Ugh

[selenak]

I hate bullies. Internet bullies who believe they're propagating "social justice" while doing their bullying are a particularly revolting suspecies. God knows I have my own criticisms of Moffat's writings, but death threats? With an added low of also going after twelve-years Caitlin Blackwood, who plays young Amelia Pond? What she said.

Not that this is new. I'm reminded of the internet back in Children of Earth, Day 4 and after time, when it were RTD and James Moran, but then Rusty wasn't on Twitter. Or going back to the Buffy days, those charmers who wished miscarriage on Marti Noxon when she was pregnant because they hated seasons 6 and 7 of BTVS.

Fandom can be fantastic to be in, but every now and then it makes you recall that "fan" comes from "fanatic", and not in a good way.

Comments

[astridv]

Now they're bullying kids? Jesus.

[legionseagle]

Ah, but it's Social Justice (TM), innit? Telling them that they're scum for telling a twelve-year old kid to "Go die" is policing their tone.

[bimo]

Ah, but it's Social Justice (TM), innit? Telling them that they're scum for telling a twelve-year old kid to "Go die" is policing their tone.

Without having the slightest idea why on earth any of the hate that Moffat and Caitlin Blackwood received should be connected to *cough* "Social Justice TM" (I usually try not to get involved into organised fandom/fannish group dynamics as good as I can...)

This sort of behaviour just plain atrocious. How could anyone halfway right in their mind do this to a kid? Plus the idiocy of using the tone argument in a context like this... *head desk*

"

[likeadeuce]

This is why I've started backing away from any conversation involving the "tone argument." There's something really interesting to discuss there, but I'm wary of it being taken to mean, "I can say whatever I want to whoever I want with no accountability for my own rhetoric."

Though to be fair I don't know that anybody has actually applied that argument to saying abusive things to Miss Blackwood.

[astridv]

This is why I've started backing away from any conversation involving the "tone argument." There's something really interesting to discuss there, but I'm wary of it being taken to mean, "I can say whatever I want to whoever I want with no accountability for my own rhetoric."

Yeah, it's a concept that lends itself to abuse very easily, and when it does get abused it's pretty much impossible to argue about the case because of the way the whole argument is framed.

[likeadeuce]

It is a pretty good signal for, "I don't have to take you seriously." But unfortunately certain types of bad behavior aren't as easy to ignore.

[meri]

I think the tone argument can be a good thing, specifically when it points out other people using tone as a way to control anger and critique of marginalized voices, BUT as that argument reaches broader audiences it's becoming a silencing technique itself. Completely surprising no one who's ever done RL social justice work where the same kinds of toxic silencing and group think take place.

[likeadeuce]

Yes, the thing I was trying to say but in much smarter words. Thank you!

(And I didn't mean to suggest there's nothing to 'the tone argument' discussion -- especially as I think it was originally identified as problematic when used by privileged people who could not accept their own statements being criticized, against less privileged people. Just that I'm wary of it because it seems to have trickled down, as you say, to "toxic silencing and group think.")

[meri]

I actually think it's important to be very wary of any argumentative technique when it's used to silence or shame. That's when it, as a tool, needs to be re-examined or it becomes meaningless and hurtful. And it has so obviously gone past being helpful in fandom at the moment. >.

[bobbiewickham]

Jumping in here to say that I agree, and not just in fandom--I've seen its rampant abuse on feminist blogs of late. People feel entitled to say whatever they want to those who disagree, provided that they can identify their opponents as being more privileged along some axis. This in turn leads to some amusing Oppression Olympics (e.g., "I'm entitled to call you names because, while you are a woman, I am a transgendered woman of color with a child." Response: "Oh yeah? I'm a working-class woman with clinic depression, so screw you, and here are some names for you too!").

None of this really helps either discussion or social justice, though it may give some a temporary glow of self-righteousness.

[bobbiewickham]

Hah! Yes! Tone argument! Plus the kid was obviously, like, privileged, anyway.

(Nota bene: I'm not rejecting the very concept of either privilege or the "tone argument," merely the formulaic and dogmatic way certain Social Justice types apply these concepts when it suits them).

[legionseagle]

FWIW, I agree with this; one of the things that annoys me in some respects most of all is that the rabid misuse of social justice concepts as a means both of being bullies and of taking the moral high ground while doing so really damages people who would like to argue, say, for a more nuanced and sophisticated view of women's issues in popular media or better approaches to multiculturalism and so forth. But with the stfu_moffat mob and their hangers on, I'm not even going to concede the "sincere argument badly presented" ground.

Personally I strongly prefer Moffat as Who showrunner to RTD because RTD's attitude to middle-aged women I found so intensely annoying (I'm having a long discussion somewhere else about how The Christmas Invasion really was a terrible example of a male writer tarrying any woman Prime Minister with the Thatcher brush - whatever RTD says, I'm not buying the idea that that wasn't about the sinking of the Belgrano - and how that coloured my opinion of Ten as a character from the outset). But "better than X" or, as I think I'd probably better phrase it"Better than X at dealing with an area which I find fundamentally important to me" doesn't mean "Beyond criticism" - it could even include "Actually, a lot worse than X at dealing with a second area which I don't find so important so failure there bothers me less but which other people might well find at least as troublesome as I do RTD's 'mad, middle-aged and dangerous to know' trope."

But the people who are causing the trouble really are managing that combination of behaving dreadfully and then claiming that they're martyrs when people criticise them for behaving dreadfully, which I can't abide in general, especially not when it's poisoning all possibility of sensible debate on the issue.

If it hadn't been overtaken by the current row, I'd have liked to point out that while I normally dislike Chris Chibnall's work, it was absolutely clear that he and the showrunners had been listening to criticism in that a) the International Space Agency were recognisably based in the Indian sub-continent in a way that accurately reflected current trends in space exploration and investment and broke out of the UK/US binary assumptions of much SF; b) Nefertiti appeared in a leading, non-antagonist role, had agency and survived the episode triumphantly; c) stereotypically sexist attitudes were explicitly raised in order to be mocked; d)the woman as healer/man as fighter trope was deliberately reversed. Unfortunately, any chance about whether this was good enough, whether it worked or how it could have been done better got drowned out in the kerfuffle.

[legionseagle]

I understand the only writer who was on Twitter during TW:COE was the lovely Paul Cornell, and he got death threats, despite the fact that he hadn't even written the episode in question.

[selenak]

Or any Torchwood episode at all. But he made the mistake of posting an enthusiastic review and also expressing anger at some of the tweets James Moran (who did write for CoE) had gotten; oh, and he also may have expressed the idea that lecturing a gay man on homophobia was not the best. :(

[legionseagle]

Oh, it was James Moran who got forced off Twitter that time round; I'd forgotten.

[meri]

This makes me so angry. It's unacceptable. :|

[selenak]

It is. Here is something providing some catharsis from one of the attacked.

[meri]

Whenever this happens in fandom it always makes me recoil and just want to hide forever. I don't know how some celebs stay so open and warm to their fans. I'd always be wary an on-guard.

[gehayi]

While I do think that Moffat has issues (I'm not in the least comfortable with the fact that his "good" women are generally wives, mothers or both, for example, or with the fact that River Song's entire life is defined by her relationship with the Doctor), I can't imagine sending him death threats.

I mean, criticize the man's work. Write fanfic and meta about it. But...death threats? Just because you don't LIKE something? What the fuck, people?!

And threatening a twelve-year-old girl? That's insane. Why the hell would anyone threaten a child? What do these asinine troll-goblins think that she did to them?

I don't understand this at all. I swear, every time that I think that people could not possibly get any dumber, they discover a whole new low to which they can sink.

[selenak]

From what I could tell, the justification for threatening the child was that she was defending Moffat. It's just insane.

[gehayi]

That's just...man. There are some sick people out there.

[bobbiewickham]

As horrible as this is, I can't say I'm surprised--fannish hate can be truly toxic, and when the toxic haters start believing that their hatred is based on a righteous cause...

I seem to recall someone wishing either a miscarriage or death in childbirth upon JK Rowling because they disliked the developments in HP Book 6.

[red_satin_doll]

Or going back to the Buffy days, those charmers who wished miscarriage on Marti Noxon when she was pregnant because they hated seasons 6 and 7 of BTVS.

THAT astonishes me to no end - except that it really doesn't given how women with any authority in our culture tend to be vilified (as do female heros like Katniss or Buffy. this was also the period when "Buffy's a bitch" was at it's height, and hasn't let up in some quarters.)

What's odd is that for all the fans who do love the later seasons now (as I do) I read little to no praise of Marti. The good stuff ends up being credited to Joss.

[selenak]

One of my earliest lj entries was a Marti Noxon defense, written when s7 was still being broadcast. Let me see - here:

http://selenak.livejournal.com/5462.html

As you can see in the comment, it was a controversial subject, but there was also a lot of agreement.

Btw, I always liked what Joss himself had to say about the double standard applied to him and Marti when it came to the flaws and virtues of the show. This was after a poster at the Whedonesque message board had bashed her yet again:

How sick am I of Noxon-bashing? Enough to break my rule of silence, certainly. I've had so many people rag on her for aspects of the show I developed, or praise me for things she came up with. She's been a vital part of everything people love about Buffy since she overhauled the halloween script in season two. She's as good a story-breaker as I've ever worked with. And she's a leader.

Everyone's entitled to their opinion, Vmars. You are uninformed and rude. That's mine.

[red_satin_doll]

Sorry it took me a while to come back to this! (I got distracted by a wee little leg injury. Or rather not so "little". argh

I did read that post and thread before but it was definitely worth a re-read. Gabrielleabelle did a similar post on her LJ. The comments were definitely interesting - I got the sense that some readers did NOT. GET. THE. POINT. Still trying to get their digs in, which we've heard already. You were airing a viewpoint that is almost never expressed.

Which goes beyond Marti, IMO to a broader consideration of how gendered the conversations about women in power whether Martha Stewart, SMG, Hillary Clinton or Sarah Palin - and no, I'm no fan of Palin's, but liberals "dissing" her in a mean-spirited way is the same damn thing, regardless of whether or not I agree with her. My sweetie and I watched that bit she did for SNL, sitting in a chair speaking to the camera and the monologue they gave her was so cruel in terms of talking about herself - ha ha it's just a joke, right? - that even my sweetie was offended by it.)

I had read that statement from Joss before and I'm glad he wrote that - although it didn't stem the tide. Apparently Joss is God - unless fans disagree with him - but I wish he'd left off that last sentence. Name-calling and stooping to that other person's level doesn't help matters.

[selenak]

Oh, I know what you mean about Sarah Palin. I can't stand her politically, either, but the comments regarding her were definitely gendered in a way that, say, this year people having a go at Romney were not, or pre-Palin at Dubya.

I'm sorry to hear you were injured! Hopefully you're doing better now?

[red_satin_doll]

but the comments regarding her were definitely gendered in a way that, say, this year people having a go at Romney were not, or pre-Palin at Dubya.

Very much so. And I've certainly seen that happen time and again - and we'll continue to see it for some time to come, as more women run for higher political office. (I'm going to try to cheer myself up now - yay Elizabeth Warren! Much better.)

I pulled my leg over three weeks ago getting off my bicycle of all things - I didn't fall, but the bike did while I was trying to get off, and yanked my leg. My reg doctor thinks it's actually spine-related (inflamed disc or somesuch) so I'm off to get an MRI tonight. they've already done an xray on the hip and it's not a hip fracture thank god.