Ser Scot A Ellison Posted November 9, 2014 Share Posted November 9, 2014 Mormont,Please correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the point that if, in this context, so many people can be factually incorrect and defend BS/RH's vitriol and tactics becuase they claim she was "punching-up" that perhaps "punching-up", while sometimes justifiable, is too vauge a targeting strategy to be seen as generally acceptable because it is fairly easily manipulated and thereby abused? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Altherion Posted November 9, 2014 Share Posted November 9, 2014 Power relations remain. It would be absurd to suggest that we can ignore them. And if we can't ignore them, then there is, still, a difference between 'punching down' and 'punching up'. It remains, so we should not ignore it. What we should not do, is use 'punching up' as carte blanche for certain people to do or say whatever they like. We never should have done that, and 99% of us never did.Ah, but that's the core of the brilliant trick that this troll used (and yes, the individual is brilliant -- evil, to be sure, but definitely very intelligent or at least extremely culturally aware). Like all directions, "up" requires a reference position and on forums like this one, people are who they say they are (barring some truly specific position that can be caught in a contradiction). Furthermore, it appears that somebody good with words can twist almost anyone's position into something that can be attacked with a plausible claim of "punching up".Also, I don't think that the people who didn't buy the troll's attempts at frame generic vitriol as "punching up" amount to 99% of the audience. I don't know how large the communities he or she operated in are (my main point of interaction with SFF fans is this forum and I've never seen anyone nearly as vicious here), but here is a quote from L. Mixon's summary linked by SpaceChampion above: BS/RH’s followers – How is Requires Hate able to cut such a wide swath of destruction? A major part of the reason is that for over a decade BS/RH has been cultivating a sizable cast of followers who respond to her calls to help launch attacks. When one of BS/RH’s targets tries to speak up against her, BS/RH publicly positions herself as the victim and accuses her target of doing what she in fact has just done to them, and asks her followers to go on the attack. Some people who do so are simply supporters—those on the sidelines who see someone who has cultivated their friendship, an intelligent young lesbian woman of color, speaking up about a social injustice. They trust her and believe her version of events. It seems apparent that in many cases they are acting in good faith—though their actions still do harm, as BS/RH’s targets end up being blasted with hostile or suspicious messages from the community, when they in fact have been the victims of an attack by BS/RH. As a consequence, her targets experience a deep sense of isolation, when many people they admire and respect are amplifying Requires Hate’s false narratives about what has happened. Others are part of BS/RH’s inner circle. These people actively work in coordination with her to identify and launch attacks against targets. They appear to be mostly progressive women, and many are women of color. I know this because a number of them have reached out privately to me. They feel trapped and want out. They have provided me with details. I would estimate that the "inner circle" alone is on the order of 1-3% of active members or maybe even more for most of these communities. The "supporters" almost certainly amount to at least 10% and probably a lot more than that for specific instances. Such trolling would never work if almost nobody in the community supported it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
polishgenius Posted November 9, 2014 Share Posted November 9, 2014 I would estimate that the "inner circle" alone is on the order of 1-3% of active members or maybe even more for most of these communities. The "supporters" almost certainly amount to at least 10% and probably a lot more than that for specific instances. Such trolling would never work if almost nobody in the community supported it. How big are these communities and groups she's destroyed? I'm getting the impression that they've mostly been quite small, individually. I've seen far less malicious people destroy small communities on their own just by the sheer volume of their argumentativeness drowning out anything else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sci-2 Posted November 9, 2014 Share Posted November 9, 2014 This just gets bigger and bigger. I don't follow this stuff all that closely and I really don't know if these are all POV problems or if people are lieing or what. I wonder if there'll be more investigation into Tricia Sullivan's apparent attempts to blacklist writers she doesn't like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thistlepong Posted November 9, 2014 Share Posted November 9, 2014 Lela Gwenn in the comments of that post says as of two days ago RH / BS attacked her on twitter. Can we call those BS apologies proven completely lacking in sincerity and utter bullshit? ^ That seemed pretty obvious after the second apology. Do I just not understand Twitter? I can't see any posts by acm. The fact that she opens fire then comes back and covers her tracks shows She knows she is going waaaaay too far. What a piece of work. So, um, again, not condoning anything here. However, as is clear from the links, the "morning of hell" was 12 Oct 2012, not two days ago. Lela Gwenn was reporting her past experience per Laura J Mixon's request. RequiresHate's tweets were private, so they won't show up in searches. Someone who was an approved follower would have to have a genuine crisis of conscience in order for the larger community to see them. (eta: presumably they'd have had to archive them at the time as well) Is BS/RH fighting back against this very public revelation of her past tactics? She's not. (eta: at least as far as I can tell - no social media response, no reported response) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterbound Posted November 9, 2014 Share Posted November 9, 2014 I wonder if there'll be more investigation into Tricia Sullivan's apparent attempts to blacklist writers she doesn't like.She shouldn't have to. We as consumers should blacklist her (bs). Unfortunately, there are still individuals that will support her financially even knowing the bullshit she has done. Also, I'm not sure providing access to information and 'blacklisting' are one in the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sci-2 Posted November 9, 2014 Share Posted November 9, 2014 She shouldn't have to. We as consumers should blacklist her (bs). Unfortunately, there are still individuals that will support her financially even knowing the bullshit she has done.Also, I'm not sure providing access to information and 'blacklisting' are one in the same. MacFarlane's accusation is that this behavior extends beyond BS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpaceChampion Posted November 9, 2014 Share Posted November 9, 2014 So, um, again, not condoning anything here. However, as is clear from the links, the "morning of hell" was 12 Oct 2012, not two days ago. Lela Gwenn was reporting her past experience per Laura J Mixon's request. RequiresHate's tweets were private, so they won't show up in searches. Someone who was an approved follower would have to have a genuine crisis of conscience in order for the larger community to see them. (eta: presumably they'd have had to archive them at the time as well) Oops. Yeah, I got that wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Little Valkyrie Posted November 9, 2014 Share Posted November 9, 2014 MacFarlane's accusation is that this behavior extends beyond BS. MacFarlane said: 2) Now I know that Tricia tells editors not to work with writers she strongly dislikes (source), I can understand a strong unwillingness to be critical to her!What Sullivan posted in (source):I don’t have an issue with a person having a history in which they wrote politically-charged diatribes of whatever stripe. But if that person then decides to enter the professional arena then I expect them to behave professionally and play by the rules that the rest of us play by.It is ironic that the person who now says I’m spreading vicious rumours about them is actually a person I’d recommended to multiple anthology editors on the basis of their ability and the originality of their viewpoint. When that same person used their connections to bully and ostracize a close friend of mine, and when that person’s associate behaved in a transparently racist way towards my friend, I informed my publisher of the identities of the people involved (both of them new professional writers) in strict confidence. I also informed one of the editors to whom I’d recommended them—I haven’t had a chance to speak to the other yet, but as I don’t think he’s commissioning right now it’s less of an issue. I did this because I do not want to be seen to condone these young writers’ behaviour in any way—I recommended them, after all, and they turned out to be a poor choice of recommendation. A pro recommendation is saying "Yeah, this person is someone I'm going to vouch for", and there is nothing wrong with withdrawing a recommendation if you find out something that makes you reconsider. From Mixon's post, Sullivan says: • I found out what Alex and RH were doing to Rochita because she told me. I wanted to make it stop. My hands were tied. Rochita didn’t want RH harmed. To explain what happened with my book was almost impossible without getting into the BS/RH connection. BS couldn’t review the book herself because she was too nice. She had to find someone else to do it for her. It was clear that she wanted to use Rochita. She saw Rochita as lesser. Alex helped. A lot. It was sick-making.• People don’t have to believe me, but my overriding concern was for Rochita. How could I protect her? I couldn’t. She was being attacked for something I had written, just because she was my friend. I couldn’t fight back or I’d be a ‘snitty author who can’t take criticism’. I’d be an established white writer punching down. I’d be the bully.• If I did anything against RH it would be a betrayal of Rochita, wouldn’t it? So I had to stand there and watch Rochita be tortured. It is still going on. I’m sorry, Rochita, but I have to say it. Her friends and community have been turned against her. What is happening to Rochita is torture.• I withdrew my recommendations. I told a couple of trusted members of the community about Rochita being bullied because I was worried what would happen at Nine Worlds. They said they would keep an eye out, but I felt extremely impotent. I wanted to scream from the rooftops but I couldn’t. Full comment: http://laurajmixon.com/2014/11/a-report-on-damage-done-by-one-individual-under-several-names/#comment-227 I'm admittedly a bit biased because MacFarlane has been a friend of Winterfox/RH/BS for ages and was an active cheerleader for her trolliest Livejournal exploits, but I'm not seeing blacklisting here. Editors are free to ignore or consider recommendations, but assuming Sullivan is being honest here, I can see why she'd withdraw hers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kuenjato Posted November 9, 2014 Share Posted November 9, 2014 MacFarlane's accusation is that this behavior extends beyond BS. And MacFarlane is also under the magnifying glass, despite her vehement denials. There appears to be evidence of active involvement with RH in the campaigns. What a tangled mess this is getting to be. EDIT: Valkyrie scooped me, hard :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Little Valkyrie Posted November 9, 2014 Share Posted November 9, 2014 EDIT: Valkyrie scooped me, hard :) I try to be thorough :D There's another account here: http://laurajmixon.com/2014/11/a-report-on-damage-done-by-one-individual-under-several-names/#comment-434 I met Alex Daly McFarlane in 2011 or 2012 when she was visiting Cat Valente in Maine and we were at an Interstitial Arts Salon in Brunswick. I found Alex pleasant, bought her and apple soda and enjoyed her company in the few times I saw her. In June of 2012 I tweeted a link to a post on my blog about a picture that inspired a story of mine (SUN DAYS which you can listen to here) in this post. Later in the day I noticed a a few replies to my tweet from Alex McFarlane, RH and someone else (possibly Winterfox or Cracked Moon which means it was RH using another guise). It took a while to figure out how they found out about the post. It turns out Alex McFarlane sent it to RH and it all blew up from there. RH said she would send the link to “feminist editors” so I would be blacklisted. One of the others called me sexist, chauvinist and host of other things. At the time it really shook me. I knew who RH was and that she’d attacked some of my friends and favorite authors. I was aware of the damage she’d done and that those who engaged with her were excoriated at the very least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterbound Posted November 9, 2014 Share Posted November 9, 2014 Too much drama in the LBC. When those writers get together, they're worse than a sewing circle. I'm not going to be buy her stuff, and I've never bough any of MacFarlane's work. That's me expressing myself as any good little capitalist should, with my pocket book. She is publish, atm, through amazon so i'm not seeing much in the way of feedback to the publisher. I'd be surprised if clarksworld or anyone else carried her work from now on though. Lots of good info, and a great example of Karma, and community coming back to bite you in the ass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mormont Posted November 9, 2014 Share Posted November 9, 2014 Ah, but that's the core of the brilliant trick that this troll used (and yes, the individual is brilliant -- evil, to be sure, but definitely very intelligent or at least extremely culturally aware). Not seeing the 'brilliant trick', and I never have. I mean, if someone actually calls themselves 'Requires Only That You Hate', it does not take a perceptive genius to conclude that they are not in this for the high principles: they're in it for the hate. That's what they enjoy, the energy they get from spouting hate. They're a troll and they have helpfully labeled themselves as one. If people didn't see that from the name, it should have been obvious from the writing (it certainly was to me). That the nominal targets of the trolling were supposedly powerful groups is not a particularly clever trick either. It's almost banal. People do this shit all the time (including people on this board).True, they don't all have the success that RH did and they don't all write as well as she did. But to be blunt, anyone who didn't realise RH was a troll was being obtuse, and anyone who did realise but excused it on the grounds of 'punching up' was more than likely guilty of kidding themselves, not being fooled by RH's 'brilliant trick'. Now, we may want to ask, why were these people so willing to kid themselves? But I don't think we can say it's some inevitable consequence of the concept of 'punching up', because it's not. The concept is a description of the facts of a power relationship, and those facts remain. ETA - I realise, on reflection, that this sounds much too harsh towards people who did excuse RH's behaviour. Your point about 'reference positions' is a valid one, in that none of us are in any doubt that there is an 'up' and a 'down', nor as to where those positions are in our society. If that were not so, there would be no space for the RHs of this world to exploit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Richard II Posted November 9, 2014 Share Posted November 9, 2014 I stand with Tricia Sullivan. The accusations against her seem to be to be victim blaming of the highest order. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Richard II Posted November 9, 2014 Share Posted November 9, 2014 In reply to moment, I think a lot of people who supported roh early on were unaware of her activities outside of said blog. I Also think a lot of people were unaware that some of the hyperbole, well, wasn't. I say this as someone who has been very anti roh since the beginning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sci-2 Posted November 9, 2014 Share Posted November 9, 2014 Too much drama in the LBC. When those writers get together, they're worse than a sewing circle. This seems like a general problem with geek communities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Richard II Posted November 9, 2014 Share Posted November 9, 2014 Dumb question, what's a LBC? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Little Valkyrie Posted November 9, 2014 Share Posted November 9, 2014 Dumb question, what's a LBC? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ttTJuWDqJo :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myshkin Posted November 9, 2014 Share Posted November 9, 2014 Long Beach Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterbound Posted November 9, 2014 Share Posted November 9, 2014 Dumb question, what's a LBC?Tsk tsk DR. You obviously didn't smoke a shit ton of weed in the 90's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.