inverarity | Confessions of a Neckbeard

Following Christopher Priest's rant about the Arthur C. Clarke awards, there have been echoes reverberating all over the Internet, particularly as a result of Catherynne Valente's observation that a woman wouldn't get away with that shit.

This really shouldn't be that controversial. And yet, in the comments of Valente's own posts, as well as all the people talking about it, there are all these neckbeards engaging in lengthy diatribes about how it's so haaaaard to be a man and ~~bitches be crazy~~women can be so meeeeeeean!

I mean, some dude actually told Valente, after she recounted her own horrific childhood experiences of bullying and then stated that she's a rape survivor, that she had it easy! Because girls were totally mean to him in school!

Holy shit. Just STFU. STFU forever.

This strikes home for me because... I used to be That Guy. Okay, not the guy who told a rape survivor that women have it easy — I don't think I was ever that big of a douche. (If I was, I have thankfully blotted it from my memory and I'm just glad no one ever gave me the beat-down I deserved.) But I was your typical nerdy dude who was totally pro-feminism but could still pull out Mansplainin' 101 about how Women Don't Appreciate Nice Guys and Of Course No One Deserves To Be Raped But If You Walked Through Central Park At Night Flashing a Roll of Cash... and other classics in that vein.

I am pretty ashamed of my younger self, I am. (Not just for those things, but they certainly give me no small amount of painful recollection.)

I make no claim to perfection now. I try to engage viewpoints I don't agree with in a thoughtful manner, and if I still don't agree with them, I'll be measured in my disagreement unless it's just downright offensive or batshit insane. I keep a somewhat cynical eye on a lot of drama & social justice sites, agreeing with much of what is said, thinking that a lot more is rather unnuanced or self-serving or kneejerk, but unlike my younger self, I don't feel a need to jump in and say "U R RONG!" When I do get into it, I have learned to walk away from arguments that are unproductive or in which the other person is clearly a troll and sees all interactions as a win/lose binary that cannot be resolved until someone cries uncle.

The thing is, when this is an argument over Harry Potter, it's merely annoying, provoking a head shake and some eye-rolling, but when it's guys telling women that their silly lady-brains are seeing misogyny that doesn't really exist, it's contributing to the very thing they are claiming doesn't exist.

This also strikes home because of course I am a big genre fan, and I even like some of those big genre works that get neckbeards so het up when people criticize them. And yet, holy shit, the rage that spews out of the keyboard-wielding howler monkeys of the Internet when a woman criticizes the things they love!

Some (in)famous examples:

Liz Bourke's eviscerating review of Theft of Swords.
_allecto_ pretty much calling Joss Whedon a rapist.
Sady Doyle calling George R. R. Martin creepy and misogynistic.
Pretty much everything acrackedmoon writes at Requires Only That You Hate.

Now, I do not agree with what all of the above women say. And one can intelligently disagree with them. I mean, I think

_allecto_'s criticisms of Joss Whedon, in particular, are reeeeeeeeally reaching (it's one thing to say you don't think his work deserves all its feminist accolades, it's quite another to say that perceived misogyny in his work means the man himself is a rapist). I haven't actually read A Game of Thrones so don't have much of an opinion on it, but Doyle does seem to stretch a few of her points a bit, and I understand she was pretty nasty to some feminist bloggers who disagreed with her. I love ROTYH, but I don't always agree with acrackedmoon (man, ACM, why you gotta keep harshin' on Evil Stevie? And I still like Harry Potter and The Name of the Wind, so nyah nyah!), and I think she can at times be a little too quick to go for the jugular.

But. All of these women get a shit-ton of nerdrage and fucking rape threats dumped on them. I read a lot of bombastic bloggers, male and female, and while men get namecalled and disagreed with, even at their most vitriolic it's usually more of a schoolyard let's-beat-each-other-up-and-have-a-beer-afterwards exchange that's as much backslapping as brawling. My worst and most nasty trolls did some taunting and dickwaving, but no one threatened me, and if they did, we'd both know they were full of shit and it was hot air. Kathy Sierra and Seanan McGuire have received death threats accompanied by personally identifying information.

What the fuck is wrong with these people?

ETA: Locked. Not because I'm a mean ol' lefty who can't stand to hear dissenting opinions (though I expect that's what

jordan179 is going to claim), but because I have to go to work, I cannot access LJ at work, and I really don't want to read ten more pages of this shit when I get home.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

In particular, that Martin was behaving suspiciously;

According to Zimmerman.

that the first media reports had very dishonestly edited Zimmerman's conversation with the 911 dispatcher;

This is true but it doesn't really matter. He still followed Martin despite being expressly told not to.

and most importantly that Zimmerman had already given up following Martin when Martin turned back and launched a serious and unprovoked physical attack on Zimmerman.

According to Zimmerman. (And seriously, you think that actually happened? It makes less than zero sense.)

Which, if true, rather makes a difference, doesn't it?

If true.

How does being 17 years old or carrying skittles or iced tea make one incapable of launching an unprovoked physical attack on somebody else?

Because normally we don't expect 17-year-old kids to attack people, especially people older and bigger than them, for no reason. I wonder, why do you think this is such a strong possibility in this case...?

The testimony varies: at least one eyewitness reported Martin on top of Zimmerman.

Can I get a link for this? I tried a Google search and the only people I could find saying this were random comments and right-wing websites.

As for the video, that was taken after Zimmerman had received medical attention and been cleaned up.

In the police car, supposedly. And yet he shows no signs whatsoever of injury. If he had really gotten beaten up, shouldn't there at least be some bruises or something?

I'm not saying that the evidence makes it iron-clad that Martin started a fight for no good reason,

And yet you stated this:

Well, yes -- if he hadn't decided to double back and physically attack Zimmerman, Martin would be alive today.

You sure sounded pretty certain there.

I would also like to repeat that I find it really strange that you think a 17-year-old attacking somebody for no reason is a more likely turn of events than a white guy (or I think he's half-Hispanic or something?) thinking a black kid is suspicious and so shooting him.

... that the first media reports had very dishonestly edited Zimmerman's conversation with the 911 dispatcher;

This is true but it doesn't really matter.

It matters because the whole notion that Zimmerman was obsessed with Martin's race comes from the dishonest editing of the tapes. Zimmerman didn't even mention Martin's race until asked "what race is he?"

... He still followed Martin despite being expressly told not to.

True, but merely following someone does not constitute reasonable provocation to assault and battery.

How does being 17 years old or carrying skittles or iced tea make one incapable of launching an unprovoked physical attack on somebody else?

Because normally we don't expect 17-year-old kids to attack people, ...

???!!!

Sorry ... did you grow up in a very low-crime area? Teens just under the age of majority, if at all "bad," tend to commit a lot of minor crimes, precisely because they know that they won't do a lot of time if convicted of them.

... especially people older and bigger than them, ...

Zimmerman was about 30 lbs heavier than Martin, but also several inches shorter than Martin. Since Martin probably didn't know that Zimmerman was armed, it may well have looked like not too unreasonable a fight to start and expect to win.

... for no reason.

Ah, but if Martin was part of a "thug" culture -- as his Twitter account implies -- he had a "reason." Just not a very good reason.'

Zimmerman would have been "dissing" Martin by asking him questions and following him. Martin would have felt that his "street cred" was imperiled if he suffered such an insult without administering a beating to Zimmerman.

I would also like to repeat that I find it really strange that you think a 17-year-old attacking somebody for no reason is a more likely turn of events than a white guy (or I think he's half-Hispanic or something?) thinking a black kid is suspicious and so shooting him.

Because 17-year-olds are notoriously impulsive, because Martin's Twitter site indicated that he belonged to a thug culture, and because thug cultures are notoriously aggressive, and because people usually do not shoot other people for absolutely no motive other than "you're suspicious."

Oh, and Zimmerman is Hispanic, though to me that doesn't matter that much. Nor does it matter much to me that Martin was black -- if he'd belonged to one of the white criminal subcultures, I'd suspect that he started the fight for the exact same reasons.

It matters because the whole notion that Zimmerman was obsessed with Martin's race comes from the dishonest editing of the tapes.

No it doesn't. It comes from the fact that our culture considers all black young men to be inherently suspicious in a way non-black young men aren't. If you don't know this, then this shows (yes) your privilege.

True, but merely following someone does not constitute reasonable provocation to assault and battery.

Please stop debating with the me inside your head; it's really starting to get annoying.

Teens just under the age of majority, if at all "bad," tend to commit a lot of minor crimes, precisely because they know that they won't do a lot of time if convicted of them.

And so Trayvin Martin thought, "Sure, I only came out to buy some snacks, but what the fuck, I'll beat this random guy up"? *shakes head*

Ah, but if Martin was part of a "thug" culture -- as his Twitter account implies -- he had a "reason."

Oh God, now you're psychoanalyzing a dead teenager based on a fucking Twitter account? In the future, before you bring your mighty brain to bear on the mindsets of people you've never met, at least get your information from a website that's not right-wing:

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/04/08/2738118/what-trayvon-martins-social-media.html

"He loved rap music and enjoyed cracking jokes on Twitter about street culture." [emphasis added]

and because people usually do not shoot other people for absolutely no motive other than "you're suspicious."

*beep* *beep* Your privilege is showing!

Confessions of a Neckbeard

Re: The Sainted Martyr Treyvon Martin

Re: The Sainted Martyr Treyvon Martin

Haha nice joke in the subject line you're a comic genius