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

[tealterror0.livejournal.com]

OK, I'll state my conclusion first: I have precisely zero issue with ACM's tone. I do occasionally disagree with her on content, but that's obviously not what this post is about (which is unfortunate, since content is far more important than tone, which is a point I will make later in this absurdly long post--you've been warned).

1. I think a lot of people misunderstand the target audience of ACM's posts. Dungeonwriter above, as well as others, often seem to treat her posts as if they're arguments made at the authors of the books she shreds, but they're really not. Her argumentative opponents are not authors but other readers who might disagree with her (the "neckbeards," if you will). So comparisons to what's appropriate in a civil debate and etc. to me are inappropriate.

2. In particular, the point people often seem to make--and I think this includes Inverarity in this blog post--is that her rhetoric is not likely to convince the authors of the books she critiques. Well, yeah, duh. But that's not the point. ACM is not trying to make Bacigalupi learn more about Thailand before writing a book set there; rather, she's trying to show other readers that Bacigalupi didn't bother learning enough about Thailand before writing a book set there.

3. So in that regard, does her rhetoric help or hurt her cause? Well, here are some salient points to consider:

(a) She almost certainly only has the readership and attention she does because of her vitriol. The people who would ordinarily read her but are turned off by her rhetoric, like Shinygobonkers, appear to be outnumbered by the people who wouldn't have heard of her if not for her rhetoric.

(b) Her rhetoric serves to emphasize the point that the stuff she calls people out for doing really is not ok. Things that seriously bother those who are oppressed are oftentimes seen as not a big deal to those who are not. If you're not Thai, it may not ordinarily seem a big deal to you that Bacigalupi screwed up the language (on the first page). Had it not been for ACM's fake death threats, I might've just gotten the impression she was mildly irritated as opposed to majorly pissed off. That makes a difference.

(c) As Inverarity says, a lot of the people who criticize her (not Dungeonwriter or Shinygobonkers above, but others) are doing it disingenuously. I highly doubt they would be more amenable to ACM's criticisms even if she phrased them in the queen's own English. If you make a concerted effort, it's always possible to find a phrase in someone's rhetoric that might be considered problematic under certain lights, and use it to dismiss the entire thing.

(d) Hey, it's far more entertaining than laying out critiques in boring prose. This I imagine is what leads to (a). Also it causes a lot of authorial meltdowns (R Scott Bakker obsessed over her for months without her doing much of anything after her critique), and what would we do without those?

4. Seriously, it's the internet for crying out loud. Flame wars have a long and venerable tradition dating back to its founding. More to the point, reviewers who make a habit of criticism are known for being vitriolic. Simon Cowell, anyone? How about the Nostalgia Critic or Zero Punctuation? Honestly, I don't think her rhetoric is all that extreme, considering this context.

5. As I said at the beginning of this (absurdly long) post, content is far more important than tone. And everyone knows this. The reason the "tone argument" gets used is that, if someone completely ignores the content of a critique and only complains about its tone, then they very likely cannot actually respond to that content and are desperately looking for a distraction. If Liz Williams and everyone else could respond to ACM substantively, they would. That doesn't necessarily mean that ACM is right--maybe it just means they're bad debaters--but it does tell you something.

6. ...OK, I will admit that I have been known to stoke the rhetorical fires myself from time to time, so my defense of ACM has a certain self-interest to it (you could call it "solidarity" if you're feeling kind).

*phew* I apologize for the insanely long post. If you read the entire thing, thanks; I hope it was worth your while. :)

[tealterror0.livejournal.com]

(The post above was apparently just inside Livejournal's character limit, so instead of an edit this is a separate post.)

I should mention that who she targets is also important. I have no problem as long as she "punches up," as it were. I was uncomfortable with her recent bashing of the self-published book, though part of that was also because I knew it was at least partly motivated by her personal dislike of the author.

EDIT: Something I meant to mention but forgot: it can be very cathartic to watch someone tear apart something you don't like. I know I've felt much satisfaction from vitriol against stuff I hate for petty reasons, and I'm not talking about ACM. I can only think that many who suffer from racism or sexism must feel even better when they see others go after racists and sexists, even unintentional racists and sexists.

[inverarity.livejournal.com]

To be sure, it is her vitriol that has made her a name, and it is the reason I enjoy her snarky reviews so much.

I don't have a problem with "Paolo Bacigalupi, you worthless cockstain!"

I do have, just a tiny bit, a problem with "If I ever meet Paolo Bacigalupi, I will punch him in the face." (And I'd have a larger problem with it if I thought she really meant it.)

There are various reasons for that, but one is that, contrary to what you said, I know ACM isn't speaking to the authors and doesn't expect Bacigalupi to read her words, let alone think them over and try to become a better person/author for them. But the people she is addressing - readers, fans - can be just as turned off, and indeed, even intimidated by that level of violent rhetoric. Particularly people who have actually been exposed to that kind of violent rhetoric uttered by people who really did mean it.

Your comment about "punching up" is very apt, and the main reason I don't take serious issue with her tone. But I'm not sure she should get a free pass to issue threats of violence, however non-serious and hyperbolic they may be.

[tealterror0.livejournal.com]

I will admit that the fake threats (and I have very little doubt that they are fake) do make me slightly uncomfortable, in a way the more generic insults don't. Then again, I'm often a target of them, being a white male American who lived in Japan for a year, so I suppose they're supposed to intimidate and bother me.

I honestly doubt there are very many people who are turned off by the fake threats, who wouldn't already be turned off by the (often rather savage) insults. Maybe there are a few, like the people who were exposed to serious threats before, but I doubt it. I suspect that to ACM, intimidating people like us--which I do actually think is part of the reason she uses the fake threats--makes up for the small number of people they might lose.

Should she get a "fake pass" for them? I'm not sure what that means. As I said, I have nothing against people who just subjectively don't like part or all of her rhetoric. And it's reasonable to argue that they damage her overall project. But I think condemning her for it or something is going too far (I'm not saying this is what you mean; I'm just laying out my position). Again, she's an internet reviewer who tends to criticize things; invective, even nasty invective, is par for the course.

[inverarity.livejournal.com]

free pass.

I'm not intimidated by her. I don't take the things she says personally, even when she is saying things that happen to apply to me. I just think as her soapbox becomes bigger, she's going to have to start thinking more seriously about the words she uses, whether she likes tone arguments or not.

[tealterror0.livejournal.com]

Oops. Typo. Sorry.

I disagree. I think, as her soapbox becomes bigger, she'll have to start thinking more seriously about who she targets. At this point, if she goes after no-names with her usual style she's "punching down" (this and "punching up" I got from Markos of DailyKos fame, by the way), and even I get put off by that.

To be honest, I'm not sure I understand your reasoning behind saying she'll have to think more seriously about her words. I don't mean this as a defense or a rebuttal; I'm honestly curious. Why do you think that?

[inverarity.livejournal.com]

If a really famous blogger says something like "I wish so-and-so would die in a fire - in fact, I wish I could pour gasoline over him and light a match myself" - it will cause a major shitstorm and there will be people who take it seriously even when it obviously is not.

Now, to the degree that ACM doesn't care what other people say about her, maybe she can get away with continuing to be that vitriolic even as her fame increases. But at a certain point, she's likely to become famous as the person who threatens to throw acid in people's faces rather than the person who is famous for writing eviscerating book reviews.

Also, I just plain don't think it's okay to threaten violence unless you really mean it, and would actually back it up.

[tealterror0.livejournal.com]

OK, I see what you're saying now. You may be right about that. I doubt ACM is going to tone down her rhetoric anytime soon, so I suppose we'll see if any such incident occurs.

I don't think I agree with you about the morality of fake threats. It's probably not okay to make them to someone, but when you're not specifically speaking to the person you're threatening it seems extreme but not really morally blameworthy. At least to me. *shrug*