 On differences in oppression, derailment, and the hierarchies of hurt
|
Apr. 5th, 2009 @ 03:38 pm 
|
|---|
Derailing is particularly frustrating because people who derail will almost always refuse to believe that they are doing so. In fact, when you confront someone who is derailing, the result is generally that THEY will accuse YOU of derailing THEIR issues.
See the massive TL;DR comments above.
It's true.
Although the tl;dr qualities of the comments above I forgive, because the author thereof is an old friend of mine and in discussing complex issues we share a tendency to explain our positions at some length (see tl;dr original post, really), the content is highly problematic liek whoa.
It's bringing the context/relationship factors of digression/derailment into sharp relief for me, actually; were he a stranger, I'd be dismissive and perhaps a bit bitchy, but because I genuinely care about him and am convinced he's basically a good person, I haven't replied yet because I need time to frame a response that actually engages with the subject.
The same reply made to, say, a post by Avalon's Willow would have been the height of assholishness, but there are some differences in the rules of engagement with friends. (Which is not to say I don't think he's wrong, but friends can be wrong at each other without it being inherently hurtful, because our many years of acquaintance give me the luxury of knowing that he's not malicious in this.)
I really want to make this clear, I think, because - hilariously, given what I wrote in the original post - he's Not A Bad Person, and the context that he's my friend does alter some of the implications of saying what he said. I know I said that you can't give people a pass for being mean to strangers because they're nice to you, but he's not addressing strangers, he's addressing me.
I'm glad to know that he's not a dick generally, but I think this is one of those situations where what he's doing is a) derailing and b) not appropriate. If the two of you were having a private conversation, one that others could not read and participate in, that would be one thing. But this is a public journal post and he is, in an indirect way, addressing other people as well as yourself.
I get that it's your journal, so he's primarily addressing you. But he's doing so in what amounts to a public (though privately-controlled) forum that by it's nature invites discussion with multiple people.
Sometimes good people who are our friends and have really questionable views and values need us to be a cold and bitchy and dismissive with them like we'd be with anyone else who behaved like they did. I'm of the opinion that sometimes the best thing you can do for a friend is tell them they're being an idiot and you might have to not be their friend for a while if they continue to be an idiot. But that's my own personal reaction; I have a tendency to shut down and get prickly when I start to feel threatened.
I can see your argument, but I react very differently; if I react to someone's behaviour in a way that involves cutting off friendship, that can't be temporary for me. It would require a hell of a lot of something, I don't even know what, for me to be someone's friend again after stopping.
And yes, this is a public post and therefore a reasonably public post, but I do view derailment in the context of talking to a friend (even in a public journal post) differently from derailment in talking to others, if only because my loyalty to my friends is profound and I can't just dismiss him. He's my friend, something I do not take lightly, and so if he's, well, pantsless, to refer to an earlier RaceFail metaphor, I can't just avert my eyes.
Yeah. I don't take friendship lightly either, but years of going in and out of one abusive relationship after another have made me REALLY reluctant to take on other peoples' BS. Not that what you're doing is putting up with abuse, but my tolerance, she has been lowered dramatically.
I'm not saying you NEED TO DITCH PEOPLE OMG or even that you should. I didn't mean to imply that. I was just trying to elaborate on my own perspective and then I overshared.
No, that's fine, really - as a general rule I'm interested in what people have to say, because I'm interested in the different ways people think and act and react and why. I just, in return, was sharing my perspective.
I don't do abusive relationships, really. My reactions towards people I feel are disrespectful towards me tend towards aversion, and since friendship, in the sense of a true and loyal bond, is not something I bestow lightly, I generally don't get that far with people like that. (My personal history with abusive people tends towards people I didn't have a choice about dealing with, and so has manifested as a tendency, where if the choice exists, I don't deal with them at all, and if the choice doesn't exist, I am distantly civil at best.)
Tom can be dismissive, can be contemptuous, can be sarcastic and sardonic and sneering... and so can I. (I must admit, too, that this is one of his best qualities as well as worst, because he's brilliantly good at it, and sometimes it IS appropriate.) Both of us reserve these reactions to targets we feel deserve it, and both of us can be wrong. However, we are also both capable of listening, and learning, and recognising that we have been wrong. I'm not saying he was right to say all the things he's said in these comments - it would be a bit odd if I did, since I've disagreed with him directly.
To snark sideways at (I think) EBear in the early stages of this: I won't throw my friend under the bus, but I will try to pull him on board, and that includes making sure there's still some room for him.
We don't know each other, and it's clear we've got off on the wrong foot. Hi: I'm Tom. Feel free to go and read my public journal entries for some incomplete insight into who I am. I was quite ready to say something nasty to you a moment ago but I've taken a step back and realised I'm struggling with various emotions that probably don't become me particularly. I do disagree with and / or take offence at several things you've said, but having duly noted that I'll move on because this is not about you and me, in fact for us to argue based on little to no information would be an abuse of ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif) sonnlich's time. With respect to RaceFail, as I said above first dismissively and then lengthily and forcefully, I feel that it's an unproductive use of the time and intelligence of the people involved. It is mostly wank! with an exclamation point, and speakers are, I speculate, dramatising their own reactions to the commentary for the purposes of entertainment or getting attention. It seems to have a lot to do with people shoring up their own positions within a relatively narrow community of interest and (in my opinion) rather less to do with anything meaningful outside that sphere. Indeed, I'd suggest that without expending considerable effort, it would be difficult for an observer arriving fresh to the dialogue -- which I'm not, by the way -- to derive anything of value from it, and there's a considerable chance that they would be dispirited, regardless of their personal politics, by the pettiness, specificity, and actor-focused character of the discussion. I assert that raising the quality and purpose of discussion as a talking point is not, in fact, a negative "derailing" tactic. That RaceFail gives every appearance of being a largely purposeless discussion with a lot of noise crowding out the sense seems to me to be the elephant in the room. sonnlich has now supplied me with some links to establish the overall positive value of RaceFail, which I'll go to read them at a point in the near future. I'm retrospectively regretful about the character of my first comment on this post. On the rhetorical side it makes anything else I try to say here and now difficult to defend, and on the interpersonal side it's an insulting dismissal of the concerns of multiple readers of this journal. Not a terribly bright move.
It's nice that you have the luxury of turning a blind eye to it when issues of oppression crop up in places that you consider to be inopportune. Not everyone does.
Have people used RaceFail to garner attention? Yeah. Have people been complete idiots? Yes also. But people have also been genuinely hurt and those people have the right to defend themselves, and to expect their allies to speak up on their behalf, regardless of the situation. You talk about what's insulting to peoples' intelligence - what's actually insulting is telling marginalized people what they should and shouldn't feel hurt by and try to address. That is, in fact, a derailing tactic, and it's what you're doing, whether you intend to or not.
So yeah, I still call "dick move" there.
Also, nice going with the "I WAS going to say something nasty to you but I won't but I just had to let you know that anyway so you'll know I disagree with and have nasty thoughts towards you but you won't be able to do anything about it" comment. If you don't want to get into a personal argument with someone, next time I'd recommend actually not saying anything about them personally like that. It's not particularly conducive to a productive discussion anyway.
I think it's worth noting that, as I would interpret, being overall well-inclined towards Tom due to aforementioned longstanding affection and respect, his noting that he was ready to say something nasty but stepped back and realised he shouldn't does not read as "I'm having nasty thoughts towards you"; it's an acknowledgement that his automatic response was to be nasty, but he realised that that would be wrong; that he disagrees with things you've said and feels insulted, but doesn't want to get into an argument in my journal, because he doesn't want it to be distressing to me, this being, for all its public venue, "my" metaphorical space, and because it would be a major sidetrack. And a bit pointless, since you each have very little data about the other, and the discussion so far has put you both at a disadvantage regarding making comprehensively accurate judgements about one another's character.
I don't wish to say your reading of his words is inherently wrong; merely, again, saying that I am sure his intent is not to be hurtful or malicious in this. However, intent does not control effect; it just affects how I, as his friend, perceive his actions.
And even in general, I prefer to look for the best in people, and to try to assume people don't intend to be horrible. Ill-considered words cause pain, but there's still room for discussion from there.
No one has the luxury of ignoring oppression. I firmly believe that. Economic and political inequalities affect us all negatively. I find it a bit wearying that you draw a straight line between everything I've said and that viewpoint, of course, but you get a lot of mileage that way. There is no point in me slapping down my credentials or bona fides, nor will it convince you of my politics on that score. That doesn't change my opinion that RaceFail is almost entirely rubbish. There's a reason they call it "RaceFail" isn't there? It's because of the amount of stupid in it. As you concede, there's plenty of attention-seeking and idiocy in the mix, in fact all you're willing to claim for it so far is that the racist and thoughtless idiocy has provided a venue for many marginalised people to defend themselves articulately. Great. There's also been a handy punishment meted out to various public figures in SF&F, though why that would have long term benefits remains to be seen (I doubt it's ultimately good for anyone in the SF&F world to win the "Congratulations! Making Light hates and fears you now!" Award). From tevriel's link here though I can see that at the very least, the magnitude of the disturbance has raised awareness levels amongst convention organisers and small press publishers. Which is actually a good thing. So I'm forced on that evidence to retract my view to the extent of those positive changes. And after that, I'm forced to admit that the question of just how much of RaceFail was pointless and how much wasn't becomes one of degree. Which basically puts me in the same spot as Scalzi's backdown per tevriel's other comment. As for the rest of our interactions ... I'm happy enough not going there. Neither of us has endeared themselves to the other: quel dommage / tant pis. Now, as I've discovered I can't get this fucking train off its rails -- and it looked like it'd be so easy! -- so I'm off.
| From: | (Anonymous) |
|---|
| Date: |
April 6th, 2009 06:34 am (UTC) |
|---|
|
|
|
|
(Link) |
|
Are you saying that the only way a discussion of racism (or any other prejudice) can be productive is if it Changes the World? That, unless the face of SFF was in some way altered, this whole discussion would have been pointless? Even though people got to say things that they've been thinking and were, until that point, unable to talk about. And even though other people were,as a result, beginning to understand White Priviledge and how it works. Just look at Rydra_wong's most recent post. One woman writes about the commercialization of Hinduism and another woman, one who had been using the name Kali Ma on the internet, realized why it was offensive, apoligized and changed her behavior. Do you think that's pointless, just because it's small?
If so, I guess I understand your point of view a little better: Racefail has been largely a bunch of people expressing their opinions and sharing their reactions. If you don't think that matters, then of course you won't think that Racefail matters.
- Amanda
"Are you saying that the only way a discussion of racism (or any other prejudice) can be productive is if it Changes the World?" No. I'm talking about degree of productivity as well as the existence thereof, I'm not restricting outcomes to those that require Special Capitalisation, and I'm not ignoring the opportunity cost of having scores of intelligent communicators in the SF&F community, from activists to writers to publishers and academics engaged in the rough equivalent of an old-school Usenet flamewar held in multiple venues simultaneously either, with maybe a little short of half of them leaving in a disaffected rage. "If so, I guess I understand your point of view a little better: Racefail has been largely a bunch of people expressing their opinions and sharing their reactions. If you don't think that matters, then of course you won't think that Racefail matters." At the risk of sounding condescending ... oh never mind. But shoot down as many things that aren't my view as you like. Clearly whenever a group of people get together in a space and express their opinions and share their reactions, that has great value regardless of what is said, how it's said, who says it, what the outcomes are, how they're transmitted outside the group, and what opportunities for communication and positive change are lost as a result of the way the "expression of opinions and sharing of reactions" progresses, and to what end.
| From: | (Anonymous) |
|---|
| Date: |
April 6th, 2009 06:54 am (UTC) |
|---|
|
|
|
|
(Link) |
|
Oh, and everyone who is not in the oppressed group has the luxury of ignoring oppression. If the bigotry doesn't effect you personally, there's no reason why you would even be thinking about it. That doesn't make you a bad person, nor does it mean that you don't care about bigotry. But if you've been raised with a particular prejudice, you might not even realize how or why it's problematic unless someone points it out to you.
And this sentence: < Economic and political inequalities affect us all negatively> is just wrong. The fact that, for example, a black person is given harsher sentences than a white person who committed the same crime, does not negatively effect the white defendant. In fact some forms of prejudice, particularly the economic ones, actually benefit the group in power.
Furthermore, bigotry is a lot more than economic and political inequities. In fact, I'd say that these are the external manifestations of these prejudices and should not be confused with the prejudices themselves.
At the risk of sounding condescending, I don't think you know what you're talking about. Maybe you should take advantage of the many wonderful links that will explain these things far better than I ever could.
- Amanda
"If the bigotry doesn't affect you personally, there's no reason why you would even be thinking about it. That doesn't make you a bad person, nor does it mean that you don't care about bigotry." Perhaps. Bigotry has systemic effects other than those that affect you "personally". Of course, bigotry, prejudice and entrenched disadvantage in my country do affect me personally. In the last few days I've had to intercede to defend a blind woman in the park from a drunken indigenous man who is forced to live there (in the park) because of the debilitating social disadvantages of his people in Australia; and I've been sexually vilified while walking my dog twice, on one occasion threatened with anal rape, because owning a poodle means I'm gay and because being gay is a terrible thing to some people. I've picked up a book in the last two days, only to learn (not that I truly suspected otherwise) that more or less everything I was taught in primary school about the history of my state was a lie. Not that these turns of affairs are emblematic or that I claim them as evidence of personal difficulty, but they're hardly great fun: I could very much do without them. "And this sentence: <Economic and political inequalities affect us all negatively> is just wrong. The fact that, for example, a black person is given harsher sentences than a white person who committed the same crime, does not negatively effect the white defendant. In fact some forms of prejudice, particularly the economic ones, actually benefit the group in power." The negative effects of the imprisonment rate amongst black men on wider society in the US are well documented, aren't they? Just as organised crime is a consequence of the total disenfranchisement of a social group by the ruling class: the Mafia theoretically arose in Sicily because of the brutal and corrupt nature of the government installed from northern Italy, so that the locals were compelled to build their own shadow network of governance and usury. Reckon there's anyone in Italy who'd argue that society is not still paying for that oppression? "Furthermore, bigotry is a lot more than economic and political inequities. In fact, I'd say that these are the external manifestations of these prejudices and should not be confused with the prejudices themselves." A confusion which I'm not suffering from simply because I didn't include the phrase " and the underlying prejudices that cause them" in the above. I certainly don't know what I'm talking about though, and I have a lot to learn; you're right about that.
From tevriel's link here though I can see that at the very least, the magnitude of the disturbance has raised awareness levels amongst convention organisers and small press publishers. Which is actually a good thing. So I'm forced on that evidence to retract my view to the extent of those positive changes. And after that, I'm forced to admit that the question of just how much of RaceFail was pointless and how much wasn't becomes one of degree.*waves*. Hi. I'm popelizbet, and I'm late to the party. But I wanted to note that I was glad that my alternate timeline was able to do its intended work in your case, serving as a rebuttal to the "flamewar/nothing good has come of it" argument that you initially espoused. (And wondering when pingback_bot stopped working, but that's a side issue.) More good has come of this since my timeline: 10 FOC who would otherwise have been unable to do so are going to Wiscon 33 thanks to the FOC Assistance Program sponsored by ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-community.gif) fight_derailing, with talk of a permanent program to be developed. THIS is making serious strides despite opposition at their university. ReMyth is giving people voices and ownership of their stories, and Verb is rocking and rolling, with its first release upcoming next month...which puts it a mere two months from first fundraising to first book. I'm not telling you these things to go "neener, you were WRONG, sit there in your boat of wrong and BE WRONG" - you already admitted that, on the evidence, you were wrong about the extent of the good that comes from this. I'm telling you these things because they're awesome, and because your disinterest in RF09 shouldn't keep you from knowing about these later developments. And again, thanks for reading. If ever you stop by again, comment and say hi...we're all out of rotten fruit and tomatoes, so don't worry about getting pelted. :D
| From: | (Anonymous) |
|---|
| Date: |
April 6th, 2009 03:40 am (UTC) |
|---|
|
|
|
|
(Link) |
|
Excuse me, but I'm a bit confused. You've said that you stopped paying attention to RaceFail months ago; despite that you seem to know an awful lot about the psychological motivations of those involved. Maybe you should actually take a minute and find out what's going on before passing judgment.
If you don't have a LiveJournal, please at least sign your comments, both to distinguish one anonymous commenter from others who might chime in, and to take some measure of ownership of your words.
This is a public post, and therefore a reasonably public forum for discussion. I have no intentions of moderating or blocking any comments or commenters. My friends are intelligent adults and can take care of themselves; though I may chime in, I am happy to allow strangers to argue with them if they disagree with something they've posted.
However, I do NOT approve of unsigned anonymous comments, and unsigned anonymous sarcastic and hostile responses to my friends in my journal are NOT welcome. Own your words or leave them out, please.
| From: | (Anonymous) |
|---|
| Date: |
April 6th, 2009 04:59 am (UTC) |
|---|
|
|
|
|
(Link) |
|
Sorry, I don't have a livejournal and was unaware of this particular piece of etiquette. Then again, while I'll definitely cop to the sarcasm, I don't think my comment was hostile. All I did was point out that your friend does not know enough about Racefail to properly psychoanalyze the participants. What part of that was hostile?
- Amanda (does this count as "owning" my words or do you need my Social Security number, too?)
No, that's fine; there's a giant conceptual gap between unsigned and signed with a name even if that name is unlinked to anything. I'd prefer a link to your blog or other journal, if you have one, but not everyone does, so a name will do. Among other things, sarcasm comes across as significantly hostile in the absence of any kind of signing. You are welcome to disagree with things ataxi has said, and even to be sarcastic, etc; I just reserve the right to define the terms on which I am happy for discussion to take place on my LiveJournal, and absolute anonymity is not welcome.
| From: | (Anonymous) |
|---|
| Date: |
April 6th, 2009 05:28 am (UTC) |
|---|
|
|
|
|
(Link) |
|
You do indeed have absolute right to control what goes on in your space. Obviously there's a lot about livejournal culture I don't understand. Sorry again for the faux pas. But I hope you don't mind if I ask what the difference is between a signed and unsigned anonymous comment?
-Amanda (oops, I almost forgot to sign!)
That's fine. I make strong allowances for cultural disjunction.
The difference, I think, is the way people perceive intent; with LiveJournals and OpenIDs being so easy to get, and therefore a means of attaching a consistent identity to comments being readily available, anonymous comments come across as trolling, or abusiveness, bereft of any kind of accountability.
Whereas signing your message, even if just attaching a name not your own to it, indicates that Anonymous Coward status is not your intent. Anonymice are usually just flaming.
| From: | (Anonymous) |
|---|
| Date: |
April 6th, 2009 05:59 am (UTC) |
|---|
|
|
|
|
(Link) |
|
Ah, now I get it. Thanks for explaining it to me; this is all very interesting.
- Amanda
Yes -- it would be better if I had read all of RaceFail before passing judgement -- but for reasons I've laid out, I'm not inclined to do that.
It's possibly setting the bar a little high on my imprecise summations of my opinion of contributors' motivations to describe them as being or masquerading as "psychoanalysis", however they probably aspire to a little too much authority as it is.
In the parts of RaceFail that I have read, I claim ego investment and the opportunity to build and hoard reputation within the community of discussion was a big, frequently the biggest, motivating factor in the intensity of talk. As meticulous arse-covering to cut losses was in the various backdowns of SF&F figures who stepped in and got beat. That's what I felt I could see in the shape of the conversation but I'm happy to hear demurring opinions.
Feel free to talk to people in comments to my journal as you see fit, regardless of whether reading it will take up any of my time. (I don't intend to spend the entire thread trying to make sure everyone is going to like each other afterwards, etc, having established, I hope, my confidence of your ultimately good character.)
|
|
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}