*Don't* Shut Up, Wesley!: When Hypocrisy, Vitriol, and Social Justice Collide

I've been sitting on whether or not to write about this for a bit now, ever since the news broke out, but given how much it bubbles in my brain and how much of an emotional response I feel when it does, I figured I should just get this out there.

This showed up in my news feed the day it went live, and it... Made me angry. Like, so angry I had to ask for a few extra minutes on my break because I had read it while at work, angry. It, along with the anger directed at Wil described there, are perfect examples of a phenomenon I have observed on the Internet, one that I think is completely self-defeating and outlandish. But allow me to explain here, in my own words.

Wil Wheton  started getting big on the Internet after showing up in niche nerd properties like The Guild and by his involvement in Geek and Sundry, especially with his show Tabletop, the latter of which I was one of the first subscribers on YouTube. So, y'know, full disclosure, I've been a fan for a long time. I especially appreciated how his motto of "Don't be a dick" was used on Twitter and the like by both him and his fans- he consistently decries the misogyny and hatred of the nerdboiz during Gamergate and Comicsgate, and all this recent Star Wars bullshit from the toxic minority (I feel like I saw something from his Twitter account or something, but I can't find it- he at least alludes to it here), and very openly supports (and calls for) attempts at diversity and inclusion within the various intersecting nerd-doms out there through his Twitter account and blog. 

So, naturally, he became a target. The nerdboiz he was calling out did some of the exact stuff he was highlighting to him, namely the ridiculous vitriol and bullying. Crucially, during the Gamergate stuff, he posted a block list created by Randi Harper under the auspices of a simple, hassle-free way to block misogynists and Nazis. It was later revealed that Harper is a hot-tempered terf, going so far as to encourage Gamergaters, the supposed enemy and problem, to dox trans rights people, and her list had in fact included myriad trans activists. As soon as he found out, Wil apologized, did his best to remove all of these people from the list and, when he couldn't, got rid of it and stopped promoting it altogether. 

Let me reiterate that last point: As soon as he realized the list he had promoted was secretly transphobic, he did his utmost to rectify the situation, by both unblocking trans people/activists and by getting rid of it. 

In other words, he did something in good faith, realized it was a mistake, and then tried to make up for it.

But that wasn't enough. He was continually being called transphobic and anti-LGBT and such, and was a consistent enough target of harassment and bullying by social justice advocates that he deactivated his Twitter, instead setting up shop on the purportedly ultra-liberal Mastadon. He was immediately the target of harassment there (you can see his responses to it on what's left of his page), a behavior which is supposedly against the platform's code of conduct. And he left Mastodon after his account was suspended by the admin of that instance, the admin telling him they received 60+ complaints about him in one night- notably, then, not for committing any violations himself, but rather because this big unruly mob flooded the admin's inbox.

Except they weren't nearly as cute- or musical.

I highly recommend reading Wil's piece on this whole thing. 

So here's why that first article I linked made me angry.

The author openly states that Wil was the target of a trolling prank on Mastodon, and that the perpetrator was a trans woman. But she makes him out as the bad guy for reporting the prankster, based solely on the fact that the latter is trans, ignoring the fact that the prankster was violating Mastodon's code of conduct in the first place. The author makes it out to be evidence of his supposed "transphobic agenda" or whatever, but dude- that woman on Mastodon being trans doesn't change the fact that she violated the server's terms. I get where the author is coming from, that she (the prankster) may not "feel safe around" Wil anymore, but you know what? Let's be a little more honest in our reporting/statements of facts, here.
Also, as a staunch supporter of the #MeToo/#TimesUp movement, I'm not super pissed he never ended up giving a detailed statement in:re Chris Hardwick. And I've been raped twice and was in an abusive relationship, folks. If he and Chris were as close as it seems, I totally understand. It's painful, and private. He has a right to privacy. He doesn't have to say anything. It'd be cool if he did, but these people don't know how that whole mess affected Wil personally, and while I am in no way saying he's a direct victim of Hardwick's alleged behavior, it's kind of asinine to demand a condemnation from the guy. I know all of my ex's friends and family know how he treated me, but I don't expect them to give him the boot because of it; how can I expect a stranger to do the same in similar circumstances? I know that's just my personal situation, but relationships are complicated, and so are people, and without being right there with them, we can't profess to know what "should" go on between two close friends when one turns out to be abusive; and it's also borderline cruel to expect a person to bare such deep, personal things to a mob of people that will condemn them either way.

Plus, maybe if the vitriol hadn't been so fierce, he wouldn't have left Twitter when he did and, yeah, maybe he would have made some sort of statement- we'll never know because he left, but I can't help but think that he didn't get a chance before the pitchforks got close enough to his jugular that he had to call it quits.

And basically, the way I see it, Wil isn't the one with the "listening problem," it's all of the people attacking him. Because they ignore all of the positive stuff he's done before, and refuse to accept his apology for his mistake. 

And herein lies the problem: If marginalized communities can't listen when an ally apologizes, they aren't going to keep their allies. When they engage in the kind of behavior they decry and aim it at people that previously were on their side, all they're doing is adding fuel to the fire of their detractors.

I'm probably pissing loads of people off, but hear me out.

Wil's response when he realized the list was bad was what should be ideal for an ally- he apologized and tried to make amends. It's classic Ally 101 behavior, stuff I read about when studying in grad school (remembe the time I was almost an academic? Jeez...). Destructive allies don't apologize; ones that can help enact change do.

But that's just it- I can't say he actually made amends, because, like I said, it wasn't enough. A bunch of social justice advocates stuck their fingers in their own gorram ears and crucified him. And that's entirely counter-productive to "the cause," so to speak. Who the flip are you preaching to, if you condemn anyone outside your circle that makes the slightest mistake? I'll give you a hint:

It may be sacrilege, but I liked this one more.

And I say this as a woman whose own intersectional identity leads to all sorts of internalized discrimination. 

Allies are people, too. We have to let them make mistakes. We have to listen when they apologize. We have to be there with, and for, them when they learn and grow into better allies. We can't expect to keep allies when we don't allow them to just be human. I'm focusing on this treatment of allies, here, but Sarah Lynn Michener addresses this in her own piece about some of the problems of the ultra-left:

It's fine to call out a celeb if they've genuinely done something problematic. But if you then never forgive them, bring it up every time they are invited to speak at a rally, and routinely say they have no place in the resistance because of things they have long since apologized for, then you will have a very small and ineffective resistance. 

I couldn't agree with her more! By attacking current, imperfect allies, you're alienating potential ones. TURNING ON MEMBERS OF YOUR TEAM ONLY MAKES YOU LOOK LIKE PART OF THE PROBLEM. Or at the very least, it reinforces the crap right-wingers say about "social justice warriors" and the like. 

And it proves how that holier-than-thou attitude is nothing but snake oil. I'm not going to go down the path of discussing the implications of sending the lions after someone that legitimately, earnestly espouses discriminatory beliefs. That's its own post.

But. Doing so to someone who has consistently, adamantly, and thoroughly demonstrated to genuinely be on your side is disgusting. And yeah, I do think it makes those doing it look as bad as the people they're supposed to be "fighting" against in the first place, the people whose identities are so integral to their own- because without someone to not be like, they have no idea what to be like. And they have no idea how hypocritical it is to say conservatives are "closed-minded" when they literally cannot listen to anything that's remotely outside their exact idea of what any bit of discourse should look like. It's its own, messed up form of hegemony that just makes me ashamed.

And no. I'm not saying the trans movement is for cis white dudes like Wil (let elone ones less enlightened than him- because he admits whole-heartedly he has all sorts of privileges because he's a cis white dude, y'all). Or that any movement at all is "for" allies. I'm not that stupid, either. But what I am saying is that you can't have a successful uprising without help from those in the most advantaged positions. In other words, allies.

And you can't expect those allies to be perfect. I mean, for Pete's sake, even official members of the in-group aren't always perfect. But we have to take them seriously when they try to make it right, walking them through what was wrong, why it was wrong, and how to go about that fix.

On a super personal note, someone very dear to me, a cis white male, has said he's often terrified of opening his mouth in situations related to marginalization, be it in person or online, because he's afraid of being attacked by the very people with which he wishes to express solidarity. Because what if he accidentally "says the wrong thing" or "gets misinterpreted" or whatnot. And I think this is why this issue pisses me off so bloody much- I know damn well he would fight, literally and figuratively, with every last ounce for every cause I would, but he feels powerless to do so because of some damn ASSHOLES that can't chill out and are so damn territorial and unwilling to even consider the possibility that someone from the majority can mess up but still be sincere. I know it's anecdotal, but it speaks to the bigger issue- this person I care about refrains from helping for fear of backlash. And c'mon, he's not the only one. Obvi.

So, Wil, if you're reading this (which I highly doubt you are), remember that small, loud minority of people doesn't speak for everybody. There are those of us that already miss your presence on the intertubes. That are sorry those arsehats scared you off. And wish we could bake you cookies.

And my advice to my fellow liberals: Get your act together. Stop vilifying people that can and want to help for making mistakes, especially if they express a desire to reconcile. If you can do this, there's hope for the future, for the change you, we, so passionately want. The more you can, the more credibility you'll build up, too. 

 If you can't, or rather won't, well, I have absolutely zero inclination to join your particular team- I'm good on my own, thanks. So in that case, you can just