Requires only that you don't support abusers and harassers
Let me be clear on something.
I will not ever nominate any fiction by Benjanun Sriduangkaew for an award, nor vote for any fiction by Sriduangkaew that has been nominated for an award (in the case of the Hugos, No Award will get my vote first).
I'd be a fucking hypocrite if I did.
Which is to say, I took a stand against Vox Day because he's a terrible fucking human being. And so the same applies here. Benjanun Sriduangkaew is a terrible fucking human being, so I have no choice but to take a stand against her. To attack Day because he's on the conservative right but to support, or not stand up to, Sriduangkaew because she's on the progressive left would be fucking hypocritical.
To be blunt, I'm seeing a fair few fucking hypocrites on Twitter at the moment.
The last straw was when earlier this afternoon I saw someone compare the Benjanun Sriduangkaew/Requires Hate situation to Gamergate, specifically by ascribing the Gamergate palybook to those who were speaking out about their treatment at the hands of Sriduangkaew. Reader, the two situations are not in any way comparable, and even if they were, it's Sriduangkaew who is the Gamergater in the analogy, not those who have been harmed by her.
That much of the discussion has been about Sriduangkaew = Requires Hate is perhaps part of the problem. It gives people room to say "Well, Requires Hate wasn't *that* bad", and "Requires Hate may have been outspoken but she did say important things."
For me, the biggest problem isn't Requires Hate. Rather, it's this. It's that even before Sriduangkaew was linked to Requires Hate, it was know that Requires Hate and 'Winterfox' were the same person. And Winterfox was a complete cunt. A troll who viciously attacked and destroyed multiple online communities, who harassed and bullied many. Frankly, I don't give a shit what Sriduangkaew did under the Requires Hate persona, what they did as Winterfox is enough to damn them, for me.
Apropos of nothing, I would point out here that Sriduangkaew is also a persona and not their real name.
I'm actually surprised that there are, relatively, so many people out there who are defending Sriduangkaew. Some are even reading these words now (if they still read LiveJournal, that is). I find it difficult to reconcile how the same people who were angry at the conservative right for defending, shielding, protecting, rationalising the behaviour of people like Walling and Frenkel are now defending, shielding, protecting and rationalising the behaviour of Sriduangkaew. To be blunt, it disappoints me. But perhaps I was wrong to think people could be objective.
I believe Tricia Sullivan, I believe Athena Andreadis, I believe Rochita Loenen-Ruiz. I believe those who speak of the harm that Winterfox has caused them.
Regardless of any form of politics, I refuse to stand with bullies or harassers of any stripe. And so I stand against Sriduangkaew. And so should everyone.
I will not ever nominate any fiction by Benjanun Sriduangkaew for an award, nor vote for any fiction by Sriduangkaew that has been nominated for an award (in the case of the Hugos, No Award will get my vote first).
I'd be a fucking hypocrite if I did.
Which is to say, I took a stand against Vox Day because he's a terrible fucking human being. And so the same applies here. Benjanun Sriduangkaew is a terrible fucking human being, so I have no choice but to take a stand against her. To attack Day because he's on the conservative right but to support, or not stand up to, Sriduangkaew because she's on the progressive left would be fucking hypocritical.
To be blunt, I'm seeing a fair few fucking hypocrites on Twitter at the moment.
The last straw was when earlier this afternoon I saw someone compare the Benjanun Sriduangkaew/Requires Hate situation to Gamergate, specifically by ascribing the Gamergate palybook to those who were speaking out about their treatment at the hands of Sriduangkaew. Reader, the two situations are not in any way comparable, and even if they were, it's Sriduangkaew who is the Gamergater in the analogy, not those who have been harmed by her.
That much of the discussion has been about Sriduangkaew = Requires Hate is perhaps part of the problem. It gives people room to say "Well, Requires Hate wasn't *that* bad", and "Requires Hate may have been outspoken but she did say important things."
For me, the biggest problem isn't Requires Hate. Rather, it's this. It's that even before Sriduangkaew was linked to Requires Hate, it was know that Requires Hate and 'Winterfox' were the same person. And Winterfox was a complete cunt. A troll who viciously attacked and destroyed multiple online communities, who harassed and bullied many. Frankly, I don't give a shit what Sriduangkaew did under the Requires Hate persona, what they did as Winterfox is enough to damn them, for me.
Apropos of nothing, I would point out here that Sriduangkaew is also a persona and not their real name.
I'm actually surprised that there are, relatively, so many people out there who are defending Sriduangkaew. Some are even reading these words now (if they still read LiveJournal, that is). I find it difficult to reconcile how the same people who were angry at the conservative right for defending, shielding, protecting, rationalising the behaviour of people like Walling and Frenkel are now defending, shielding, protecting and rationalising the behaviour of Sriduangkaew. To be blunt, it disappoints me. But perhaps I was wrong to think people could be objective.
I believe Tricia Sullivan, I believe Athena Andreadis, I believe Rochita Loenen-Ruiz. I believe those who speak of the harm that Winterfox has caused them.
Regardless of any form of politics, I refuse to stand with bullies or harassers of any stripe. And so I stand against Sriduangkaew. And so should everyone.