![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
inverarityI recently posted about the outing of 'Requires Only That You Hate' as up-and-coming Thai SF writer Benjanun Sriduangkaew.
In that entry, and in previous posts about RH/acrackedmoon/Winterfox/Pyrofennec/all-her-many-previous-handles, I was still somewhat sympathetic to her, in that I thought she was a jerk, but didn't deserve to be "outed" and made the target of an Internet auto-da-fé.
I had, in fact, participated on her blog, been cordial with her on LJ back when she was Winterfox, and allowed her to influence my opinion of many other writers and Internet personalities. We did not always agree, but I'd managed not to trigger her attack reflexes, and I can be lumped into the group of her enablers/defenders who dismissed a lot of her worst behavior as "performance rage."
SF author Laura J. Mixon (who also writes as M.J. Locke) has just posted a very extensive summary of the damage done by this individual. The post is long, and the comments are now in the hundreds, but they are illuminating too, and include a lot of testimonials by recognizable SF authors. There are links to posts from other authors and victims, many of which are also lengthy. I just spent quite a lot of time reading it all.
To put it briefly: "Requires Hate"/"Benjanun Sriduangkaew" (it's been reported from a couple of sources who claim knowledge that that name is certainly a pseudonym as well) has apparently been involved in a long, extensive campaign of deception, harassment, and covert attacks on other writers. Not just her public ranting, violent threats, and "trololol" tweets, but whispering campaigns to editors and publishers and con committees, targeting of enemies for exclusion and harassment, collection of extortion material, etc.
Her behavior, always cloaked in the language of "Social Justice," has been cynical, exploitative, and malicious.
I regret ever being even a peripheral part of her "support network." I didn't join in any of her pile-ons, I was never part of her inner circle, and she has nothing on me, but I did laugh at her cruel reviews and some of her snarky tweets. No, I still don't think that hyperbolically calling for an author to be skinned alive and set on fire should necessarily be treated as an actual physical threat, but in light of her pattern of abuse and vicious character assassination (much of which was apparently happening in back channels), I no longer think such violent rhetoric should be taken so lightly, either.
I used to be a lot more sympathetic to the cause of "Social Justice." I still am, in the abstract sense, in that I still think racism, sexism, homophobia, etc., are bad things and should be opposed. But RH, and her many supporters (some of whom are still standing by her and calling her the injured party) no longer have my sympathies, and I have become extremely cynical about SJ activists in general. (In fairness, RH is only a small part of that.) It's an environment that says insults and excoriating personal attacks are always okay as long as you're "punching up," that the merits of an argument can be determined by where the person making it sits on an "axis of privilege," that allowed a cynical, exploitative predator like RH to recruit so many useful idiots to her cause, some of whom (according to those linked reports) are now literally fearful of publicly breaking with her.
I wish no harm on whoever the person behind the persona may be. I'd like to believe some elements in the two apologies she posted (in two of her guises) are sincere. I have no idea what the professional future may be for the writer known as "Benjanun Sriduangkaew." But I will be far more mindful about my online interactions in the future. I will not endorse snark, flaming, or dismissive identity-based arguments.
Mostly unrelated to this particular issue, I am tempted to out myself just so I can wander the Internets as myself and not care about whether people know who I "really" am. I don't deliberately maintain multiple identities for purposes of deception - I just started writing fan fiction as "Inverarity" because it was a little embarrassing to be a middle-aged guy writing Harry Potter fan fiction, and I didn't want that to be the first thing that pops up if someone Googles my real name. But now Inverarity has become something of a secondary identity for me as well, and it's a little cumbersome to remember who I've interacted with under what pseudonym. And yeah, I have an Internet history going back years, and a few long-time... well, "enemies" might be too dramatic, but people with whom I have had run-ins, and who might find it amusing to splash some of the more intemperate things I've said in my younger days around.
I haven't said or done anything that would cause me great shame, certainly nothing that anyone could hold over me by threatening to "out" me. But I am coming around to believing that, while some people have good and valid reasons to maintain a cloak of pseudonymity, the best and most honest way to conduct yourself online is as your real self.
In that entry, and in previous posts about RH/acrackedmoon/Winterfox/Pyrofennec/all-her-many-previous-handles, I was still somewhat sympathetic to her, in that I thought she was a jerk, but didn't deserve to be "outed" and made the target of an Internet auto-da-fé.
I had, in fact, participated on her blog, been cordial with her on LJ back when she was Winterfox, and allowed her to influence my opinion of many other writers and Internet personalities. We did not always agree, but I'd managed not to trigger her attack reflexes, and I can be lumped into the group of her enablers/defenders who dismissed a lot of her worst behavior as "performance rage."
SF author Laura J. Mixon (who also writes as M.J. Locke) has just posted a very extensive summary of the damage done by this individual. The post is long, and the comments are now in the hundreds, but they are illuminating too, and include a lot of testimonials by recognizable SF authors. There are links to posts from other authors and victims, many of which are also lengthy. I just spent quite a lot of time reading it all.
To put it briefly: "Requires Hate"/"Benjanun Sriduangkaew" (it's been reported from a couple of sources who claim knowledge that that name is certainly a pseudonym as well) has apparently been involved in a long, extensive campaign of deception, harassment, and covert attacks on other writers. Not just her public ranting, violent threats, and "trololol" tweets, but whispering campaigns to editors and publishers and con committees, targeting of enemies for exclusion and harassment, collection of extortion material, etc.
Her behavior, always cloaked in the language of "Social Justice," has been cynical, exploitative, and malicious.
I regret ever being even a peripheral part of her "support network." I didn't join in any of her pile-ons, I was never part of her inner circle, and she has nothing on me, but I did laugh at her cruel reviews and some of her snarky tweets. No, I still don't think that hyperbolically calling for an author to be skinned alive and set on fire should necessarily be treated as an actual physical threat, but in light of her pattern of abuse and vicious character assassination (much of which was apparently happening in back channels), I no longer think such violent rhetoric should be taken so lightly, either.
I used to be a lot more sympathetic to the cause of "Social Justice." I still am, in the abstract sense, in that I still think racism, sexism, homophobia, etc., are bad things and should be opposed. But RH, and her many supporters (some of whom are still standing by her and calling her the injured party) no longer have my sympathies, and I have become extremely cynical about SJ activists in general. (In fairness, RH is only a small part of that.) It's an environment that says insults and excoriating personal attacks are always okay as long as you're "punching up," that the merits of an argument can be determined by where the person making it sits on an "axis of privilege," that allowed a cynical, exploitative predator like RH to recruit so many useful idiots to her cause, some of whom (according to those linked reports) are now literally fearful of publicly breaking with her.
I wish no harm on whoever the person behind the persona may be. I'd like to believe some elements in the two apologies she posted (in two of her guises) are sincere. I have no idea what the professional future may be for the writer known as "Benjanun Sriduangkaew." But I will be far more mindful about my online interactions in the future. I will not endorse snark, flaming, or dismissive identity-based arguments.
Mostly unrelated to this particular issue, I am tempted to out myself just so I can wander the Internets as myself and not care about whether people know who I "really" am. I don't deliberately maintain multiple identities for purposes of deception - I just started writing fan fiction as "Inverarity" because it was a little embarrassing to be a middle-aged guy writing Harry Potter fan fiction, and I didn't want that to be the first thing that pops up if someone Googles my real name. But now Inverarity has become something of a secondary identity for me as well, and it's a little cumbersome to remember who I've interacted with under what pseudonym. And yeah, I have an Internet history going back years, and a few long-time... well, "enemies" might be too dramatic, but people with whom I have had run-ins, and who might find it amusing to splash some of the more intemperate things I've said in my younger days around.
I haven't said or done anything that would cause me great shame, certainly nothing that anyone could hold over me by threatening to "out" me. But I am coming around to believing that, while some people have good and valid reasons to maintain a cloak of pseudonymity, the best and most honest way to conduct yourself online is as your real self.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2014-11-07 06:08 pm (UTC)There was always at least one person who was more dramatic than most and not always in positive ways.
Most of the time, these people had their moments of being a trainwreck or an asshole but were otherwise just normally flawed/energetic people.
Sometimes, however, they were truly damaged or damaging and it's amazing how long the scene let them keep being "interesting" even though they were starting to hurt themselves or others.
This was partially a respect for boundaries - one has to be very careful when judging or interfering with another person's life - but sometimes it was because people were more interested in the drama than the person (at least as long as it didn't damage them).
Sometimes the loudmouth with the heart of gold is actually an abusive asshole. Or the quirky, winsome sort has a drug/mental problem.
This translates online to types who seem abrasive yet keep things moving but turn out to be so unpleasant and aggressive they shut down participation. Except since it is just text it's even harder to tell where those lines are.
no subject
Date: 2014-11-07 06:23 pm (UTC)I'll point out handles can be useful for people in ways other than anonymity. There's a bunch of people out on the net with the same real name as me. This is unique enough that I'm not going to be mixed up with the Brit who was busted for credit card fraud, etc.
Please don't out yourself.
Date: 2014-11-07 07:29 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-11-07 09:05 pm (UTC)And don't out yourself if you don't really want to.
Edited because I didn't read the post carefull enough and part of my comment was off-topic.no subject
Date: 2014-11-07 09:28 pm (UTC)I guess I live under a rock, since this is the first time I'm reading about any of this craziness... not that a stranger's 2 cents should matter much but I think your take on the situation is as objective as can be.
no subject
Date: 2014-11-08 12:14 am (UTC)It's widely acknowledged that RH/BS could turn on the charm when that served her purposes, and I can well understand that people who hadn't experienced the full extent of her vitriol could be taken in by that. A *lot* of people were after all, and I have to consider that if circumstances had been different I might have been one of those taken in myself.
I don't think you should 'out' yourself, if you don't want to. It doesn't serve any purpose. What you've already done here, stepping out from under the spell that was laid on you, and so many others, is more than enough.
no subject
Date: 2014-11-08 07:59 am (UTC)This was a really enlightening post to read.
I'm not sure of the ins and outs of what you've been through but it sounds at the very least discomforting. Social identity, whatever form that takes, is a strange beast.
no subject
Date: 2014-11-08 11:41 am (UTC)Writing under a pseudonym has a tradition much older than the internet. Most fanfiction authors use them, so why shouldn't you?
I have only this one name (in several variations depending on what the sites allowed when I created my accounts) on the internet, but it's still a pseudonym - one that is known to my family and friends, but not to former co-workers, possible future employers (the current one knows, but you never know whether you mightn't someday apply for a job with someone that's prejudiced against fanfic or writers or adults who like 'children's books' like Harry Potter) and most of all the classmates that bullied me in school (not that I think they'd still come after me after all this time, but I'm still more comfortable knowing that they can't stumble over me at some site one day and know it's me).
A friend of mine uses a pseudonym, because she once could have gotten a book published except there was fanfiction online under her name and that publisher, like many in her home country, refuses to publish people who write fanfiction.
On the other hand of course when you do get published the fans of your fanfiction are probably the first people who'll buy your book.
If you want to out yourself, because you want us to buy your books, or because you feel better if we call you by your reall name, do it, but don't do it just because somebody else abused her pseudonyms to hurt others.
no subject
Date: 2014-11-10 01:41 am (UTC)Hate takes a lot of energy.
As for pseudonyms, well, obviously I use one. But I'll own up to writing fanfiction, helping out on an friends website and being a knitter (theindigomouse on Ravelry). Those are really the only places I use the pseudonym.
no subject
Date: 2014-11-12 07:28 pm (UTC)One of the downsides within social justice circles is that there are lot of people who have so much anger behind what they do, even though they might "mean well." I've heard stories from mentors who have done work for years and how they've dealt with difficult people, even before the internet became what it is today. Just this year I've witnessed the biggest drama within the Asian American activist community unfold into real life all because of Twitter. The downside with the internet is that it's easy people to just stay behind a computer and say what they want (I've been guilty of that too.) without actually dealing with an actual human being in front of you.
I don't know how long ago Winterfox's behavior was most prominent, but hopefully getting out there and actually talking to people will change for the better. Hopefully?
no subject
Date: 2014-11-23 08:56 am (UTC)Seems like I hear about a new "I should have know about this scandal ages ago" every day, nowadays.