It's not often that I condemn people on the internet.
I am a flawed person. I screw up, sometimes profoundly, so I try to approach other people's screw-ups with humility. I'm willing to wade through a lot of privilege to meet people where they are. I'm willing to let people know that I believe that they're better than their latest failure (because I actually *do* believe it, at least in a spiritual sense). This is not especially virtuous on my part -- if anything, it's kind of cowardly, because I am sometimes conflicted about anger. (My own anger or lack of anger, I mean -- I generally applaud when other people express their righteous anger.)
But I do like to tell myself that my approach is at least somewhat useful. After a problem with someone's behavior has been identified, especially if it's a problem rooted in some kind of privilege, there are going to be a lot of devils posting comments on that person's shoulder, saying, "Blow off that criticism! OMG they're being so unfair! You didn't do anything wrong! They're just angry/shrill/whiny/MEEN whatevers!" I guess maybe I'm trying to be the angel on their other shoulder, saying, "Be the just and reasonable person I know you can be! Just stretch a bit, and you'll understand how to make things right!"
So, like I said, cowardly. But possibly useful. Maybe more useful than outright disapproval would be from me, because honestly, who am I that anyone would *care* about my approval or disapproval?
With most people who aren't outright trolls, I can usually come up with *something* that I think has some shot at clarifying the problem or motivating change. But RaceFail 09 has dredged up several notable counter-examples, and so now I'm kind of stuck. It is manifestly clear that staying in my sweetly reasonable safe zone is going to have absolutely zero impact on the discussion at this point. So do I keep my mouth shut, or do I participate in calling them out on their crap?
My individual disapproval doesn't signify much. But as people like shewhohashope and veejane have pointed out, what we're talking about here is the whole culture of SF publishing and SF fandom, and what kind of future we're going to have. The raving malice of Teresa Nielsen Hayden, W!ll Sh@tt@rl@y, and Kathryn Cramer (to name the most notable examples) has not just hurt people I respect, it is working toward the doom of institutions I care about.
It will take hundreds of concrete actions (not just words!) of openness and welcome to compensate for their actions of threat, dismissal, and outright harm. For me to publicly say that those three are flaming asses who ought to be ashamed of themselves barely begins to scratch the surface of the work that needs to be done here -- work that is as much my responsibility as it is anyone else's. But hey, it's something. Maybe every little bit counts.
(As always, rydra_wong has all the relevant links if you want to catch up on the FAIL, or if you want to read some of the powerful, inspiring posts that have come out of this mess.)
But I do like to tell myself that my approach is at least somewhat useful. After a problem with someone's behavior has been identified, especially if it's a problem rooted in some kind of privilege, there are going to be a lot of devils posting comments on that person's shoulder, saying, "Blow off that criticism! OMG they're being so unfair! You didn't do anything wrong! They're just angry/shrill/whiny/MEEN whatevers!" I guess maybe I'm trying to be the angel on their other shoulder, saying, "Be the just and reasonable person I know you can be! Just stretch a bit, and you'll understand how to make things right!"
So, like I said, cowardly. But possibly useful. Maybe more useful than outright disapproval would be from me, because honestly, who am I that anyone would *care* about my approval or disapproval?
With most people who aren't outright trolls, I can usually come up with *something* that I think has some shot at clarifying the problem or motivating change. But RaceFail 09 has dredged up several notable counter-examples, and so now I'm kind of stuck. It is manifestly clear that staying in my sweetly reasonable safe zone is going to have absolutely zero impact on the discussion at this point. So do I keep my mouth shut, or do I participate in calling them out on their crap?
My individual disapproval doesn't signify much. But as people like shewhohashope and veejane have pointed out, what we're talking about here is the whole culture of SF publishing and SF fandom, and what kind of future we're going to have. The raving malice of Teresa Nielsen Hayden, W!ll Sh@tt@rl@y, and Kathryn Cramer (to name the most notable examples) has not just hurt people I respect, it is working toward the doom of institutions I care about.
It will take hundreds of concrete actions (not just words!) of openness and welcome to compensate for their actions of threat, dismissal, and outright harm. For me to publicly say that those three are flaming asses who ought to be ashamed of themselves barely begins to scratch the surface of the work that needs to be done here -- work that is as much my responsibility as it is anyone else's. But hey, it's something. Maybe every little bit counts.
(As always, rydra_wong has all the relevant links if you want to catch up on the FAIL, or if you want to read some of the powerful, inspiring posts that have come out of this mess.)