Thursday, October 21, 2010

Elizabeth Moon

SF3, the parent organization of WisCon, has withdrawn the invitation to Elizabeth Moon to attend WisCon35 as a guest of honor. Please see the SF3 statement at the SF3 website.


The SF3 Blog is also collecting comments at SF3.org

Posted by at

249 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 249 of 249
Will Shetterly said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
October 23, 2010 at 9:34 PM
Will Shetterly said...

Coffeeandink, care to point us to where this democratic process occurred? Emma was a GoH, and while that got her a permanent membership, I'm pretty sure, I don't think she ever got her ballot for the Moon vote.

October 23, 2010 at 9:36 PM
Anonymous said...

Oh fer...

Moon openly insulted and belittled a group of people. In so doing, she managed to also offend another large group of people, because that's what happens when you say offensive stuff. Instead of choosing to deal with the reaction that being offensive provoked, she shut the whole shebang down. I'm assuming she *does not care* that Muslim readers may choose -- as I have done -- never to read anything by her again, or that people who find this kind of viewpoint may also choose that as well. Because there's no way on God's green earth she didn't know what she was saying was insulting, or at the least controversial.

These are the consequences of her words. Some people choose to not listen to her or support her further. And WisCon chooses not to have her representing them.

At any point, she could have continued to speak, to explain, to justify, to apologize, to concede egregiously inaccurate points. She did not. And no one, presumably, is keeping her from speaking. Not the "fierce hordes of the liberal/PC/Islamophile" Intarweb users, not WisCon. Despite assurances from others that she was considering the matter, maybe even apologetic, she said nothing, and the ugly words she said stand on their own. Silence speaks volumes.

These are the choices she has made, and clearly, she doesn't mind the consequences of those choices, because they were pretty clear-cut. She's a professional and quite good writer; she knows the power of her words. Presumably she is not stupid; she had to have known that this was a possible result, and she was OK with that.

I don't *need* to work up umbrage every time Someone Says Something Mean on the Internet about Muslims. On a regular day-to-day basis, someone says something ignorant, rude, or nasty to me -- from casual slurs flung out passing cars, from Customs agents, from people I know. If I got outraged at every small possible insult to Muslims, I'd have to up the dosage on my blood pressure medication. Most of it I have to let slide, for my own soul's sake. This, to me, WAS offensive enough that I did react to it.

Why? Because I think she is someone who should have known better. So the only other option is she knows damn well, and chooses not to care.

I'm bemused that so many people are manufacturing so much outrage on behalf of someone who obviously isn't really invested in this.

October 23, 2010 at 10:28 PM
WisCon said...

Posting to clarify eligibility to vote in WisCon's Guest of Honor elections:

As stated on the WisCon website (See http://wiscon.info/about.php ) anyone can nominate a person for Guest of Honor at WisCon; however, only members of the convention committee are eligible to vote in the GOH election.

Similarly, to vote on SF3 matters, or to elect SF3 officers, one would need to pay dues to SF3 and attend its meetings (or provide a proxy to be exercised at the meetings.) SF3 is the parent organization that includes the WisCon convention committee as one of its committees.

A membership for WisCon entitles the holder to attend Wiscon. Neither possession of a permanent WisCon membership nor the purchase of a WisCon membership confers a right to vote in the WisCon GOH election.

October 23, 2010 at 11:19 PM
Will Shetterly said...

hotcoffeems, you seem to live in a world where everyone writes exactly what they mean and everyone reads exactly what was written. I envy you.

Why do you ignore Nisi Shawl when discussing this? As Co-GoH, she made it mighty clear to me that Wiscon had not become Islamophobic.

And do you despise the other things that Moon represents: an older woman raised by a single mother in a time when people believed in the nuclear family, a Marine in the 1960s when women paid a great price for serving in the military, the mother of an autistic son who wrote a respected book from an autistic person's POV, a Southerner and a Christian? She is, in many ways, a kind of feminist that Wiscon rarely recognizes. When you chose to withdraw the opportunity that you gave her to speak, you withdrew it from every aspect of her identity. Just as a Muslim should not be solely defined by a faith in Islam, a bigot should not be solely defined by their bigotry. We are all complex beings with different strengths and failings.

Here's a part of my heritage that I believe: let the one without sin cast the first stone.

And, yes, I wish Ms. Moon would look more closely to her Christianity when she thinks about how to treat her Muslim neighbors. But remember that she intended to come to the convention and take part. Wiscon chose not to interact with her.

October 24, 2010 at 12:15 AM
Anonymous said...

Oh, what patronizing bullshit. Will, nobody here is in need of a lecture from you, *of all people*, as to how to treat their fellow human beings. Or how to practice feminism, for that matter.

October 24, 2010 at 2:04 AM
Anonymous said...

Lydia: Oh, no, I fully intended to give Mr. Shetterly an answer. Seeing as how he asked so *nicely* and all. If the server hadn't hiccuped, I would have already done so.

Well...Mr. Shetterly...seeing as how you asked:
"And do you despise the other things that Moon represents: an older woman raised by a single mother in a time when people believed in the nuclear family, a Marine in the 1960s when women paid a great price for serving in the military, the mother of an autistic son who wrote a respected book from an autistic person's POV, a Southerner and a Christian?"

I'm a single mother. My grandfather was career military (served as a glider pilot in WWII, for starters); my father recently retired as career military also. My father is a devout Christian. My family, and me, are emphatically working-class. I'm from Georgia. In fact, my family's roots are Southern quite a ways back along all lines. Since I'm into genealogy, I can say that the last person in my immediate line to enter the country was a great-great-great-grandmother who did so in the early 19th century, but as the importation of slaves was officially outlawed by then, there's no knowing when exactly. Everyone else had come or had *already been here* (as one of my family lines is Lumbee) for many generations before that, and all were Southern. I'm so gee-dee Southern it hurts. How 'bout that, now? Be kind of dumb for me to "despise" any of those things, wouldn't it? What kind of feminist am I? Well, an Islamic feminist, actually.

I also happen to be a Muslim. Since you bring up not defining Moon in such a narrow fashion as *just* a bigot -- which I don't believe I did, here or elsewhere, although she certainly is one -- I'd point out that in her polemic, she seemed to want to define all Muslims in this country -- and elsewhere -- under such narrow and ridiculously presumptive parameters that as far as I would gather, any Muslim can only be defined as such. And further, MOST of us are NOT civilized persons, and are "unfit for citizenship" by dint of our beliefs. She did allow as how some of us walk around on our hind legs and all, and a few might even be moderate to liberal, but...oh, and also, apparently we're all immigrants. Unrepentantly unassimilated immigrants, at that, who don't really like America (well, her myopic vision of it, one infers) and the majority of the Muslim world showed -- what -- "glee"? -- at 9/11...despite all evidence to the contrary, in fact.

So in all that, she's lumped and stereotyped a whole LOT of people that happens to include me. And done so pretty inaccurately, even leaving me out as some kind of possible anomaly (given that the first documented Muslim in this country was a half-Dutch immigrant who set foot in New Amsterdam in the 1600s, and 10-20% of slaves were Muslims, I'd wager that we non-first-generation-immigrant US Muslims are not exactly hen's teeth.)

So in trying to clutch your pearls about me possibly stereotyping Miz Moon, you uh, managed to make some possibly-embarrassing assumptions about me. While wholly laying aside the fact that Moon did *precisely* that about not only me, but every other Muslim in the US.

I think you might not really want to have the conversation you think want to have with me. I have a feeling you'd be disappointed.

October 24, 2010 at 2:37 AM
Will Shetterly said...

hotcoffeems, why would I be disappointed? I'm glad you don't share the class prejudice of some of the folks on your side. But since you don't disrespect those other things she is, am I right to conclude that you think her bigotry trumps them? If you can point to some other feminist conservative Southern former Marine award-winning writer whose children make them aware of ableism issues, I'd be grateful. I got nothing.

Though I'm closest to Christianity, I take inspiration from all of the world's religions. Here's a bit from the Qur'an that I like:

The recompense for an injury
is an injury equal thereto (in degree),
but if a person forgives and makes reconciliation,
his reward is due from God,
for God loves not those who do wrong.
But indeed, if any do help and defend themselves
after a wrong done to them,
against such there is no cause of blame.
The blame is only against those who oppress men
with wrongdoing and insolently transgress
beyond bounds through the land,
defying right and justice.
For such there will be a penalty grievous (in the Hereafter).
But indeed, if any show patience and forgive,
that would truly be an affair of great resolution.
Qur'an 42:40-43

Forgiving people who are prisoners of their own bigotry is hard. But if you believe racism is systemic, shouldn't you blame the people who control the system, not the people who have fallen for it?

October 24, 2010 at 3:08 AM
Will Shetterly said...

I'm especially fond of Sufis. This is from Hazrat Inayat Khan:

"The lover of goodness loves every little sign of goodness. He overlooks the faults and fills up the gaps by pouring out love and supplying that which is lacking. This is real nobility of soul. Religion, prayer, and worship, are all intended to ennoble the soul, not to make it narrow, sectarian or bigoted. One cannot arrive at true nobility of spirit if one is not prepared to forgive the imperfections of human nature. For all men, whether worthy or unworthy, require forgiveness, and only in this way can one rise above the lack of harmony and beauty, until at last one arrives at the stage when one begins to reflect all that one has collected."

October 24, 2010 at 3:36 AM
Army Sergeant said...

@lydiabell:
Which portion do you think is publicly espousing bigotry? Which specific portion of her words? I certainly would like to know-except that I can't, because SF3 certainly didn't think it was important enough to tell me. Is it because she thinks the religion of Islam is anti-feminist? Because if so, there's an awful lot of feminists who think organized religion is anti-feminist that you are now declaring are not welcome at WisCon because the religious members will be offended.

Is it because she stopped responding at her journal? Can you seriously, as a woman and a feminist, not see why a woman might get /tired of being yelled at/? Might get tired of waking up every day and opening her email, only to find more and more people saying, bigot, racist, bigot, racist? Might finally, as a writer who does need to eat and who makes her living by thinking about her worlds, not about what a terrible person she might or might not be, decide that the entire thing is just too much?

Because I know I can. I know I've been the target of flamewars like that for much more "noble" reasons and I /still/ left the conversation sometimes. I've been in those five-hundred-comment conversations where people are calling me a traitor, a cunt, who deserves to get shot in the head. For views I thought and still think are right. And as a woman, who exists in a world where I'm tired of receiving both physical and verbal violence, sometimes I bowed out and forced myself not to read those threads. Because engaging in that sort of "discussion" is unhealthy. It is damaging to your mental health.

Why do we say that the inability to engage with abusive people is avoiding discussion? Why do we define our strength in our ability to take abuse? Why can't we create a more healthy model?

Elizabeth Moon was engaging with Nisi. They were having conversations about her statements on the phone, scheduled around /Nisi's/ schedule. She was engaging-and right in the middle of that, that's when the hammer dropped.


@coffeeandink:
I'm looking at the discussions, trust me. And I saw the decision of the female-dominated concom and the Troika was /not/ to rescind her GoH status, and that was very, very shortly before the SF3 board took the decision to rescind it.

October 24, 2010 at 8:17 AM
Anonymous said...

@Army Sergeant: There were a number of points in her post that I consider to be publicly espousing bigotry. The part where she said that the Muslim community in lower Manhattan cannot reasonably expect to exercise their rights as citizens because of the actions of other Muslims. The lie that the "Muslim world in general" showed "indecent glee" over 9/11. The part where she said that Muslims -- not radical fundamentalist Muslims, but Muslims -- have beliefs that "unfit them for citizenshp." The part where she so magnanimously allowed that "many Muslims have all the virtues of civilized persons." (I would not much care to hear from a man that "many women have all the virtues of rational persons," would you?) Those are just some of the most blatant examples.

And she didn't simply delete a bunch of flames. A remarkable proportion of the comments to her were from friends and people who respected her a great deal, who found her words painful and wanted to have a dialogue with her. She refused -- her only response was along the lines of "you're reading my post wrong."

@hotcoffeems: ::applause::

October 24, 2010 at 11:38 AM
Will Shetterly said...

Army Sergeant, a strong woman who is sitting out this flamewar told me that strong women don't cower before mobs. If anything, mobs make it harder for strong women to see when they're wrong. Because feminism ain't about caving to anyone's authority.

October 24, 2010 at 11:43 AM
Will Shetterly said...

lydiabell, I just went to your LJ and tried to leave this comment:

Lydia, I hope you're having a great day, too.

But I confess, I'm leaving this comment here to see if you've banned me. So many of the folks complaining about Moon preventing dissent at her LJ prevent dissent at theirs.

If you haven't banned me, do you believe in banning dissent?

Apologies for a comment that really has nothing to do with your topic, but it's the only way to run the test. For your information, some of the people with double-standards on free speech at blogs include Tempest and Coffeeandink and... Well, the list is long. Nevermind.

But I do hope you're having a great day.

The message that I got: "Logged in user: willshetterly - you have been banned from commenting in this journal."

October 24, 2010 at 11:50 AM
Anonymous said...

Yes, Will, I decided a long time ago that I don't want you in my space. Not "people who disagree with me," but YOU. And since your first attempt to post there was to run your faux-oppressed routine, I think I made the right decision.

October 24, 2010 at 11:55 AM
Anonymous said...

am I right to conclude that you think her bigotry trumps them?

What it means is that I'm not having discussions on this topic -- which does, obviously, include, affect, and *hurt* me -- with her, and...it means that whatever she has to say on that topic is not something I'm interested in hearing. Everyone is entitled to an opinion on a subject, but all opinions are not equal on same. The ones fueled by hate, intolerance, fear, and willful ignorance aren't. She's free to have her learning moments -- in fact, inchallah, she WILL -- but not at the expense of me, or any other person who has been hurt by the kind of attitudes she espoused in that essay. And yes: one of the consequences of those kinds of attitudes IS real injury, not just hurt feelings.

And also, since it seems to be coming up not just with you, but with others: some Western feminists, and I would see a few in this discussion *alone*, believe their brand of feminism allows them to speak *for* and *over* the voices of Muslim women. We have our own voices, and are capable of speaking out on our own behalf and our own terms, which happen to include Islam, not vilify it from half-baked ignorance and preconceptions. There is a reason Islamic feminism exists; and it does exist.

@Lydia: thank you very much.

October 24, 2010 at 12:00 PM
Anonymous said...

@ArmySergeant: The caps of all those comments she deleted, which have been linked *numerous* times in this discussion, include AMPLE explanations of WHAT about that polemic was bigoted.

s it because she thinks the religion of Islam is anti-feminist? Because if so, there's an awful lot of feminists who think organized religion is anti-feminist that you are now declaring are not welcome at WisCon because the religious members will be offended.

That's nice. OTOH, many of us Muslimahs -- who have our own very involved form of feminism, saha very bezef -- don't really need to be told by mainstream feminists with an axe to grind and lots of -ist baggage, what is "best" for us. We're as capable as any non-Muslim feminists of doing that for ourselves, and indisputably better qualified. In fact, we HAVE been doing that. Without your prejudiced baggage.

October 24, 2010 at 12:07 PM
Will Shetterly said...

Lydia, you make your position clear: it's wrong for Moon to silence dissent after getting pages of comments, but it's right for you to prevent the possibility of dissent. In this case, I tested to see if you prevent speech on your blog and I wished you well. You do prevent speech on your blog, and I still wish you well.

hotcoffeems, the people who want Moon to speak despite her bigotry do not want to silence your feminism. You only want to silence theirs. The meaning of "free speech" is that no one is silenced.

Does Islamic feminism condone silencing other women? I confess, that troubles me.

October 24, 2010 at 12:23 PM
Anonymous said...

@ArmySergeant: Yes, I can tell the Wiscon Concom was overturned against their will and paying no attention to their membership response.

October 24, 2010 at 12:23 PM
Anonymous said...

@Will: I'm pretty much done with you, since this is not you not getting it but you being disingenuous, (the babbling about free speech completely was your tell, I'm afraid to tell you).

*She is free to say whatever she pleases. I am refusing to listen to it. For extremely good reason.*

What part of that is difficult for you to get? None of it, I imagine. Now you're just coming across as rather slimy.

October 24, 2010 at 12:28 PM
Will Shetterly said...

hotcoffeems, "disingenuousness" seems to be an all-purpose evasion for y'all. Why would I be disingenuous? I believe strongly in free speech, and if you think that's a "tell", it's a tell that I believe strongly in free speech.

I made another post about this: replying to Saladin Ahmed: one more about Elizabeth Moon, Wiscon, and free speech. If you don't want to go there, here's the crucial bit: "Yes, not being invited to speak is not a speech issue. But being uninvited to speak is."

I assume "slimy" is another way to describe a heretic, and it's true that I find all kinds of problems with the repressive nature of neoliberal anti-racism theory, so, sure, I'm slimy. When I was a kid in Florida, the equivalent insult was "doodoo bug."

Since you claim to be an anti-racist and a Muslim, I hope you'll respect Malcolm X's rejection of what your side calls the "tone argument." He said, “Be peaceful, be courteous, obey the law, respect everyone; but if someone puts his hand on you, send him to the cemetery.”

I found another nice Islamic injunction to treat people with respect: "You should always try to greet people first, since according to the Prophet (S), 90% of the Thawaab goes to the one who offers salaam, and 10% of the Thawaab goes to the one who replies."

Salaam.

October 24, 2010 at 1:02 PM
Anonymous said...

Oh, Mr. Shetterly...

Just cut it the hell out already; I *know* what you're doing. You're acting like a doodoo bug.

Salaam to you too, now get on with your day.

October 24, 2010 at 1:05 PM
Anonymous said...

A private organization voluntarily disinvites someone to avoid controversy and maintain good PR. This is censorship because...

October 24, 2010 at 1:07 PM
Anonymous said...

Hi. I'm Will Shetterly. I confuse the actions of a private NGO with censorship because I am a fuckshit.

October 24, 2010 at 1:09 PM
Will Shetterly said...

hotcoffeems, dang, I can't remember a thing in the Qur'an about mindreaders, but you made me grin. You have a good one, too.

etherealmonkey, you keep having fun flinging that ethereal poo. But if you get tired, why do you think censorship is only associated with governments? Leave a comment on my blog, and I could censor it if I wished. You're confusing free speech issues with First Amendment issues, which are intersectional, but not identical.

October 24, 2010 at 1:16 PM
Anonymous said...

Free speech means absolute unfettered speech in every location at all times ever. As a well-known fuckshit, I, Will Shetterly, am completely unable to grasp the practical and philosophical problems of defining free speech in this way.

October 24, 2010 at 1:27 PM
Anonymous said...

Geez, Will Shetterly, why do you keep calling yourself a fuckshit? That seems a little harsh. I mean, sure, we all make mistakes, but we can learn from them.

October 24, 2010 at 1:32 PM
Anonymous said...

I cannot believe that you are in the business of the written word. Elizabeth Moon said nothing that many have said, as feminists or simply as a matter of opinion, about other religions, and have not had their freedom of speech suffer these horrible consequences. You are more un-American than the people she wrote about. Even while I don't agree with everything she said, I defend her full right to say it without having to pay these consequences to shut her up. And finally, she is not a racist--Islam is not a race.
Ms. Moon, like myself, fought in Vietnam. You were not worth fighting for.

October 24, 2010 at 1:40 PM
Anonymous said...

ah, so now I see that will shetterly is a fuckshit. quoting the koran in part is like a test fart. if you continue the real thing, it stinks to high heaven

October 24, 2010 at 1:44 PM
Anonymous said...

"Interests: Islam's desire to rule the world"

lmao

October 24, 2010 at 1:52 PM
Anonymous said...

@etherealmonkey:

I've already tried to claim Key West and Nice when we get to rule the world, but someone else may have called Nice first...

October 24, 2010 at 1:56 PM
Anonymous said...

"but it's right for you to prevent the possibility of dissent."

Not dissent, Will. Bad behavior. Your behavior, in particular. Army Sergeant, for example, would be more than welcome to comment in my journals. I haven't been watching her be an ass to people for the last two years.

And that is all I have to say to you. Perhaps for the rest of my life, although I do not wholly discount the possibility that people can change.

October 24, 2010 at 2:23 PM
Will Shetterly said...

Lydia, "Bad behavior"? You're making a "tone argument" against me? Does that make you a concern troll? Isn't that just a tactic for avoiding the issue?

Okay, I'm done laughing.

Seriously, you're simultaneously defending your right to be abusive while getting hissy about the big mean critic of anti-racism theory. But then, double-standards just don't bother y'all.

etherealmonkey and haremstress, if you're sockpuppets who are actually on my side, please stop; it's not helping. On the other hand, if you're really on their side, I hope you never leave.

October 24, 2010 at 2:56 PM
Will Shetterly said...

Lydia, etherealmonkey, and haremstress, behaving in a respectful way during contentious internet debates is a challenge. Upon reflection, I am sorry I made my previous comment. It was fail. I'll try to express my amusement in gentler ways henceforth.

October 24, 2010 at 3:21 PM
Anonymous said...

So...the Convention organizer's idea of a "feminist" science fiction convention is to retaliate against a female science fiction author for expressing a political viewpoint they don't agree with.

Nice.

I doubt they even see the irony or have the good sense to be embarrassed by it.

October 24, 2010 at 4:40 PM
Anonymous said...

Ah...looks like they're censoring comments as well. Viva tolerance :)

October 24, 2010 at 6:42 PM
Curmudgeon said...

Anonymous said...
I think this was the wrong thing to do, and as a member of Wiscon I would vote against doing it -- if I had a vote.
Which apparently I don't.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

But you DO have a vote -- it's called a wallet, keep your money inside it and don't hand it over to WisCon.

October 24, 2010 at 9:01 PM
Anonymous said...

allochthon, I just realized that your summary of the Moss affair is woefully inadequate for folks who know nothing about it.

Reading comprehension fail on my part. I was reading too fast and thought you said the PTB left the death threat. As in the ConCom or troika.

And have you really never heard of the Secret Feminist Cabal?
This, though, is rich. The book is sitting on my bed. I was referencing the idea of you using that term, in this context. It's a klein bottle of irony.

October 25, 2010 at 12:43 AM
Will Shetterly said...

allochthon, yes, I was using it as a joke. I can't remember when I first heard about the Secret Feminist Cabal--I'm pretty sure it was before Emma was a Wiscon GoH. Sorry the joke wasn't clear. I didn't really expect the term to get any attention.

October 25, 2010 at 1:09 AM
Saladin Ahmed said...

This was the right move, and is appreciated. Thanks. More to say here: http://bit.ly/cbDSgB

October 25, 2010 at 9:28 AM
Luke said...

Hypocritical scum.

October 25, 2010 at 4:50 PM
Benjamin Rosenbaum said...

Whoops, things have moved on and I have not read everything above, but I wanted to reassure Will of my reading skills.

Yes, I know Ms. Moon likes Jews -- she bent over backwards to compare us nice assimilatin' Jews with those ornery non-assimilatin' Muslims. This does not decrease my rage in the least. My point is that Moon's rhetoric chills my blood because it echoes precisely what was said about Jews when we were considered difficult to assimilate and inherently foreign. That we are now kindly forgiven our differentness is, let me tell you, not in the least reassuring.

In fact it's sort of particularly galling to be used as a stick to beat the next guy. There's a bitter irony in the use of Jews as models of praiseworthy citizenship in an attack conforms in its structure precisely to traditional anti-Semitism.

Separately galling to me as a Jew -- and I am not saying Moon is saying exactly this, though "believe things that unfit them for citizenship", in the context of the liberals who wanted to build the Ground Zero community center, certainly points in that direction -- are all those "clash of civilizations" arguments about how Islamic law is fundamentally inimical to democracy (because Islam is a worldly religion with no distinction between church and state, in which, at least in Sunni Islam, scholars interpret revealed laws which apply to the whole of life, instead of rendering unto Caesar that which is Caesar's). They apply *exactly* as well to Judaism. To say "well stoning women to death for adultery is the core of Islam, that will never change, and all attempts at so-called liberal Islam (like the folks who wanted to build that community center at Ground Zero) are merely a front for the sly imposition of old-school Shari'a" is also presumably, by identical logic, to say the same thing about Judaism -- whether the speaker knows it or not. That their affection for Judaism is based in wishful ignorance is not exactly reassuring.

October 26, 2010 at 7:06 AM
Anonymous said...

You evil, miserable cowards. You sick, sleazy pigs. Liz Moon had the audacity to say - correctly - that Muslims should try to assimilate to U.S. culture and for this she got punted. Fry in hell, you leftist cows.

October 26, 2010 at 8:34 AM
Will Shetterly said...

I can't say whether it was the right move, but it was censorship: it's all one thing: uninviting a speaker is censorship: Elizabeth Moon, Wiscon, ACLU, and more

October 26, 2010 at 1:09 PM
Will Shetterly said...

Apologies if this turns out to be a double post, but it looks like my previous attempt didn't take: uninviting a speaker is censorship: Elizabeth Moon, Wiscon, ACLU, and more.

October 26, 2010 at 1:32 PM
Anonymous said...

Will, please shut up already! You are supposed to be slaving over your keyboard writing fiction for me read, not playing Batman of the Blogs.

October 26, 2010 at 9:59 PM
Anonymous said...

Oh, for Pete's sake. Being acceptant of gender, and race, and religion NECESSITATES being intolerant of accusations that those people are somehow lesser. And by "intolerant" I mean exactly what we've seen here - refusing to give money to that person, refusing to honor that person, speaking out against them.

This. Is. Not. Hypocritical.

Being tolerant of sexual orientation does not mean you have to be tolerant of homophobia. In fact it means that you CAN'T tolerate it. Similarly, a person who claims to be tolerant of all these classifications is not being hypocritical if they are not tolerant of all opinions, of all behaviors. It means they must speak out against some of it.

Now, if you don't believe feminism should assume equality and acceptance for everyone - class, race, religion, etc. - then maybe this action does seem inappropriate. But my understanding is that WisCon never pretended to believe anything different. If you don't think that's what feminism is it's understandable - there are many definitions. But that does seem to be the one WisCon has adopted, and so this behavior seems to make sense. I'm sorry that it's led to people choosing not to go - I'm guessing some of you are pretty cool. But I think WisCon did make their definition pretty clear.

October 26, 2010 at 11:33 PM
Celtic Bear's Cave said...

One of the things I love about speculative fiction is its ability to view society under microscope. One of the things I love about freedom of the press in this country is that it allows the Fourth Estate to discuss societal matters in a way elected public figures, with their inherent vested interest in keeping the tyranny of the majority placated, can never do. I am a librarian and a fanboy… and the actions of SF3 appall me to my core on both those levels. Ms. Moon’s essay was insightful, truthful, and thought provoking which are the earmarks of good speculative fiction as well.

Shame on you SF3, shame on you WisCon, this is a sad day for fandom.

October 27, 2010 at 7:00 AM
Anonymous said...

"Hypocritical scum."

Stay classy, man, stay classy.

October 27, 2010 at 3:43 PM
Anonymous said...

You guys are immature cowards for dis-inviting her because you disagree about a political topic. Free to be you and me, as long as you agree with me?

October 27, 2010 at 6:06 PM
«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 249 of 249   Newer› Newest»

Post a Comment