Horseshoe Theory is Not Enough

 I was crawling through my Discord and Facebook threads about politics and chatting with friends when a buddy shared a screenshot of a tweet that made my jaw drop. (Discord is a social chatting platform similar to old IRC chats, but with a nicer interface; if you don't know what Facebook and Twitter are, I would like to know the location of your rock, and exactly how many other blind salamanders live under it, because it should probably be protected by UNESCO.) 

Anyway, there's a content producer called Peter Coffin. They create video essays on Youtube, and since I tend to watch my fair share of "Leftube"/"Breadtube"/educational and witty videos about current events and philosophical topics, I've come across their work. They're very aggressively against "horseshoe theory," which is the idea that the extreme left and the extreme right bend around to being similar to each other. This makes it seem as though the center/centrism is the most rational perspective and belief - obviously, I personally disagree with that. 

(All screenshots were taken on January 15th, around 12 AM, by myself.)  

The tweets I've screenshotted here are, to put it colloquially, cursed as fuck. Proceed with caution (and some type of memory-scrubbing agent, especially for that Pence tweet).

However, the way this political theorist has spoken about Gamergate has been - to put it mildly - a warning sign. Gamergaters launched targeted harassment at game designers Zoe Quinn and Brianna Wu, among others, citing their role in...somehow prejudicing the industry against white men? "It's about ethics in games journalism" became a rallying cry - but any amount of examination made that ostensible excuse fall apart like a dessicated wasp nest. 

To reiterate: they (Peter Coffin) are sympathizing with people who created an entire narrative structure to validate their anger at BIPoC, women (+), and LGBTQ people for both wanting to be represented in games and designing their own games and stories. 

If nothing else, more art makes art better. Straight people, white people, and especially men actually benefit from these stories existing, because it will lead to more nuances and better stories being told for them, too. 

Gamergate, QAnon, and MAGA

Unfortunately, when people equate a desire for representation with hate, and when they also ignore power structures, we get things like the violence against Black Lives Matter protestors. These movements share very similar ethics and values. In fact, the pickup artist community and the "manosphere," as well as the incel movements, have all been linked to the alt-right. These communities directly feed into each other and stoke violent hatred. 

And why wouldn't they? Defensive, angry people hearing that their way of life is Bad, Actually are going to group together. Unfortunately, arguing with these people online tends to push them further into their bubbles. Discussion etiquette is in a dire state, but some arguments are also too stupid to be countenanced. Instead, de-radicalization therapies and approaches are more effective. 

Trying to debate a cultist doesn't work. I've tried. Unfortunately, understanding how the violent kind of radicalization and cults work has given me insight into something unpleasant. The left doesn't become like the right - rather, the alt-right tends to use the trappings of the left, and sometimes, converts us. Two groups of people who distrust the government, albeit for drastically different reasons, can come together over that link. The same thing happens with flat Earthers - some believe in a dome, and some believe in a weird ice-wall thing, but they're basically just united by their opposition, rather than a core set of principles.  

And when people get so focused on one element of inequality that it blots out their understanding of all others - for instance, class reductionists like Coffin, who think that capitalism and clout culture are the only explanation for every problem - their logic tends to disintegrate.

]

But empathy? 

Here's the thing. Empathy with the people on the other side is actually important. I speak in harsh terms about white supremacists because we can't excuse their behaviour, but understanding their anger and fear is important. Hell, even understanding why rich, powerful people probably don't want to hand over their comforts and resources helps. 

But as much as the institutions punishing the protestors suck, and as much as they've been used against the oppressed, it doesn't mean that we should sympathize with people who believed the election was fraudulent because their candidate didn't win. My Canadian representatives and my preferred American candidates haven't won every single election, but the correct response to that state is to protest or strike and use democratic means when possible. Even setting aside the absolutely awful, stupid things Trump and his movement stand for, vicious and abusive tantrums are unacceptable. 

Sympathizing with people choosing to attempt the murder of others is bad, actually. Seeing this perspective voiced by someone who has been so adamant about the fact that horseshoe theory is fake is painfully ironic. 

What can we learn from Peter's screwups? 

There's plenty to laugh at and cringe at here. The most important thing to take away from all this is approaching all of our ideas with caution and awareness of our biases. Empathy and pragmatism have to go hand-in-hand. Finally, if we try to make everything fit a single pattern, all we'll do is draw a red-string conspiracy board, and strangle ourselves. 

***

Michelle Browne is a sci fi/fantasy writer and editor. She lives in Lethbridge, AB with her partner-in-crime and their two cats. Her days revolve around freelance editing, knitting, jewelry, and learning too much. She is currently working on other people’s manuscripts, the next books in her series, and drinking as much tea as humanly possible. Find her all over the internet: * OG Blog * Mailing list * Magpie Editing * Amazon * Medium * Twitter * Instagram * Facebook * Tumblr * Paypal.me * Ko-fi

Diversity Isn't Enough: The Importance of Radical Inclusion

Hello hello!

Well, a friend of mine has now been to 78 agents and gotten as many rejections. Surely, this indicates that the book is simply Not Good Enough, right?

That's the thing. I've read it, and the book is excellent. Featuring a character with PTSD, who is both gay and from a mixed heritage background, it's full of funny moments, intelligent thought experiments about robotic consciousness, and has a very solid mystery through the core. The cast is populated by well-rounded and differentiated characters - of mixed abilities, genders, ethnic heritages, and sexualities. And in this setting, their societal and work crew composition is pretty normal. So in addition to featuring a robot love story and a murder mystery, there are plenty of moments where the night crew assembles, and a deaf character sits at a table with a young hijabi clinic worker and her mechanic girlfriend, and two divorced people who remain friends, as well as the main character - all so they can play cards in the park, out of the sight of a nearly omniscient AI.

The thing is, while audio-visual projects - which often spring from book series these days - such as A Wrinkle in Time, American Horror Story, Sense-8, American Gods, The Adventure Zone, Welcome to Night Vale, Penumbra, Who Fears Death (Nnendi Okorafor), Steven Universe, Blackish, Dear White People, Master of None, Switched at Birth, Fresh off the Boat, Luke Cage, Dark Matter, The Expanse, and Westworld include cast members of many shades, there's still a focus on able, attractive, mostly straight people - not to mention that in more than a couple of these, white characters still end up dominating front and centre roles. Yes, this is getting better, but there seems to be a genuine fear of addressing the (surprisingly large) populations of trans and genderqueer, aromantic or asexual, Deaf, visually impaired/blind, and visibly and invisibly disabled people. Not to mention that a lot of these populations intersect. I personally know plenty of people who are people of colour, genderqueer, and disabled. I've read articles by a surprising number of genderqueer, mentally ill people of colour. Add present and former sex workers to the mix, and you have a pretty good sampling of humanity.

So what's the problem?

The problem is that these diverse shows, which are not radically inclusive yet, are only the tip of the iceburg. Producers and studios and publishing houses tend to hire just one or two people to demonstrate their wokeness, and keep the rest their content steaming along as though it's business as usual - teen YA love triangles, stubble-covered male power-fantasy thrillers, gritty sex murder mysteries, soft and juicy chick lit, spicy supernatural sex romps, and tooth-gritting fast ship space porn.  I've edited these books, read them, and enjoyed them - but the fact remains that the market's determiners keep orienting themselves to what they think is a safe bet, an easy seller. 

We still live in a world where an alternate history series where the South won was greenlit by HBO. So yeah, Nnedi Okorafor's series is getting a production deal, but so is a slavery fantasyland series. So is Ready Player One, too. A Minecraft book by Max Brooks is at the top of the bestsellers right now. So yes, diversity's making inroads, but The Problem Is Not Fixed. Radical inclusion, i.e. just treating people like people, and writing stories where non-white, non-able, non-cisgender, non-heterosexual, non-Christian people are allowed to exist and be in starring roles is absolutely revolutionary. 

Ready Player What, now? 

For those not familiar with RPO, it's basically a pop culture slurry of references; another Teenage White Boy Saves The World book, with virtual reality, and somehow he's the only one who knows Stuff About the Eighties - and Steven Spielberg is attached. You'd think he'd pick a more challenging project or have better taste, but no, fanboy fantasy it is.

The biggest problem is that people think Ready Player One is like, subversive somehow? Or self-aware? But it absolutely isn't. It's sincere. Max Brooks is one of the guys who launched the zombie craze--he's very good at commercial writing, to the extent that he's actually a Name, but yeah, he's not exactly known for challenging or artistically mold-breaking projects.

And all of this would be fine, except that it, and the dozens of imitators who crop up to try and skim that flavour, crowd out the more innovative and interesting projects.

Is this another Commerce vs Art rant? 

Absolutely not. It's not that Commerce and Art are Enemies. Heck, it's *fine* to monetize the daylights out of something. Art's relied on Commerce for basically all of modern history. If it wasn't Commerce, it was religion. But - the problem is *how* those selections are done, and the way people trust their preferences to be free of bias. Which just isn't the case.

It's OKAY to have biases. The problem is that we treat a certain kind of bias as objective, and it gets far, far more sway over the stories that get told than anything else. To the point where just including people is considered revolutionary and gamechanging. Simultaneously, there are so *few* of these inclusive stories that individual properties are often torn apart for being 'not good enough'. Yet meanwhile, mainstream stories with sparkling white casts somehow get a break.

But including people is how you GET different kinds of stories. Now, to be clear,  I LOVE the Hunger Games. A lot. But we have a market where agents are like, 'eh, this sold, let's get ten more that are basically variations of this flavour'. There's very little willingness to risk the core of the market, and it becomes a self-fulfilling cycle of, well, crap. 

Like, if you go to a corner store you can buy some chips. And chips are good, I like chips, but even if you put zesty spice or cool ranch or sour cream on them, they're *still* chips. they're not zucchini chips, or sweet potato crisps, or whatever, ya know? The problem is that the market tends to focus on chips, and assume nothing else will sell...

Wat do? 

The solution is simple. Readers have to step outside their comfort zones - unfortunately, the readers who might not even read this blog are the ones I'm addressing - and writers and publishers have to band together. There is definitely a need and an audience for diversity, and moreso, radical inclusion. People often talk about 'not seeing colour', which is an issue I won't even get into right now, and complain that they want stories that are 'normal', and aren't focused on 'identity politics'.

That's the most bitter irony of all - these stories exist, and they're fun and delightful. And yes, inequality issues do crop up in some of them, because of how those issues affect people's lived experiences - but a lot of the time, people across the ability, gender, ethnicity, and sexuality spectrum just want to have fun.

A transgender plus-sized psychic lady who talks with the dead to solve murder mysteries? Yes. A deaf Chinese-American engineer who discovers the secret to time travel and accidentally changes the course of history? Definitely. A love story featuring an asexual mobility-impaired Indian woman and a Zulu warrior king from an alternate world? Why not? 

***

Thanks for returning to the nest. Leave a comment and say hi! I want to hear from you. Keep up with the new releases by getting on the mailing list. Buy my books on Amazon, and keep up with me on Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, and the original blog. This is the one and only SciFiMagpie, over and out!