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  William Sanders’ GoH invitation to ICFA in 2008 was rescinded after his “sheet head” rejection letter, for example.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

[sinboy]

I'm noticing very few of the comments condemning Wiscon that consider the "chilling effect" on free speech that having an unapologetic bigot at a socially progressive convention has on Muslims there, or even on people who spend a lot of time fighting bigotry

[jimhines]

Moon's presence also, at this point, would have pretty much dictated the focus and discussion of the con, and it wasn't the discussion that a lot of people were wanting or hoping to have. (Based on the number of people expressing frustration at the idea of spending an entire weekend doing 101-level discussions with Ms. Moon.)

I've got a question.

[ext_244149]

I'm having a bit of brain lock here, Jim. Help me out

Re: I've got a question.

[jimhines]

Are you suggesting that my personal lack of interest in reading certain posts silences discussion and debate? I had no idea I was so powerful...

I'm not sure where you've gotten the idea that the main contention is the silencing of the debate. For me, I see two issues.

1. The initial post.
2. Moon's refusal to publicly engage in discussion.

Re: 2, She did respond to some comments. Not all, as she claimed. (I wouldn't expect her to, given the sheer volume.) Nor did she respond to or address even a fraction of the concerns raised before deleting the comments. As far as I can tell, she's shown no interest in further discussion, so the discussion has moved on without her.

Re: I've got a question.

[ext_244149]

How could you respond to three to five hundred plus comments?

Jim, let me as you this. Have you ever had that many comments at your blog? I once had a discussion that ran up to 100 plus. I didn't respond to every comment.

But since you mention lack of personal interest in reading such articles, perhaps we can simply write off Elizabeth's actions as lack of personal interest on her part.

I can see it now.

Elizabeth turns on the computer, sees her blog, reads a few comments and goes, "You know, some conversations just aren't worth having."

Hits the delete key, closes the comments and calls it good.

What is good for the goose, it seems to me, is good for the gander.

Could it not also be said that you have no interest in engaging in discussion with anyone who supports her contentions?

That seems to be the gist of this entry.

And you know, that is your right. You can do what you like. I'm just trying to figure out why one is an apple and the other is an orange.

Re: I've got a question.

[jimhines]

"How could you respond to three to five hundred plus comments?"

Dude, are you even reading my responses? I made pretty much the exact same point.

If she decided the conversation wasn't worth having (which it appears she did), then that's certainly her right.

"Could it not also be said that you have no interest in engaging in discussion with anyone who supports her contentions? That seems to be the gist of this entry."

Only if you're not actually reading my entry...

I must admit to being confused and distressed by the whole thing

[zornhau]

I read EM's original article. I disagreed with it, but - unless I missed something - it wasn't actually racist; she thought good citizens shouldn't rock the boat, and that immigrant communities should be "good citizens", especially until they had fully Americanised, and doubly especially if they were co-religionists of people making war on the USA.

There was lots to disagree with, but - as I read it - it was essentially just a conservative putting forward a conservative viewpoint.

So, no, she didn't belong at - what I understand to be - an overtly politically liberal convention. (Nice if somebody could have found out she was a conservative before inviting her, but we all make mistakes.)

The internet hounding & harping, on the other hand, I find a little depresing. She's a conservative, what did people expect?

There are other non-liberal writers around.

I seem to remember some rather nice OpEds by John Ringo, for example; perhaps we should start on him?

Re: I must admit to being confused and distressed by the whole thing

[barbarienne]

Unfortunately, "Good citizens shouldn't rock the boat" is racist. Doubly so in a country that is founded on the principle that people have the freedom to practice their religion as they see fit, to express themselves as they see fit, and to go about their daily lives as they see fit.

We have some minor restrictions on these principles (e.g., religions requiring human sacrifice are out), but to suggest that people who in many cases have been in this country for generations subsume their culture to the dominant culture is the very definition of racism.

Re: I must admit to being confused and distressed by the whole thing

[zornhau]

Is it general usage to equate culture with race?

Doesn't this make it hard to push any sort of social change?

For example, the very ideas of feminism and gay rights are an anathema to many cultures, some of which are rooted in non-white countries.

Re: I must admit to being confused and distressed by the whole thing

[trinker]

Let's relabel it what it is, which is Nativism. Does this make it any better, because "it's not racism" ?

The demand for assimilation falls unevenly on immigrant groups, based on "racial" characteristics. A white-looking immigrant can assimilate by learning to speak with the local accent. A non-white (non-European-descended, to be more clear) immigrant, or the immigrants great-grandchildren, are seen as interlopers no matter what, because they stand out compared to the majority.

While the intent is not racist, the effects vary greatly depending on the same criteria.

[barbarienne]

We should note that Moon was not barred from the convention. She can attend on her own if she chooses.

I have no idea if the Wiscon folks would bar her from regular panel participation like any other pro guest. I would consider it wrong if they did. I assume they would assign her into the rotation like any other SF pro. She's neither the first nor the worst to hold an opinion many revile.

But a convention has the right--some might say obligation--to choose their GOH's in accordance with their principles. Other conventions are just about the genre, but Wiscon, in particular, is "the world's leading feminist science fiction convention. WisCon encourages discussion and debate of ideas relating to feminism, gender, race and class."

It's certainly appropriate to have discussion at Wiscon about racism. It's not appropriate for such a convention to have a racist as their guest of honor. That implies that the PTBs of Wiscon support such notions, when the reality is the opposite.

[ext_244149]

Why would you go to a hostile convention on your own dime?

[oldcharliebrown]

Why would it be hostile? I've been there, many years. I would expect engagement and discussion and disagreement, but I can't see how the convention itself would be hostile, no. God knows there have been past GOHs that people have disagreed with, but not enough to make their life a living hell at the actual con :p

[dulcinbradbury]

Another conservative author I know has gone & felt very, very uncomfortable airing any of her views there.

[dichroic]

You forgot "censorship" (haven't seen it yet, but I'm sure it will pop up).