If Mort Divine ruled the world

[Einherjar86]

Man, sometimes you're really incapable of admitting the obvious.

 

[CiG]

Ironic.

 

[Dak]

There's a bit of a kerfuffle going on in academia right now because of the whole Avital Ronell thing. A bunch of academics signed a letter protesting her firing, and the language of that letter was severely disappointing. I've read that the reasoning behind the letter is complicated, but it doesn't justify the rhetoric. It's the same bullshit trotted out to defend male harassers.

For what it's worth, colleagues of my generation are pissed about the letter. If that's not evidence of variability within "the left" when it comes to issues of sexual harassment, I don't know what is.

Rose McGowan is also "heartbroken" about Asia Argento.

The problem for PoundMeToo was acting like it was a CisHet White Guy™ problem (and Larry David got it for pointing out most of the accused were Jewish men). This is where the backlash is coming from.

 

[CiG]

Furthermore who would condemn the letter's wording but not the act of writing a letter in defence of something your tribe is supposedly fundamentally opposed to?

 

[Einherjar86]

Furthermore who would condemn the letter's wording but not the act of writing a letter in defence of something your tribe is supposedly fundamentally opposed to?

You should read about the title ix confidentiality requirements. The letter was supposedly written as a defense against potentially premature firing, before the parties involved (including Ronell) were privy to the full extent of the accusations. The reason I'm saying the rhetoric is disappointing is that those who signed the letter made no effort to make this clear in the letter; they simply trotted out the same lame excuses for harassment behavior. If the confidentiality excuse is true, then the letter itself is less problematic than the language used (which is extremely problematic).

Ironic.

Sure bud.

The problem for PoundMeToo was acting like it was a CisHet White Guy™ problem (and Larry David got it for pointing out most of the accused were Jewish men). This is where the backlash is coming from.

My whole point is that a large percentage of leftists clearly don't believe it's only a "CisHet White Guy" problem. I'm saying that a LOT of younger academics are upset at the hypocrisy.

 

[Dak]

My whole point is that a large percentage of leftists clearly don't believe it's only a "CisHet White Guy" problem. I'm saying that a LOT of younger academics are upset at the hypocrisy.

You mean the ones with no voice and no influence? Strange we haven't heard about them.

In all seriousness, I hope you're right. But I'm not sure that moderates have any sway at this point (not even sure if they ever have).

 

[CiG]

The witch-hunt only becomes a problem once the hunt itself starts to thin the numbers of the hunters. That's all this is, not "variability."

 

[Einherjar86]

The witch-hunt only becomes a problem once the hunt itself starts to thin the numbers of the hunters. That's all this is, not "variability."

You're clueless. I'm sorry, but it's the truth.

 

[CiG]

You're clueless. I'm sorry, but it's the truth.

Don't get mad at me because your comrades are defending sex pests left, right and center and it's revealing the left to be a swamp of hypocrisy. #MeToo is doing more damage to the left's credibility than any decades long right-wing smear campaign ever could, because the left are a mess.

 

[Einherjar86]

I'm mad because I just said that this

your comrades are defending sex pests

isn't true of many on the left, and you don't believe me--despite the fact that you have minimal access to my community, nor do you have any immediate knowledge of what most academics think beyond a myopic social media perspective.

You're just as bad as those you accuse of being hypocritical.

 

[CiG]

Hold on, when did I say that it's all or even majority of the left defending these people? I don't believe I once said that.

I only disagreed with you when you tried to whitewash hypocrisy as variability.

You're being emotionally reactive.

 

[Einherjar86]

No, you're being either a) stubborn, or b) you didn't comprehend what I originally said.

I made no reference to any comment you made about a "majority on the left," and I never said majority--I said "many." And my original point was that the younger generation of academics aren't buying into this letter-writing-in-defense-of-Ronell bullshit, and are vocally protesting it (on Facebook and other social media). I then said that at least this is a sign of variability among the left, meaning that not all leftists are flocking to support Ronell b/c she's a woman and can't be a sexual predator. Many leftists are saying of fucking course she can be a predator, and she should be treated as such!

I'm not sure what you find hypocritical about this.

 

[CiG]

I then said that at least this is a sign of variability among the left, meaning that not all leftists are flocking to support Ronell b/c she's a woman and can't be a sexual predator.

I agree with this, but what you said implies that defending sex pests is the norm on the left and that these younger generations represent a variant. I said that actually no, it's not that the younger leftists who disagree with this are a variant but rather that the letter-writers are hypocrites.

 

[Einherjar86]

How are those two things mutually exclusive?

 

[CiG]

I don't agree that it's normal on the left to defend sex pests, even if I personally think being one and being on the left is increasingly becoming so common as to be a cliché. Isn't that the implication when you use people opposing a letter written in defence of a sex pest as an example of variability?

Maybe I did misunderstand but you seemed to imply that younger leftists are a variant because it's the norm to defend sex pests on the left. Sounds like the hatred for the old guard you see manifest itself a lot on the left.

(let me just say this a few more times lol: sexpestsexpestsexpestsexpestsexpestsexpestsexpestsexpestsexpestsexpest)

 

[Einherjar86]

I didn't mean at all to imply that it was a norm. By variability, I meant people on the left who remain committed to certain values even when it means criticizing their own (unlike those who signed the letter, which virtually reads like an exculpation if the signatories had any legal insight into the case).

 

[CiG]

 

[rms]

cant imagine how weird it is to be fat in northern europe. i've never felt so ugly in my life while there

 

[Dak]

What a happy person.

 

[Einherjar86]

This is a well-conceived and thoughtful piece, I think. I remember hearing about this when it happened:

The Benjanun Sriduangkaew/Requires Hate saga is a striking cautionary tale in a number of ways. It shows how easily performative bashing of “the oppressors” or “the privileged” can turn into vicious bullying and harassment toward real people—and how easily a “marginalized” person can be reclassified as a “privileged” acceptable target. It shows what a devastating weapon anti-oppression outrage and social justice rhetoric can be in the hands of a malicious abuser, making it very difficult to curb the abuser’s behavior and making the victims particularly susceptible: witness the mind-boggling fact that an anonymous blogger’s unhinged ranting could make published authors afraid to write. The Mixon report, Romano’s Daily Dot article, and the comments on both pieces offer a rather scary glimpse into a toxic, cult-like “social justice” subculture.

Drama in the sci-fi/fantasy fandom may not be of great consequence for larger society (though the politicization of culture is a real and spreading problem). But when the ideology that enabled Requires Hate dominates academia, gains a strong presence in the mainstream media, and makes inroads into corporate culture, the cautionary tale should be a warning to us all.

https://quillette.com/2018/08/18/th...-up-harmed-the-science-fiction-fantasy-world/