Requires Only That You Think

[inverarity]

acrackedmoon, blogger at Requires Only That You Hate, is becoming "Internet-famous," it seems, at least in the small world of online fandom.

(Please note that ACM had a LiveJournal presence at one time, and while it's not exactly a secret who her LJ name was, I will not use it simply because she hasn't given permission to do so. If anyone does mention it in comments, I'll have to screen it, sorry.)

For those who aren't familiar with her, ACM is a Thai woman who mostly reviews anime, manga, and SF&F books. She's also a gamer. She's notorious mostly for the extremely vitriolic rhetoric she uses. Her viewpoint is that of a (very angry) Asian woman in a country most often used by Westerners as the punchline of a joke about prostitutes. She is rarely gracious or kind.

ACM has a growing number of fans. She has also, with her reviews, provoked angry, pissed-off responses from authors ranging from N.K. Jemisin to Peter Watts to R. Scott Baker.

Most recently, Liz Williams, aka mevennen, author of the Inspector Chen mysteries, pretty much called anyone who defends her a coward afraid of being called a racist, after trying to call out Catherynne Valente for not, I'm not sure exactly, denouncing her? (Valente has posted a few times on ROTYH, amicably, and ACM has said generally positive things about Valente's work.)

catvalente talks about that here.

So here's my perspective on acrackedmoon:

I've been a fan of her blog posts for quite a while. We've exchanged the occasional email and sometimes I post on her blog, but I don't know her personally. We're not "friends" except inasmuch as any casual Internet acquaintance is a friend.

And before anyone points it out, yes, I've seen people claiming she's not who she claims to be, that she's not really Thai, that she's not really a woman, etc.

With the caveat that this is the Internet so of course anyone can be the proverbial talking dog, I've been following ACM's posts long enough (going back to her LJ days) that I don't think this is likely. She's been consistent enough that if it were all a fabrication like that middle-aged American guy who was pretending to be a teenage Muslim girl blogger, she probably would have slipped up by now. I mean, if I were a journalist who wanted to do an interview or if for some reason I were going to send her money, I'd want more rigorous proof of her identity, but for Internet purposes, I think the attempts to cast doubt on her are mostly just cheap attacks, with a strong tone of "How could a Thai person, like, read science fiction and speak such goooooood English?"

So. Anyway.

Tone argument.

Classically, it's invoked when someone refuses to listen to an angry jeremiad about how they are being an asshole because it wasn't phrased nicely.

And while I understand completely why the tone argument exists (that is, why people get angry when you use a tone argument), I also do think that somewhere, there is a hazy, not always easy to define, but nonetheless demarcating line between "using the tone argument" and just wanting to interact with someone in a reasonable fashion and maybe be given the benefit of the doubt when you are trying to be fair-minded.

Or to put it more plainly, someone may understandably be angry at me, for reasons that may or may not be my fault and/or intentional on my part, and therefore I should at least try to hear them out even if they are calling me names while telling me why they are angry. But on the other hand, it is only human to be less willing to patiently hear someone out who's saying "Fuck you die in a fire you worthless piece of shit!" Even if it's entirely possible that I did something to deserve that level of anger, it's just not reasonable to expect anyone to stand there and take that kind of abuse and smile and nod and say "Thank you for that excellent point! I will certainly go home and think about whether or not I am a worthless piece of shit who should die in a fire."

That said... on the occasions when ACM has engaged with an author or someone else directly (as opposed to writing a nasty blog post about them), she does not typically begin with DIAF rhetoric. While she has been known to be a little prickly and defensive, she does not viciously lash out at people just because they disagree with her. Those who try to engage her on reasonable terms might get some sharp comments in the course of the argument, but it's only the folks who immediately adopt a patronizing and/or insulting approach who get a similar attitude in return.

I found mevennen's post profoundly disingenuous. I find many of ACM's critics to be profoundly disingenuous.

There are certainly grounds to criticize ACM. I do think she has an unfortunate tendency to veer over the line between "righteous anger" and "unreasonable flaming bromide." (Hence my discussion of the "tone argument" above.) Yes, I think sometimes she is a little too quick to go for the jugular, especially with people who really are trying to be understanding. Yes, yes, I know — not her job to teach anyone, not her responsibility to be kind to well-intentioned racists, and so on — fair enough, but still, it seems at times she can't quite decide whether the purpose of her blog is to vent her frustration and engage in performance rage, or actually provide useful analysis. She does both, but there are times when the two things work against one another.

And I think her rhetoric does at times get really overheated. Yes, she makes lots of "kill whitey" jokes and talks about throwing acid and wishing she could punch Paolo Bacigalupi in the face, etc. I do not for a minute believe she is serious. I understand perfectly well that she's exaggerating for rhetorical effect, and I think anyone who interprets her statements as literal death threats is being stupid and disingenuous.

Still. It goes beyond "not nice." It is, as they say in certain communities, "problematic."

Also, she keeps bagging on J.K. Rowling and Stephen King. WHY YOU SO MEAN, ACM?!?!?!?



So, if you find ACM intolerable, mean, or if her rhetoric really bothers you, I can understand that.

But, if you think she's nothing but a troll or all she's doing is spouting hate speech and LOL-abusing people, you're, at best, wrong, and at worst, disingenuous.

I don't follow her blog, and fail to "call her out," because I'm afraid of being called a racist. I follow her because I think she has genuinely interesting things to say.

And because I can grasp nuance and context!

Like, for example, all the people who go apeshit right off the bat about what a "hater" she is because of the title of her blog - it's a Warhammer 40K reference. Jeebus. She's not a hater, she's a nerd!



Here, have a poll! And since I hear tell that acrackedmoon is very, very scary (actually, I don't even know if she reads my blog :P) I made the voters anonymous for this one.


[Poll #1857972]

Comments

[dungeonwriter.livejournal.com]

I think that tone arguments can be abused, but you do also get treated the way you treat others. Making jokes about flinging acid doesn't make for a very mature environment.

ACM's work has a lot of merit for me to look at books through another eye, but reading her work is more like watching a train wreck, you aren't there to learn, you're kinda entertained by the nasty tone and the carnage. So it's when so much hyperbole is tossed around, it's hard to learn much or take her seriously, it more comes across as shock jock.

Do I think she is a troll? No, her jokes about punching people, and neckbeards are her right, they come across as nasty to me but they also come across as shtik. Her shtik is how nasty she can be, how prickly and people love a good flame war. I wonder if her work would be as popular with a 20% tone down of rhetoric. Do people come for the nastiness or the content?

I think we need to call out negative elements in fandom, we need to make fandom an inclusive, just place, but we also need to cherish what we have, a place to geek out.

[shinygobonkers.livejournal.com]

agree with a lot of this.

i like snark as much as anyone, and i do feel she makes a lot of really good points, but she takes it to another level by far, and that level is one that it is my personal preference to avoid, thus me not reading her blog after checking it out once or twice.

for me personally...there is nothing in the world, no argument or calling out of BS, that can be accomplished through yelling, abuse, or threats, that cannot be accomplished just as well in a civil conversation between mature adults :/

[dungeonwriter.livejournal.com]

I'm of two minds. I know that micro-aggressions and bigotry can make you less likely to be nice, but I also have to believe that reasonable and civil conversation can be angry and hostile, and still remain civil and reasonable.

As a Jewish person, I understand that living in a Christian culture often means getting mico and macro aggressions. Micro-aggressions is one person having a long Christmas post, but saying my Purim post is shoving my religion in people's face. Macro-Aggressions is someone saying to my face that the Holocaust happened because the Jews killed Jesus and that Jews deserve persecution. Her words.

In both times, I was angry, but I was not screaming "YOU ARE A GIANT TURD AND A COCKSTAIN" which is a direct quote from ACM. Because what's the point of that? It just makes me look unhinged. It feels good, but addressing their actions or shutting down the train of abuse is more productive.

"How could you say something so bigoted?"

And the tone argument was used. "Stop being so defensive," said the macro-aggressor.

And I said "I am defensive because your words were cruel and you attacked me verbally. That is unacceptable and I am done with your rudeness and bigotry."

I'm not trying to be the Good Jew, but had I lost it, I'd have had everyone entertained by my rage. But who would take me seriously?

A huge problem I have is it because it's all SO HEATED, I have no idea where to take her concerns seriously and when she's just being snarky. It's all sounds the same to me. If she's just venting, great. But it's hard to take venting as anything profound.

[tealterror0.livejournal.com]

A huge problem I have is it because it's all SO HEATED, I have no idea where to take her concerns seriously and when she's just being snarky. It's all sounds the same to me. If she's just venting, great. But it's hard to take venting as anything profound.

Hmmm. This'll sound stupid, but I do think the difference becomes clear after you get used to her writing style. In general, the content of her criticisms is supposed to be taken seriously while the rhetoric is supposed to be enjoyed for its own sake. I will admit the style is not for everyone, but hey, nobody said you had to like it. :p But some people (not you) seem to be saying more than "I personally do not enjoy ACM's writing style," but rather something more like "What ACM is doing is wrong and she should stop," which I honestly find kind of weird.

[dungeonwriter.livejournal.com]

I'll be honest, if my novel got published, I'd donate to any religious organization to pray she doesn't read and review my work, because her style really bugs me, but freedom of speech, and marketplace of ideas.

[tealterror0.livejournal.com]

As I said, I can see why people subjectively don't like it. I personally quite like it, but then again I can be an asshole myself sometimes. :p At the least, I've always enjoyed conflict...er, verbal conflict I should say. Different strokes for different folks and all that.

[dungeonwriter.livejournal.com]

I'm Autistic, so I can't deal with conflict very easily. It makes me nervous because I have no idea if people are being a bit nasty or feelings are truly hurt.

[tealterror0.livejournal.com]

That's fair enough. I have a feeling you have to like conflict, or at least be ok with it, to enjoy people like ACM. (She's not the only one who uses this style by any means. Hell, I've enjoyed people who were far worse than her in this regard.)

To be fair, I think she is sometimes nasty, and does sometimes hurt people's feelings. I just don't really have a problem with that. *shrug* Maybe that says something bad about me, I don't know.

[inverarity.livejournal.com]

I'd have no problem with her reviewing my work. Because, you know, I try not to be an asshole, in person or in my writing. And if she found something in my work that made her froth and rage, well, either I'd have to agree that I screwed up, or I'd have to disagree with her, but you know, it's her right to hate what I write. One thing I for damn sure would not do is either bleed butthurt all over her review about how mean and unfair she is and how she doesn't get me, or write a passive-aggressive blog post of my own about how an evil mean blogger is saying mean and unfair things about me and isn't the Internet a mean and awful place?

I daresay if she read my fan fiction (which I doubt she ever will because she's not a Harry Potter fan), she'd find some problematic elements in it. I can even predict some of the things she'd likely point out. And I'd be okay with that. That doesn't mean I'd necessarily agree that I was wrong and full of fail for writing the things she took issue with.

[dungeonwriter.livejournal.com]

I've gotten death threats online, so I am a bit sensitive to vitriol, besides the Autism which makes me a bit more sensitive than the average person. I accept other people feel differently, but I find her style to be shock jock style triggering and horrible. I support her right, I just prefer not to engage with her.

[tealterror0.livejournal.com]

for me personally...there is nothing in the world, no argument or calling out of BS, that can be accomplished through yelling, abuse, or threats, that cannot be accomplished just as well in a civil conversation between mature adults :/

I wish I could believe this. Maybe I'm just really cynical, but even mature adults oftentimes have prejudices and biases that make a civil conversation unproductive. And of course there are plenty of adults who are not very mature. I think yelling, abuse, and threats have their place, if used in the correct manner. I.e., they're tools, able to be used for both good and evil. (Civil conversation, too, can be used for evil.)