seems fairly reasonable. My point there is that it certainly wasn't just ACM who thought that saying 'rabid animal' was over the top.

[Linda]

Who said anything about rape threats? I said she deserves as much as she gives and then some. I didn't define "then some".

But it doesn't surprise me if she gets people furious enough to go beyond "then some" too. She's utterly vile and disgusting.

[Ran]

I understand that you think she is the worst thing to hit the internet since sliced nyancat,

No, you don't understand any such thing. You choose to pretend that's the case, maybe, but you know as well as I do that I don't. Does my decision to comment on something somehow signify that I'm deeply invested in the topic of ACM? I care very little, except in so far that people try to shame others for being rude to people who are, basically, trolling. I think that's wrongful behavior. It's genuinely letting the trolls dictate the terms of the conversation.

Now, I don't say all rudeness back is okay -- there are things that I'd never say, for my part -- but at the same time, I find it hard to put myself in the position of judge of what's okay or what's not beyond what I myself feel. "Rabid animal" qualifies as being a referrent to a vicious, dogged behavior, not as some sort of racist slur.

Nebula and Hugo award winning authors believe all sorts of things. I'll wager a few of them also believe in libertarianism and astrology.

Some I agree with, some I don't. "Rabid animal" as "ethnic slur" is one I don't agree with.

[Grack21]

Pat's fans reaction to the ROH post was fucking scary as shit. No argument there. Although I would argue she did a lot more then call him a neckbeard and asshole.

The hugo and nebula nominated authors argument falls about I think because Orson Scott Card.

[Kalbear]

And before this goes too much more, I'll state this - I'm not defending ACM. A lot of times she goes too far and is amazingly mean. I'm not hugely familiar with what she did on LJ back in the day, but it doesn't matter. She often is hugely rude and mean, and doesn't do a great job of articulating her point many times.

She also can be really funny, especially when winding up people who do have problematic situations going for them and have not thought about what some of the shit they've said implies. Not that this excuses anything or makes her less of an asshole, only that it explains why I read her; I find her entertaining in the same way I find Maher entertaining.

I don't see that as cause for her to get physically threatened. I don't see that as cause for her to be the subject of a crusade for 8 months by a well-known author. I don't see why that behavior should be tolerated, much less exonerated. A woman should have a right to be wrong without being a target for misogyny.

[Grack21]

And before this goes too much more, I'll state this - I'm not defending ACM.

Could of fooled me.

[Kalbear]

No, you don't understand any such thing. You choose to pretend that's the case, maybe, but you know as well as I do that I don't.

Actually no, I don't know that. I honestly haven't seen you react this sternly to something in a long time. Given your wife's reaction it's not that surprising for me to think that this is a Truly Horrible Creature.

I'm a bit surprised that you'd say 'yeah, Scalzi and Valente are full of shit and Watts didn't fuck up' given that Watts eventually agreed he fucked up, but okay. You're right - we can totally equate Valente's viewpoint as a kooky, unreliable one.

Some I agree with, some I don't. "Rabid animal" as "ethnic slur" is one I don't agree with.

Okay; what would make you change your mind?

Would a bunch of PoC telling you that it did offend them do so? How about years of it being used as such? How about it being used by racists as racial slurs? All of those thing I pulled out for Watts; I'm happy to bring 'em up here. My point to him - and to you, now - is why stick up for it? Why bother? Why not simply say 'you're right, I'm sorry, I should have called you a shitstain fuckwit asshat not worth my time'?

I care very little, except in so far that people try to shame others for being rude to people who are, basically, trolling. I think that's wrongful behavior. It's genuinely letting the trolls dictate the terms of the conversation.

Actually, sorry, I missed that; are you saying that it is wrong to shame others for threatening to rape women who are trolling? Really, Ran? I think that's a pretty good thing to shame people for. Disagree or agree with trolling all you like (especially amusing given Bakker basically wrote a series trolling feminists and then trolled here, but whatever), but this seems a bit bad, and I'm hoping I misinterpreted you.

[Kalbear]

Could of fooled me.

It's 'could have'. Not could of.

And it's not that hard to fool you, Grack.

In any case, Valente said it best - it is shocking to see the hatred when a woman decides that she wants to be an asshole.

[Sci-2]

Yes, ACM's an insightful reader and there's definitely good stuff there. But there's so much dross, and so much bile, that I don't care for it. Nor do I understand those who enjoy that aspect of her site, who encourage greater heights of invictive.

It's like political comedy/artwork, sometimes it is offensive but it does get people talking. We've had more discussion here about women, LGBT, and sex/violence in SFF than we would otherwise.

I think the blog as her own curated space works, and I think her enforcement of her own rules (which she does outline) makes certain demographics feel safer about commenting. I've seen women far more open about experiences with sexual assault and mental illness there than anywhere else in the SFF community.

It's a piece of a larger ecosystem - discussion between dissenting groups is better here for example.