Writing this makes my stomach hurt but I feel obligated to say it

[kate_nepveu]

Laura J. Mixon is the only person on the Best Fan Writer ballot for this year's Hugos who wasn't on the Sad/Rabid Puppy Slate. I want to urge people not to reflexively vote for her, that is, to consider no-awarding the entire category.

I assume that she is nominated on the basis of her lengthy post about Benjanun Sriduangkaew / Requires Hate / Winterfox / etc. I did not discuss this at the time—I found the entire topic disproportionately upsetting because RaceFail [*] (speaking of which, do NOT!!! read the comments)—but that post has serious issues. Yes, it managed to get widespread attention to genuine instances of threats; but it also places people on the "target" list for being called "misogynist" ("Anon, MOC Writer") or for criticizing their writing only (Kress, Adrienne; Lord, Karen). There might be more, because I haven't been able to make myself closely read the accompanying text, I just looked at the Appendices; I recall from back in November seeing criticisms of the framing of the post, but I went back through my reading list of the time and couldn't turn up anything linkable.

(ETA 2: I have now read all the text, see comments for a little more discussion.)

As a result, I have serious doubts whether this post ought to garner its author a Hugo. I encourage those voting to carefully consider the question.

(Anon comments are screened; be polite and sign your comment with a handle for continuity of discussion and I'll unscreen you. If you're new here, note that I moderate comments for gross incivility, anon or not.)

[*] ETA: It has come to my attention, in a genuinely friendly and caring way, that this could use unpacking for people not on my access list. I was upset because I believed, and continue to believe, a number of the first-person accounts of Sriduangkaew's harassment and threats, and because I believed Sriduangkaew's apologies—lousy though they were—were going to work, she was going to get a pass: every time I see, for instance, Elizabeth Bear or Teresa Nielsen Hayden lauded as being especially clueful on questions of oppression, or put on a con panel about codes of conduct (for fuck's sake!), it's like being poked in a bruise, and they never made even lousy apologies for their behavior during RaceFail. My opinion of any of the people who came forward has not changed from what it was, I do not put credit in Sriduangkaew's statements, I do not believe we interacted before her identities were revealed, and I have not interacted with her since.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

I am leaving this anonymously because like many, I am still nervous about the influence of certain individuals and their persistence in tracking down those who speak against them. I am somewhat frustrated by my need to leave this opener, at that, because of the habit of persons involved in this of insisting anon commenters are trolls, cowards, and not worth listening to or believing.

But I feel impelled to speak up because I have read this several times, and I no longer have the slightest idea of what you are trying to say.

The closest I can come to is "The Mixon Report is bad and Laura Mixon shouldn't win a Hugo for it because I see certain names I have terrible associations from in Racewank associated vaguely with it, and I don't think she entirely perfectly presented things, but I'm going to be vague about it. And no one should read the comments here that might provide further clarity."

No, really. That is the message I take, despite rerereading.

Sources of this belief include you citing " Elizabeth Bear or Teresa Nielsen Hayden lauded as being especially clueful on questions of oppression" despite the fact EBear and TNH had no more to do with the Mixon Report than supporting it and linking it (and if we are going to judge all things as terrible by the supporters they have, I believe we will have no Hugo noms at all), and the rather vague mentions of "but it also places people on the "target" list for being called "misogynist" ("Anon, MOC Writer") or for criticizing their writing only (Kress, Adrienne; Lord, Karen)", which willfully ignores that they were in place for patterns of behavior, which are absolutely vital in the analysis of abuse.

Furthermore, if you desire not to come across as defending Requires Hates' actions, you have achieved the exact opposite.

[kate_nepveu]

Allow me to clarify:

The report overstates Sriduangkaew's bad behavior for the reasons stated in my second paragraph and in the comment linked in my third paragraph. I am thus dubious whether it deserves a Hugo.

Don't read the comments at Mixon's.

The TNH/Bear references are not about the report but why I did not talk about this at the time.

If my last paragraph, which specifically says "I believed, and continue to believe, a number of the first-person accounts of Sriduangkaew's harassment and threats," comes across as defending her actions, then I doubt your implied claim of good-faith re-reading.

Finally, I put it bold for a reason: anon commenters, seriously, sign a damn handle.

[phi]

Furthermore, if you desire not to come across as defending Requires Hates' actions, you have achieved the exact opposite.

You know, statements like this are exactly why I do not like, trust, or believe anon commenters. It's just so incredibly, obviously, willfully disingenuous at best, and downright malicious at worst. Kate has very clearly, from the very beginning of the 50book_poc blowup back in 2010, been opposed to RH. She has gone on record, multiple times, as saying that RH is terrible and has done terrible indefensible things. That you're smearing her now because she won't get on the bandwagon cheering on a bunch of racist white women using the terrible things RH did as an excuse to feel self-righteous and, in the process, splinter all kinds of relationships between WOC. . .I just have no words for how angry that makes me.

[colorblue]

I completely agree.

[kate_nepveu]

Thanks, though I honestly don't feel I've been as public and straightforward as you say. Regardless, as I said in my reply to this anon, I don't think this post admitted of the interpretation they put on it.

[phi]

It's possible you haven't been as public as I think -- I tend not to notice whether a post is under lock or not unless I think I might want to talk about it, in which case I will double check whether it's public.

[(Anonymous)]

A different anon

I'd like to point you to this https://sffpoc.wordpress.com/2015/04/08/on-laura-mixon-goulds-hugo-nomination-for-best-fanwriter/ and ask you to think about why you in one sentence condemn RH's actions, and in another are using her party line - her attempt to divert attention from her appalling actions by attacking the women who worked to expose them and to provide a platform for her victims. The only relationships that need to be fractured here are the ones between people of goodwill and RH and anyone who's prepared to defend the actions of a vicious abuser.

Mixon's report may or may not be Hugo-worthy, but to suggest that she is the one at fault here, rather than RH and her apologists, is deeply offensive.

Moriah

[kate_nepveu]

Because it's a false dischotomy to say that to criticize Mixon's report is to support Sriduangkaew. To take a deliberately ridiculous example for the sake of the point, if Mixon had published her report on the heartwood of a five-hundred-year-old redwood, no-one would think it was supporting Sriduangkaew to say, "Uh, thanks for the report, but maybe you didn't have to cut down that tree to do it?" Everything else is disagreement about the degree.

[(Anonymous)]

Except that's not what I said - my objection was specifically to this offensive statement "cheering on a bunch of racist white women using the terrible things RH did as an excuse to feel self-righteous and, in the process, splinter all kinds of relationships between WOC. . " That's why I linked to the blog entry I did, where one of winterfox's WOC victims spoke about how important and useful Mixon's report was.

I didn't object to your original post criticising the report - I think you're wrong, and I think there's a danger that what you say could be taken as making light of some of the abuse winterfox inflicted - but in the end the report is fair game for criticism and disagreement.

Insulting the writer in such terms, though, is what winterfox and her apologists have been doing - they know they can't disprove the facts, so they go after the messenger, and paint it as being about race, rather than about the exposure of an abuser.

Moriah