Anyone here seen the "Requires... Hate" Blog

[SerScot]

Murrin,

That was worth reading. However, as I said on Westeros, Tessa article where she repeatedly states that "just because you are a bully it doesn't mean you aren't a victim" seems to imply that those sharing their stories of RH/BS's abuse are somehow morally equivilent to RH/BS because a few of her multiple layers of masks have been pulled off.

Respectfully, that is a false equvilency.

Telling your story of abuse about someone who is still anonymous is not the same as what RH/BS did. Standing up and attempting to imply there is some moral equivalence between RH/BS and her victims is simply missing the point.

I appreciate her point about skepticism. That's fine. I what bothers me, as I state above, is the attempt at drawing moral equivalencies.

[Zarathustra]

I agree, that was worth reading. I like many of the points she made, and it's impressive how she seems to straddle the fence and see valid points on either side. It shows an admirable capacity for self-reflection as well as an ability to view nuance within reality that is masked by an "us vs them" façade.

However, at the point where she describes suspicion as a valid survival mechanism by appealing to (white) women's supposedly "valid" suspicion of men as rapists, is where I think she succumbs to precisely the fallacies which she is arguing against. Defending the anti-white suspicion of POCs in terms of being earned (moral argument, unfairly blaming whites) and being necessary for survival (pragmatic justification, of doubtful utility) by an appeal to women's fear of men is justifying one prejudice by way of another. Just because women can relate to this fear of men doesn't mean that their suspicion makes POC suspicion right or necessary. Perhaps both are wrong.

We could use the same "logic" to justify a suspicion of people of color. After all, POCs have attacked white people unfairly in this fiasco. So it's an earned suspicion, and one of survival, since the attacked authors have had their livelihoods threatened. Just because it's easier to think of whites as being "privileged" doesn't mean that their survival is any less necessary or warranted.

So it turns out to be an argument of divisiveness, even as it argues for seeing the other person's side. By appealing to "justified" suspicions that one accepts in an effort to sympathize with someone else's suspicion that has led to one being attacked, this ultimately leads to the One Valid Target--men--being held as the enemy that unites them all. How sweet. A common enemy, which just happens to make up 50% of our race. A common enemy which isn't allowed to have these earned and necessary suspicions, because men are the ultimate privileged class.

No, I reject it. Justifying one type of stereotype by way of another is simply making the same mistake over and over. It's cloaking open-mindedness in a thinly disguised prejudice against men.

It is very interesting getting this peek into how progressives/liberals actually think, and the often hypocritical and malicious techniques to which they'll stoop in order to further their class warfare. Even when they think they're being open-minded, they're arguing for self-serving stereotypes.

[I'm Murrin]

You're ignoring power dynamics. Women lack social power in comparison to men. People of colour in western society lack social power in comparison to white people. As a result, reversing the positions does not produce an equivalent scenario.

[SerScot]

Murrin,

This is asked to clarify. Are you suggesting that RH/BS didn't have the power to harm people? Because it appears to me she pretty clearly did.

Are you commenting in the context of the argument proposed by the person you linked to. If so, while that may be the case, in this case RH/BS (who we have no evidence beyond her word that she actually a "Woman of Color") did have lots of power to harm people she interacted with. So, if it is the second while I appreciate what she is saying, it seems to be a bit of a non-sequiter given the circumstances that are unfolding.

[I'm Murrin]

I'm only responding to Z's post, which is the bullshit cries of "reverse racism"/"misandry" expressed in more words.

[Wildling]

You're ignoring power dynamics. Women lack social power in comparison to men. People of colour in western society lack social power in comparison to white people. As a result, reversing the positions does not produce an equivalent scenario.

I don't think that's as true as it used to be.

Fo example, I'm a white male (AKA EEEEEEVILLLLL ). If some black dude calls me a racist name, like, say cracker or honky, nobody cares. Nobody is recording it on their phone for Youtubing later to show how oppressive people are.

If I did the same thing to a black dude, or a lesbian, or somebody in a wheelchair, results would be a lot different. People would be calling me names, possibly even getting violent.

Tell me that's not a form of social power.

[I'm Murrin]

Well we'll just have to console ourselves with our higher wages and better opportunities.

[Wildling]

That's changing too. Maybe not fast enough for some, but it's changing. No major social upheavals happen overnight. It takes time. The old opinions and attitudes need to die off, and that doesn't happen fast. 100 years after the civil rights movement really started to heat up and all you'll have left are people who were brought up in a world where people of all colours, sexual orientation, religion (or lack of) and ethnic background are fully equal.

Until that point, it's going to be a gradual process.

Edit: I'd love for it to be all evened out and everyone fully equal so that people can finally stop talking about it and move on to other things, like getting people to quit shooting at each other.

[I'm Murrin]

You're right, it is changing, it just isn't at a point where we can dismiss the inequalities that are still around.

[Wildling]

Who's dismissing anything? We all know there's still a long ways to go.

All I'm trying to say is if it isn't right for a white guy to sling racial epithets at a black guy or chinese woman or whoever, then it shouldn't be right for that black guy or chinese woman to sling them at the white guy.

It also shouldn't be right for ANYONE to judge an entire group of people, be they black, white, male, female, straight, gay, Muslim, Buddhist, Catholic or any other group you can think of. Some things you can say with a degree of certainty, like Muslims tend to follow Mohammed. Other things, like all white males are rapists and intent on keeping women and minorities down, are patently false and should be treated that way no matter who is saying them.

[I'm Murrin]

No one's saying that, though. There's some generalisation, but no one is accusing all white men of being terrible in whatever fashion. And the reactions - "not all men!" for example - generally serve to distract from the issues that started the discussion in the first place, taking a conversation that came from problems underprivileged people faced and making it one about the privileged group.

[Wildling]

It's implied in the suspicions. "Is this guy going to push me down and rip off my clothes?" "Is this white guy not going to give a brother a job because I'm black?"

It's all based on assuming that someone is going to react a certain way or holds certain prejudices because of skin colour or gender. Which, I say again, simply is not true.

[I'm Murrin]

It's not about assuming everyone is that way. It's about knowing there's a not-insignificant chance of it happening. It doesn't mean everyone is a threat, but they don't know who could be.

[Wildling]

Which means treating everyone as a potential threat right? How is that different from treating every follower of Islam as a potential suicide bomber?

Both are unlikely, but one is more justifiable because it's aimed at the "ruling class"?

[ussusimiel]

You're ignoring power dynamics. Women lack social power in comparison to men. People of colour in western society lack social power in comparison to white people...

I agree with Murrin on this, and this is one of the major elements of Left positions in general. For those on the Left, the idea that everyone should be treated equally is an aspiration rather than a principle. I look at the issue as it is and it is clear to me that while the structures (legislation, institutions etc.) are in place for the application of equality, the contemporary situation is such (because of historical and cultural factors) that it is clear that significant inequality exists right now and will continue to exist (for some) for the whole of their lives. Some of those people feel that their activism is required so that change on the issue is accelerated.


I've been looking at the RH/BS debacle as it is unfolding (thanks for the links, SerScot!), and it is fairly clear that RH used the cloak of social justice activism to unfairly attack people. What s/he did was completely out of order, but that does not undermine the push for social justice in relation to women and minorities. To say that women have no right to be suspicious of men may be correct in principle, and talk to any woman who has been the target of verbal abuse, bullying, or sexual harrassment from a man or men and they will leave you in no doubt that the suspicion has been earned through their experience*.

The RH/BS story is far from over. I was unconvinced by the apologies and by the fact that the BS identity is yet another fictional persona. I had read a few of her posts (linked from here) and found them interesting but way over-the-top. They quickly became repetitive and seemed to derive as much of their energy from trying to get a rise out of people as trying to address the issues raised.

u.

* Looking at how successful women are treated on the Web shows me that the suspicion of a large number of women has been earned there as well.

[SerScot]

Peter Watts goes after RH/BS's former defender (and a few current apologists):

www.rifters.com/crawl/?p=5370

[SerScot]

Daily dot gives a nicely balanced overview of this whole situation:

www.dailydot.com/geek/benjanun-sriduang ... winterfox/

[Brinn]

Peter Watts nails it. RH is a piece of garbage and deserves any retribution that can be mustered against her. You reap what you sow.

[SerScot]

She's posting again:

https://medium.com/@talkinghive/six-mon ... d331912b81

From her blog post:

I used to run the review blog Requires Only That You Hate (a nerd reference, not a statement of intent; surprise, I also wrote positive reviews). Last year, September 2014, I was very publicly doxxed and my professional identity connected to the blog. Almost instantly, my stalkers came back. The campaign of defamation and harassment began. In November 2014, a hit piece went live to round up my alleged sins based on speculation, anonymous gossip, and forum posts half a decade to a decade old; it implicitly called for the total destruction of my online existence. Wherever I’m published or positively covered, the comment section will immediately become a landfill of concern-trolling and anonymous rage. Anywhere with comments enabled becomes an attack vector. Anyone who speaks up for me will be swarmed almost instantly by a mob out to, allegedly, purge the Internet of harassment.

...

Recently, George R. R. Martin promoted the hit piece on me for award nomination. It drew me more harassment than usual, and that’s no surprise: remember what happened to Sady Doyle in 2011 when she criticized A Song of Ice and Fire? But we are still meant to believe that this is about ethics in driving out the evil harasser (i.e. me), because if anyone cares about harassment, then surely it must be the man whose fans are a rampaging mob who regularly deluge feminists with rape threats.

[Orlion]

Not surprising, really...kinda predictable, actually... C+

Let's count down the characteristics:

1) Claim to be a victim of racist white people...
2) Claim she is being targeted because she's a woman of color
3) Ignore the actual accusations against her.
4) Ignore the content of the report against her, particularly the issue that it was women...of color... that suffered the most from the abuse she and her followers heaped up.
5) Somehow expect that a couple apologies are going to make up for all of this, at least to the point where her past can be forgotten/forgiven/and-or ignored
6) Make token references to one or two criticisms of her to prove she's being fair and balanced... like a Fox.

I believe that's bingo.