Moon v. Wiscon Follow-up

[jimhines]

I’m still sorting through my feelings on Wiscon rescinding Elizabeth Moon’s Guest of Honor invitation.

It’s not the first time something like this has happened.  William Sanders’ GoH invitation to ICFA in 2008 was rescinded after his “sheet head” rejection letter, for example.  (Thanks to Nick Mamatas for that historical pointer.)

Basically, I

Comments

[wendigomountain]

I'm more confused about how this became an issue in the first place

[jimhines]

1. Ms. Moon is not obligated to engage with anyone, though it should be obvious to even the casual reader that not everyone's mind is made up, and many people are willing to engage in constructive discourse.

2. See #1.

3. Seriously?

4. Not sure what you're getting at here...

5. Not sure how to respond to your sweeping generalizations of what "they" are doing.

[wendigomountain]

1 & 2. This has been a main point of contention against Ms. Moon with her detractors, since she stopped arguing and began pulling comments. So, though you and I agree that she isn't obligated to continue beating her head against a post, there are a lot of people who would disagree with us

[ext_244149]

We can't use the proper labels for "they" because you said you won't read them, Jim.

Clint, from what I read at over at Kress' blog, I believe Tempest is going to have a nice little chat with her. I find myself wondering if Tempest will give in to her urge to threaten to slap Nancy if she doesn't get with the program.

I'll stand by whatever Nancy says regardless, even if I disagree with her.

[b_writes]

That you seem to only be able to react to people who disagree with you as slurs ('proper names'? really?) says far more about you than any rhetorical opponents you face.

[bondo_ba]

I'm sorry, Jim, but I have to disagree with your response to #1. I have seen the "constructive discourse" firsthand. It essentially boils down to who screams loudest and who can convince others that words like "bigot" don't mean what the dictionary says

[jimhines]

Yes. I used the word wanker.

Now please go back and read the entire sentence so that you'll have the context in which I was using that word.

[bondo_ba]

Yep, saw it and made reference to it above. I disagree with your characterization of people who aren't involved deeply with Wiscon as people who don't have a right to have an opinion - "Wankers".

Some of us are concerned that this has gotten totally out of hand. The bullying has to stop or it will backfire. The "Tea-Party of the left" is what I'd call it, but then you'd just stop reading.

But that parallel isn't a bad one. From Ten thousand miles away, it looks pretty much like a mirror image. You may be too close to see it.

[jimhines]

Sigh. Here, let me quote it for you.

"...the wankers who aren’t involved/informed in any way but still want to wave their opinions about..."

If you want to jump up and defend people's right to shout about their *uninformed* opinions, feel free.

Hell, I'm not even challenging that right. I'm just saying I'm not going to waste my time listening to 'em.

[bondo_ba]

Jim, that is your right too. I'm just suggesting that, maybe, there is more going on than just the GoH thing, and that being "uninformed" is a relative term.

Maybe, just the fact that Wiscon caved under the pressure of groups that shall not be labelled is enough information to be able to have an opinion on this subject. Perhaps we (and yes, I include myself in the subset "wankers") want an actual discussion, not a set of rules we need to live by, dictated by a shrill minority.

[jimhines]

So you claim to be uninformed, show no interest or willingness to change that, but still want the rest of us to ... to do what, exactly?

You know what? Forget it. I don't think I care anymore.

[bondo_ba]

Hey, your blog, your rules. We'll let the people with the screencaps sort it out later!

[bondo_ba]

Hey, your blog, your rules. We'll let the people with the screencaps sort it out later.

[sylvanstargazer]

Wiscon is the group that "will not be labeled", though. It's a [expletive deleted] feminist science fiction convention! If you want to get worked up about the fact that people working for social justice don't like people speaking out against social justice and/or refuse to give them cookies, you are going to spend the rest of your life very disappointed. If you don't want to have to behave in a feminist fashion you have the entire rest of the country in which to thrive.

This would be like a gaming convention inviting Jack Thompson to receive an award in service to the gaming community.

You are right about one thing, though...

[ext_244149]

Didn't Moon say a lot of "please go back and read what I wrote" during the Incident?

Seems like I recall a lot of that. Perhaps her points were not written clearly enough.

Or maybe folks on this side of the fence didn't bother to read the comments.

Must be awfully frustrating to the blog owner. Perhaps enough to make them want to shut the discussion down.

[jimhines]

"Must be awfully frustrating to the blog owner. Perhaps enough to make them want to shut the discussion down."

You know, you're starting to remind me of a four-year-old, the kind who sits in the back seat going "I'm not touching you," and trying to provoke a response.

Unless you're an idiot, you already know I'm not going to shut down the discussion.

I may ban you though, if you continue to demonstrate you're not interested in anything but trolling. Please consider this your warning.