# Mercedes Lackey Ejected From Nebula Conference For Using Racial Slur



## The Myopic Sniper (May 23, 2022)

This is the same weekend she got named as a Grand Master. Their most prestigious award. 






						Statement on Removal of Mercedes Lackey from the Nebula Conference - SFWA
					

We are immediately removing Mercedes Lackey from the conference and the additional panels she was scheduled for, in accordance with SFWA’s Moderation Policy.




					www.sfwa.org


----------



## The Myopic Sniper (May 23, 2022)

Deleted for now. Waiting for press coverage.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 23, 2022)

Damn it.


----------



## TerraDave (May 23, 2022)




----------



## doctorbadwolf (May 23, 2022)

The Myopic Sniper said:


> This is the same weekend she got named as a Grand Master. Their most prestigious award.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I wish they’d indicated what she actually said, with censoring of course. 

It’s gonna bug me. 

Also dammit. 

Edit: ok found out. Maybe I live in an oil town and I’m too used to this sort of thing, but i didn’t know that was classified as a slur. I know it’s not the preferred nomenclature, but it being a slur surprises me.  

Still, it’s been outdated language, _at least_, for most of my life. I hope she makes a public apology.


----------



## Parmandur (May 23, 2022)

TerraDave said:


>



Oh, "Colored?" Kind of bizarrely anachronistic, but is that actually a slur? My grandfather tended to use it, but he was a grown adult when the NCAAP was formed, so I think he was just using the word he thought was acceptable and polite.


----------



## Parmandur (May 23, 2022)

doctorbadwolf said:


> I wish they’d indicated what she actually said, with censoring of course.
> 
> It’s gonna bug me.
> 
> Also dammit.



She called another writer "colored" during a panel.


----------



## John R Davis (May 23, 2022)

She said the word " colored", and didn't realise she best not use such a word


----------



## doctorbadwolf (May 23, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> She called another writer "colored" during a panel.



Like I said upthread in an edit: “Maybe I live in an oil town and I’m too used to this sort of thing, but i didn’t know that was classified as a slur. I know it’s not the preferred nomenclature, but it being a slur surprises me.  

Still, it’s been outdated language, _at least_, for most of my life. I hope she makes a public apology.”


----------



## Parmandur (May 23, 2022)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Like I said upthread in an edit: “Maybe I live in an oil town and I’m too used to this sort of thing, but i didn’t know that was classified as a slur. I know it’s not the preferred nomenclature, but it being a slur surprises me.
> 
> Still, it’s been outdated language, _at least_, for most of my life. I hope she makes a public apology.”



Yeah, I mean, I came in the thread expecting M. A. R. Barker writing a Nazi novel levels of Scandal. Old person uses what was the correct term when she was young? Awkward and embarrassing, but Im6more relieved than scandalized.

But, yeah, I knew it wasn't in use anymore, but I hadn't ever heard it was a slur. Given that People or Person of Color is common now, thst she got a wired crossed with her youth. She's in her 70's.


----------



## John R Davis (May 23, 2022)

I wonder if the 80 year recepient was offended, or others were befended on their behalf?

I'm from the UK and the C always confuses me? POC is ok but C isn't?


----------



## The Myopic Sniper (May 23, 2022)

The writer she referred to, Samuel Delany, has responded on Facebook. If the forum moderators have an issue with the language feel free to edit or delete it.  

""Colored ladies," was what my aunts Bessie and Sadie referred to themselves as, and I favored "black"(with a small B, because because of my experiences in '68, with the activists who changed the country from "Negro" to Dr. Du Bois's preferred term). Among colored or black or Negro folks he had no problem—since scientifically there is no such thing as race, the terms are all social constructs. With all due respect for anyone over 60, there are no "bad words;" it depends alone on the vernacular you were brought up with. (Prescriptive usage and grammar starts out as a lost cause.) I would like to see institutions leave their hands off the spoken language of their elders. At 8 years my junior, and a native of a city I am very fond of, Mercedes Lackey has my permission to speak of me in any way she chooses. "Person of color" is just awkward (so I wouldn't use it myself); my paternal grandfather was born a slave, and there were white mongrels and Native Americans scattered throughout; "colored" has no negative connotations among any speakers black or white in my family and never had.”"


----------



## John R Davis (May 23, 2022)

80 years of wisdom right there.


----------



## Hussar (May 23, 2022)

Look, I'm about as liberal as it comes.  I wear my social justice warrior badge with pride.   But even I think that's going WAYYY too far.  That's overkill right there.


----------



## Tonguez (May 23, 2022)

Wait Colored is a slur but People of Color is okay? 
I’m brown btw and think PoC is a stupid term, but I didnt know colored had been escalated from outdated to actual slur…


----------



## Zardnaar (May 23, 2022)

Want the word I expected. Only read one of her books Elvenbane iirc.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 23, 2022)

It’s terminology that’s on the cusp.  It does have a history as a mild slur* that was also used non-pejoratively within the community, but it isn’t an _unequivocally_ racist term.  I would personally NOT like it tossed in my direction, and it’s use is gradually sliding out of favor in polite circles.  And that decline has been ongoing for many decades.

Ms. Lackey should probably apologize, especially if she can reasonably claim she was unaware of its history or can claim it’s terminology that she’s tried to excise from her own vocabulary after growing up with it.  (Or some such.)






* it was the go-to word  when stronger slurs would have been considered a breach of etiquette or to give bigots plausible deniability on their hate.


----------



## Zardnaar (May 23, 2022)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> It’s terminology that’s on the cusp.  It does have a history as a mild slur* that was also used non-pejoratively within the community, but it isn’t an _unequivocally_ racist term.  I would personally NOT like it tossed in my direction, and it’s use is gradually sliding out of favor in polite circles.  And that decline has been ongoing for many decades.
> 
> Ms. Lackey should probably apologize, especially if she can reasonably claim she was unaware of its history or can claim it’s terminology that she’s tried to excise from her own vocabulary after grow8ngnup with it.  (Or some such.)
> 
> ...




 Don't here the term here outside of American stuff. It was probably that wild side song I first heard it. 

I was expecting the N word that was in a child nursery rhyme here in the 80's seeing it used was probably the Blazing Saddles movie also in the 80's.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 23, 2022)

I was also expecting worse, since the action elicited was apparently so swift.


----------



## delericho (May 23, 2022)

John R Davis said:


> I'm from the UK and the C always confuses me? POC is ok but C isn't?



My understanding (which might of course be wrong) is that "coloured" implies something that was done to a person, while "person of colour" reflects inherent fact that it's an inherent trait. (Contrast with "enslaved person", which reflects the fact that that _is _something that was done to the person.)

As for the issue in question: given that the preferred terminology has changed at least twice within my lifetime, and given that the NAACP hasn't felt the need to change its name, I'd argue that making a mistake is forgivable. Assuming, of course, that it _was_ a mistake, which will be confirmed by an apology forthcoming. (Although I must also acknowledge that I'd be arguing from a privileged position - I am not, after all, in the affected group.)


----------



## Dausuul (May 23, 2022)

I agree that an apology from Ms. Lackey would be appropriate. But a full-throated apology from the Nebula conference would also be very much in order. This was a gross overreaction--the response from the person to whom the term was actually addressed is telling.


----------



## Myrdin Potter (May 23, 2022)

The was not Delaney that had the issue, it was another panelist who had the problem and went to Twitter about it after the panel.


----------



## John R Davis (May 23, 2022)

Myrdin Potter said:


> The was not Delaney that had the issue, it was another panelist who had the problem and went to Twitter about it after the panel.



Befended, as I said.


----------



## MGibster (May 23, 2022)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> It’s terminology that’s on the cusp. It does have a history as a mild slur* that was also used non-pejoratively within the community, but it isn’t an _unequivocally_ racist term. I would personally NOT like it tossed in my direction, and it’s use is gradually sliding out of favor in polite circles. And that decline has been ongoing for many decades.



Like Negro, I typically wouldn't use colored unless describing something in its historical context such as the Bureau of Colored Troops or Negro league baseball.  I would never describe someone today as a Negro or colored person though.  And while I've used "people of color" in recent years, I try to avoid it because it makes me a little uncomfortable because to my ear it's very close to calling someone colored. 


Zardnaar said:


> I was expecting the N word that was in a child nursery rhyme here in the 80's seeing it used was probably the Blazing Saddles movie also in the 80's.



_Blazing Saddles _was released in theaters way back in 1974.


----------



## delericho (May 23, 2022)

John R Davis said:


> Befended, as I said.



Given that the other panelist was also a person of colour, I don't think she was offended on behalf of the author being referenced. She objected to the use of that term on her own account - at least, that's the impression I got from her Twitter thread.


----------



## payn (May 23, 2022)

I hope Lackey has a chance to apologize to folks and get this sorted out. 

Also, this was a public forum so its not up to one person to say if this is offensive or not. Nebula Conference has every right to say this isn't allowed at their functions. How many times has this been sorted out behind the scenes and then a conference gets bombarded by folks for not taking action on their policies? It may seem like a harsh reaction, but its going to flush that language right out of the conference in the future.


----------



## Blue (May 23, 2022)

John R Davis said:


> Befended, as I said.



Sorry, I can't find a definition for that even on urban dictionary.  Can you help me understand?


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (May 23, 2022)

payn said:


> I hope Lackey has a chance to apologize to folks and get this sorted out.
> 
> Also, this was a public forum so its not up to one person to say if this is offensive or not. Nebula Conference has every right to say this isn't allowed at their functions. How many times has this been sorted out behind the scenes and then a conference gets bombarded by folks for not taking action on their policies? It may seem like a harsh reaction, but its going to flush that language right out of the conference in the future.




I am going to disagree with this.

Words (with their shifting connotations and denotations) can be tricky. Especially as you get older. And even moreso when there is the possibility of misspeaking in public.

We see this regularly as usages change and get misunderstood or discarded. For example, whether it is more proper to refer to someone as a Native American or Indian (which is a divisive issue for some within the community). Or in the instant case, the evolution of the term from one word (as in the College Fund) to colored (NAACP) to black to African-American to black to the broader "POC" (which is both overly broad and unwieldy at times). Or the evolution that many of us have seen from the "inclusive" homosexual and then gay (to include various sexualities) to the more delineated LGBTQA+. Or even usages like Hispanic or Latino/Latina which is now sometimes Latinx, and which is also not always correct because of the varying meanings of those terms. Or, to use something we've discussed many times here, the shift in the usage of term Oriental over time. 

In short, it can be difficult. It's difficult for even people that try their best to keep up with best practices and usage, and it can be insanely difficult for people that are older- if you don't believe me, just talk to someone over 60 for a while and see how often they refer to their children by the wrong name. 

Here, Mercedes Lackey was being honored at the Nebula Awards. She was receiving the lifetime award this year- the Damon Knight Memorial Grand Master Award.  During a panel, she was discussing her admiration of another, great writer (Samuel Delaney, a prior winner of the award). Importantly, she spoke of her admiration of Delaney. 

Did she misspeak? Did she stumble over her words while reaching for "POC?" Did she simply have a moment and end up regretfully using a word that was common in her youth? The only thing for certain is that there was certainly no ill intent given the context of her statement regarding the great Delaney, and no use of a racial _slur _(as opposed to an outdated term that we no longer commonly use). 

But what happened? For this, on the year that she was given the highest lifetime award, the same one that put her in the same category as Samuel Delaney, Ursula K. LeGuin, Ray Bradbury, and C. J. Cherryh, she was removed from the Nebula Conference and all her panels. 

In my opinion, this was not handled appropriately. Mercedes Lackey used a poor choice of words- something I am sure she would have explained (and, most likely, apologized for). But the action of the organizers of the Nebular Conference was over-the-top and uncalled for. Both because they publicized her removal and tarred her with using a "racial slur" (thus leaving it to many people to assume the worst) and also because they tarnished what should have been the culmination of a lifetime of experience.

Again, this is IMO. This could have been, and should have been, handled differently.


----------



## This Effin’ GM (May 23, 2022)

I’m not an expert on incusionary language but should we be repeating the offending word every other response like it’s going out of style?


----------



## payn (May 23, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> I am going to disagree with this.
> 
> Words (with their shifting connotations and denotations) can be tricky. Especially as you get older. And even moreso when there is the possibility of misspeaking in public.
> 
> ...



I do appreciate the context of the incident. I could be convinced that total removal is a punishment too far. I also respect the Nebula Conference for their choice in how to handle it. To often folks are allowed to use outdated language under the guise of "they are old" and I don't find it to be an acceptable excuse. Also, it doesn't matter if Lackey was up for an award, how many times have folks allowed terrible behavior to go on because of somebody's legacy? That is also an unacceptable excuse. Not sure what the best answer is, but I am glad Nebula Conference has decided to put some standards in place. This isn't about who finds it offensive or who doesn't, its about how an organization chooses to uphold their moderation policies.


----------



## MGibster (May 23, 2022)

payn said:


> Also, this was a public forum so its not up to one person to say if this is offensive or not. Nebula Conference has every right to say this isn't allowed at their functions.



As is often pointed out in these kinds of discussions, of course the Nebula Conference has every right to say what is and isn't allowed at their functions.  That doesn't mean they're free from criticism of course.  And the same applies to Lacky of course.  



Snarf Zagyg said:


> In my opinion, this was not handled appropriately. Mercedes Lackey used a poor choice of words- something I am sure she would have explained (and, most likely, apologized for). But the action of the organizers of the Nebular Conference was over-the-top and uncalled for. Both because they publicized her removal and tarred her with using a "racial slur" (thus leaving it to many people to assume the worst) and also because they tarnished what should have been the culmination of a lifetime of experience.



Based on the Nebula Conferenes statement, I had assumed Lacky must have either dropped the nuclear bomb of words in her speech or used a fairly seriously derogatory word.  Like I said earlier, I'm never going to refer to someone using the word Lackey chose, but my first reaction to it isn't to take offense but to think, "Man, that's really archaic!"  Though I suppose that could change based on the context.  



Snarf Zagyg said:


> We see this regularly as usages change and get misunderstood or discarded. For example, whether it is more proper to refer to someone as a Native American or Indian (which is a divisive issue for some within the community). Or in the instant case, the evolution of the term from one word (as in the College Fund) to colored (NAACP) to black to African-American to black to the broader "POC" (which is both overly broad and unwieldy at times).



Part of diversity is recognizing that we all have different experiences and that includes language used and even exposure to ideas.  And I want to nip this in the bud:  No, I'm not arguing that we should tolerate deliberate use of language that's designed to denigrate other people out of some misguided attempt at respecting diversity.  But maybe, just maybe, when someone isn't using the currently preferred words or expressions, and doesn't appear to mean any harm, we can cut them a little slack.  Correcting them is fine, but maybe we don't have to go nuclear and punish them.  (I felt the same way about Whoopie Goldberg's recent gaff on _The View_.  I didn't agree with Goldberg, but maybe an African American woman has a different perspective on race than I do.)  



This Effin’ GM said:


> I’m not an expert on incusionary language but should we be repeating the offending word every other response like it’s going out of style?



There are plenty of contexts were the word is perfectly acceptable to use.  In front of children even.


----------



## deganawida (May 23, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> IFor example, whether it is more proper to refer to someone as a Native American or Indian (which is a divisive issue for some within the community).




Just to add a little firsthand commentary on this: My father and I both go by Indian (Ojibwe if you want to be specific, but most Americans have no idea what that means, and yeah I know my handle is not an Ojibwe name, but he was a hero of mine). My grandfather was illegitimate and grew up in a German town in Iowas. He was called “that Indian bastard” until he was 40.  We go by Indian in honor of what he experienced.


----------



## Retreater (May 23, 2022)

payn said:


> To often folks are allowed to use outdated language under the guise of "they are old" and I don't find it to be an acceptable excuse.



I'm 43, and I am not consistently perfect in my speech - though I'm continuing to try to do better. When it's terminology you're not used to using, when you haven't practiced the correct contemporary use of language (probably because you don't often engage in political discourse), I can see it being an easy mistake to make. On top of it, it seems the context was one of admiration and respect for the writer of color being referenced.
When we're 80, we'll see how well we do on that. I have a feeling that we'll be embarrassed of the harsh judgment we're putting on our elders - people who are essentially the age of many of our grandparents.


----------



## John R Davis (May 23, 2022)

Blue said:


> Sorry, I can't find a definition for that even on urban dictionary.  Can you help me understand?



As everyone seems to just make words up left right and centre I did the same:

Befended is to be offended on another's behalf ( even if they are clearly not offended).

&

Fentitled is to be offended by, and entitled to, everything!


----------



## This Effin’ GM (May 23, 2022)

MGibster said:


> There are plenty of contexts were the word is perfectly acceptable to use.  In front of children even.



That sounds like opinion not fact but I’m not going to debate that with you.

The context here though is “this word is considered a racial slur” and a fair amount of the responses are “______ is a racial slur but I use it all the time it can’t be.” “Yeah the word _____ is fine.” I’m not saying that’s every response but I am asking: is this the wisest move on our part? 

I mean I feel like if this was an acceptable context, you would have said it, not “the word”, is perfectly acceptable to use.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (May 23, 2022)

This Effin’ GM said:


> That sounds like opinion not fact but I’m not going to debate that with you.




"I colored in the book."

"Great! Did you use the purple crayon?"



This Effin’ GM said:


> The context here though is “this word is considered a racial slur” and a fair amount of the responses are “______ is a racial slur but I use it all the time it can’t be.” “Yeah the word _____ is fine.” I’m not saying that’s every response but I am asking: is this the wisest move on our part?




I think most people are trying to differentiate between words that are _slurs_ (as in words that meant to be offensive and demeaning) as opposed to terms that are outdated and/or archaic.*



This Effin’ GM said:


> I mean I feel like if this was an acceptable context, you would have said it, not “the word”, is perfectly acceptable to use.




Well, take it up with Samuel Delaney. Words and context are tricky, and there isn't universal agreement on some of them.

Again, I would be sad if we lost the amazing legacy of the NAACP and luminaries like Thurgood Marshall because someone took offense at their acronym.



*ETA- and even that can be tricky, because the same word that is a slur when used by one group to demean another can be empowering when used by the group that slur originally targeted.


----------



## Mallus (May 23, 2022)

For god's sake that word's part of the NAACP's _name_. It's in the title of Ntozake Shange's most famous play. 

It's anachronistic and no longer a preferred term, but unless it was used in the context of more racist speech, this seems like the kind of mishandled overreaction that can do real harm to the cause of social justice (the rightwing media loves stuff like this),


----------



## This Effin’ GM (May 23, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> "I colored in the book."
> 
> "Great! Did you use the purple crayon?"
> 
> ...



Different word. Homonyms may be spelled the same but are different words. Whatever. I voiced my concern.


----------



## billd91 (May 23, 2022)

This Effin’ GM said:


> That sounds like opinion not fact but I’m not going to debate that with you.
> 
> The context here though is “this word is considered a racial slur” and a fair amount of the responses are “______ is a racial slur but I use it all the time it can’t be.” “Yeah the word _____ is fine.” I’m not saying that’s every response but I am asking: is this the wisest move on our part?
> 
> I mean I feel like if this was an acceptable context, you would have said it, not “the word”, is perfectly acceptable to use.



I get where you're coming from but in this case, POC vs CP, isn't like dropping the N bomb. I've *seen* people slip up and use some variation of CP instead of POC when they've intended but bobbled the latter. And I think if people hadn't been explicit with the issue, given the severity of the response, we'd have been tempted to expect a more severe infraction.
That said, now that someone has been explicit with the infraction, I think it's easy enough to step back from constantly using it...


----------



## Morrus (May 23, 2022)

I'm in my 40s, and I recall that the word was inappropriate in that context when I was about 18. This is not a new thing.


----------



## dragoner (May 23, 2022)

Its like people just heard of SFWA ...


----------



## This Effin’ GM (May 23, 2022)

billd91 said:


> I get where you're coming from but in this case, POC vs CP, isn't like dropping the N bomb. I've *seen* people slip up and use some variation of CP instead of POC when they've intended but bobbled the latter. And I think if people hadn't been explicit with the issue, given the severity of the response, we'd have been tempted to expect a more severe infraction.
> That said, now that someone has been explicit with the infraction, I think it's easy enough to step back from constantly using it...



Yeah I want it to be clear I’m not saying “everyone here is being racist as hell” I’m saying “we might want to be careful with what we are saying” because it’s easy when it’s not ‘the n word’ to start using it left and right because of a technical semantic protection. That’s it.


----------



## Retreater (May 23, 2022)

Morrus said:


> I'm in my 40s, and I recall that the word was inappropriate in that context when I was about 18. This is not a new thing.



Maybe 20ish years seems like a new thing when you're 80? 
Not saying its right to use that language, but it's certainly common (at least in my part of the USA) amongst that generation.


----------



## Mallus (May 23, 2022)

Morrus said:


> I'm in my 40s, and I recall that the word was inappropriate in that context when I was about 18. This is not a new thing.



I'd say it's like the word 'oriental'. Out-of-date, mildly-to-moderately offensive, but not really a slur unless deliberately used as invective.


----------



## payn (May 23, 2022)

Retreater said:


> I'm 43, and I am not consistently perfect in my speech - though I'm continuing to try to do better. When it's terminology you're not used to using, when you haven't practiced the correct contemporary use of language (probably because you don't often engage in political discourse), I can see it being an easy mistake to make. On top of it, it seems the context was one of admiration and respect for the writer of color being referenced.
> When we're 80, we'll see how well we do on that. I have a feeling that we'll be embarrassed of the harsh judgment we're putting on our elders - people who are essentially the age of many of our grandparents.



Perhaps im extra sensitive to it, but I find the word used to long be considered poor form. Many see it as simply outdated, but many also see it as the only acceptable way to now say the N word in public. Also, I have very racist family members who are constantly given a pass because, "they are old". I dont believe old dogs cant learn new tricks.

It sucks that Lackey is being made an example of here. I believe her intentions and understand the context. Though, Clint Eastwood movies for the last decade or longer are about him going around being un-politically correct. It's either seen as funny or old school common sense because he is too old to know better or has ripened wisdom. Nobody checks that behavior they just allow it like old people are some unstoppable force. Politicians too say this with nary a finger wag because being 60 is too hard to learn new things. Its not, and I think its time folks started being more serious about this.


----------



## dragoner (May 23, 2022)

This Effin’ GM said:


> Yeah I want it to be clear I’m not saying “everyone here is being racist as hell” I’m saying “we might want to be careful with what we are saying” because it’s easy when it’s not ‘the n word’ to start using it left and right because of a technical semantic protection. That’s it.



I grew up in Texas, where that word was used as a noun, verb, and adjective. I can understand somebody totally getting upset about the usage of a similar term at the panel. In general it is best to not call out someone's ethnicity.


----------



## Waller (May 23, 2022)

Mallus said:


> I'd say it's like the word 'oriental'. Out-of-date, mildly-to-moderately offensive, but not really a slur unless deliberately used as invective.



When I was in London UK just a couple of years ago, that word was everywhere. Supermarkets aisles, in the names of chinese restaurants, everywhere. Once you noticed it it was hard to unnotice it. That news hasn't spread beyod the borders of the US yet!


----------



## Myrdin Potter (May 23, 2022)

John R Davis said:


> Befended, as I said.



The panelist (who is black) appeared to be offended on her own sake, not on Delaney’s sake. The SFWA decided that the word violated their policies and took action.

I believe that there is so previous group (romance writers) that went with something else in similar circumstances and, in Twitter storms, were lambasted for taking too little action.

My personal reaction to this would be to abandon appearances at their events in the future.


----------



## payn (May 23, 2022)

Bunker said:


> When I was in London UK just a couple of years ago, that word was everywhere. Supermarkets aisles, in the names of chinese restaurants, everywhere. Once you noticed it it was hard to unnotice it. That news hasn't spread beyod the borders of the US yet!



Even here in the twin cities there are at least a dozen markets and restaurants with the word in their name. It is a good comparison because both of these folks suffer discrimination, but the cultural discussion on what is and isnt acceptable varies. Which is why I have a hard time with what is going on in this particular instance with Lackey.


----------



## MGibster (May 23, 2022)

This Effin’ GM said:


> I mean I feel like if this was an acceptable context, you would have said it, not “the word”, is perfectly acceptable to use.



That was entirely for your benefit.  I didn't want to look like a jerk by using the word, looking like I'm pulling a "I'm not touching you" move.  And to be clear, it's not that I think you're petty and would pull something like that, but I'm happpy to choose my words with consideration and respect for my audience.


----------



## Mallus (May 23, 2022)

Bunker said:


> When I was in London UK just a couple of years ago, that word was everywhere. Supermarkets aisles, in the names of chinese restaurants, everywhere. Once you noticed it it was hard to unnotice it. That news hasn't spread beyod the borders of the US yet!



It’s fine for food and carpets. I’d should have specified it’s… ahem... problematic when used to describe people.

I gotta admit, though, whenever I see something like ‘oriental sauce’ on a menu, I takes a fair amount of willpower not to ask the server questions like “is it sauce for orientals or made from orientals?”

I mean, I won’t. Mortifying your server is always terrible etiquette. But it is kinda tempting...


----------



## This Effin’ GM (May 23, 2022)

MGibster said:


> That was entirely for your benefit.  I didn't want to look like a jerk by using the word, looking like I'm pulling a "I'm not touching you" move.  And to be clear, it's not that I think you're petty and would pull something like that, but I'm happpy to choose my words with consideration and respect for my audience.



That’s all I’m trying to say. Are we considering our audience and respecting them. No shade to anyone in particular, just wanting to voice “hey let’s be careful maybe.”


----------



## Myrdin Potter (May 23, 2022)

I view the NAACP use of the word as a sign that their success as the people it was founded to help chose their own names. Personally, I much prefer black or Black as it is a color like white (and neither is accurate for the actual skin color). I honestly don’t know about others and how they want their skin color described. My wife and many Asians I know are offended by POC.

Older or not, Lackey is a professional writer and I would expect better use of words.


----------



## MGibster (May 23, 2022)

Morrus said:


> I'm in my 40s, and I recall that the word was inappropriate in that context when I was about 18. This is not a new thing.



Same here, and I've never on any occasion witnessed the use of the word to describe a person in a contemporary setting.  I've only heard it used in a historical context.


----------



## Retreater (May 23, 2022)

Typically, during IRL conversations, I just shut up anymore. I realize I have nothing to add. This is why I don't discuss politics, race, religion, or other important issues. Everything is hobbies, the weather, sports, etc.


----------



## Cadence (May 23, 2022)

The "Harassments Policy" seems to have a variety of specific levels available for sanctions that the "Moderation Policy" doesn't.

Harassment Policy




__





						Harassment Policy - Nebula Awards Conference Online
					

Introduction SFWA® sponsors or hosts discussion boards, communication avenues such as the SFWA Slack Channel, social media presences via Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, Airmeet etc., publications, the SFWA website, Writer Beware®, the Nebula Awards® Conference and Ceremony, the SFWA suite and […]




					events.sfwa.org
				




Moderation Policy




__





						moderation Policies - Nebula Awards Conference Online
					

This page contains: 1.    Rules for Communication in SFWA Spaces 2.    Guidelines for Professional Courtesy 3.    How to Report Breaches of Professional Courtesy 4.    Moderation Procedure 5.    Notes Rules for Communication in SFWA Spaces 1.  […]




					events.sfwa.org


----------



## Ibrandul (May 23, 2022)

When two very similar words (in this case, two different constructions of the same word) have the same denotation but near-opposite connotations, it's inevitable that one will sometimes be used when the other is intended, because of the way human brains process and produce language. This phenomenon has nothing whatsoever to do with racist ideologies, unless you subscribe to debunked pop-Freudian notions of slips of the tongue as revealing deep-seated prejudices in a "return of the repressed."

To elaborate: when "... of color" (e.g., "writer of color") is considered by many to be perhaps the _most_ sensitive term available—because most people would just say "Black writer" instead, and the primary reason to choose "... of color" is usually to emphasize solidarity/intersectionality with other nonwhite identities—and yet a very closely related term* is considered offensive, then sometimes, some people will end up saying the latter when they consciously want to say the former, simply because the terms are so similar and both have the same denotation, and the brain is a weird place when it comes to talking_._ This is a bit less common when the terms occupy displaced syntactical positions (in this case, after the noun vs. before it), but it does still happen that way.

This is doubly true for people with dyslexia, who are very often prone to slips of the tongue even when the denotations are different (classic example: "Dinosaurs went distinct millions of years ago"). My point is that for verbal dyspraxics, whether they technically qualify as neurodivergent, _no amount of education and no degree of good intentions_ is going to save them from verbal slip-ups.

Mercedes Lackey is on record as being diagnosed with dyslexia. She is also verbally dyspraxic; watch any YouTube interview with her and this is immediately obvious if you know what to look for. The stumbles are very brief, and usually she immediately corrects herself, and she is brilliant and articulate so that's the general impression one comes away with. But it's there throughout her speech patterns. I just clicked on a random interview and she stumbles over her words seven times in the first three minutes, including (speaking of her birds) "They're extremely intelligence."


*I was about to hit "post" when I looked at the prior discussion regarding repeating the term in this thread. I have removed it for the same reasons articulated by MGibster above. If the term did not already appear several times earlier in this thread, I would consider it morally mandatory to include the term itself, so as to make plain exactly what Lackey said.


----------



## Ibrandul (May 23, 2022)

Two things matter when a social taboo is violated: (1) intentions, and (2) what the speaker does after the slip-up.

Unfortunately, increasingly it seems to me that in many cases, and especially by organizations and institutions with the power and responsibility to respond to such incidents, intentions are not considered to be important. One even hears that taking an offender's intentions into account is somehow a way of compounding the violation, as though understanding why something has happened amounts to condoning, excusing, or even repeating the offending act.

It's clear that in this case the SFWA did not care about Lackey's intentions. It's also clear they didn't offer her a chance to apologize or respond before ejecting her from the conference.

The SFWA has, in my opinion, responded to the complaint in the third-worst imaginable way. The worst would be to retaliate against the complainant. The second-worst would be to ignore the complaint entirely. Why in the world should we celebrate an organization for doing something in the third-worst imaginable way?


----------



## Cadence (May 23, 2022)

Reading up on things for myself...

2020 column n the Chicago Tribune








						Column: Why is ‘people of color’ OK but not ‘colored people’? A reading list for white folks
					

After an earlier column, emails poured in from white people who said they had no idea that “colored” was offensive.




					www.chicagotribune.com
				




A bit of history from NPR








						The Journey From 'Colored' To 'Minorities' To 'People Of Color'
					

The words used to describe race and ethnicity are ever in flux. A favored term one decade becomes passé the next and not nice soon after that. But, the motivation for change remains constant: Respect.




					www.npr.org
				





Folks called out for using it...

BBC in 2015 on Benedict Cumberbatch: 
Warning: Why using the term 'coloured' is offensive 

Amy Robach from "Good Morning America"








						‘Good Morning America’ Host Apologizes for Using Racial Slur
					

“Good Morning America” host Amy Robach has apologized for using the outdated racial term “colored people” on air. “We all know Hollywood has received recent and quite …




					variety.com


----------



## MGibster (May 23, 2022)

Whenever I hear about these kinds of issues I have to remind myself that I very often don't have the full context.  From the information currently available to me, I believe it would have been entirely appropriate for Nebula organizers have a chat with Lackey about her choice of words and to ask for an apology.  But removing Lackey from the venue altogether was an overraction entirely disproportionate to her actions.  However, maybe there is a context I'm missing.  Lackey may have a history with the Nubula that I am entirely unaware of.  But from an outsider's perspective, the Nebula Conference isn't looking so good to me.  But sometimes mistakes are made.


----------



## payn (May 23, 2022)

MGibster said:


> Whenever I hear about these kinds of issues I have to remind myself that I very often don't have the full context.  From the information currently available to me, I believe it would have been entirely appropriate for Nebula organizers have a chat with Lackey about her choice of words and to ask for an apology.  But removing Lackey from the venue altogether was an overraction entirely disproportionate to her actions.  However, maybe there is a context I'm missing.  Lackey may have a history with the Nubula that I am entirely unaware of.  But from an outsider's perspective, the Nebula Conference isn't looking so good to me.  But sometimes mistakes are made.



I was just thinking having an impromptu panel about offensive terminology and moderation policy might be a good way to go. Though, as an organization Nebula doesn't owe anybody that. Just thought it would be a good way to say that they are addressing it in a public way that could establish precedent and be a learning experience.


----------



## Parmandur (May 23, 2022)

This Effin’ GM said:


> I’m not an expert on incusionary language but should we be repeating the offending word every other response like it’s going out of style?



This is the first I've even heard of it being considered a slur at all, instead of outdated, and I'm from the Oakland area.


----------



## Umbran (May 23, 2022)

payn said:


> This isn't about who finds it offensive or who doesn't, its about how an organization chooses to uphold their moderation policies.




So, at the moment, you are taking advantage of services and community provided by an organization with moderation polices, so take a thought to what you say in terms of what the analogous action here would be.

What happened at the Nebulas seems to me, as a person charged with supporting and enforcing such policies, to have been ham-handed and extreme*.  There are times for decisive and direct action, and there are times for dialogue.  This, to me, should have been the latter, rather than the former.

And yes, _context does matter_.  Who said it, on what occasion, and who had a problem with it are all relevant to determining right action in dealing with the situation.



*Have I, on occasion, made bad calls that were ham-handed or extreme?  Sure.  Nobody is perfect.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (May 23, 2022)

payn said:


> I was just thinking having an impromptu panel about offensive terminology and moderation policy might be a good way to go. Though, as an organization Nebula doesn't owe anybody that. Just thought it would be a good way to say that they are addressing it in a public way that could establish precedent and be a learning experience.




Unless there is something I'm missing, the learning experience I would take away from this is, "Don't attend events hosted by the SFWA. Because they might use you to "establish precedent and be a learning experience."

Not high on my list of priorities. I prefer organizations that, you know, try to do the right thing by all people.

As I wrote, absent some other information ... this was handled completely inappropriately. If the other commented is correct, and she is neurodivergent (and diagnosed with dyslexia and/or verbally dyspraxic) then it's beyond inappropriate.

Context matters.

ETA- I reserve the right to change my opinion completely if the context changes. But again ... this isn't a great look for the SFWA right now.


----------



## payn (May 23, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> Unless there is something I'm missing, the learning experience I would take away from this is, "Don't attend events hosted by the SFWA. Because they might use you to "establish precedent and be a learning experience."
> 
> Not high on my list of priorities. I prefer organizations that, you know, try to do the right thing by all people.
> 
> ...



Would it be appropriate for a neuro-divergent person to use the N word? Also, dyspraxia does not affect your intelligence and word choice. I find it far more likely in the moment she used the word for lack of a better term. I dont believe she intended any offense, I honestly believe that. Though, I dont accept these excuses for it being ok either.


----------



## Parmandur (May 23, 2022)

Bunker said:


> When I was in London UK just a couple of years ago, that word was everywhere. Supermarkets aisles, in the names of chinese restaurants, everywhere. Once you noticed it it was hard to unnotice it. That news hasn't spread beyod the borders of the US yet!



Most Americans probably don't even know what the word means, so it's fairly mild here. Nobody even uses it.


----------



## Parmandur (May 23, 2022)

MGibster said:


> Same here, and I've never on any occasion witnessed the use of the word to describe a person in a contemporary setting.  I've only heard it used in a historical context.



My 95 year old grandfather used it in 2009 when he celebrated Obama's inauguration.  He felt like he was living in a bright, optimistic science fiction future. I haven't heard anyone use it since, other than namechecking venerable institutions.


----------



## Parmandur (May 23, 2022)

jeremypowell said:


> When two very similar words (in this case, two different constructions of the same word) have the same denotation but near-opposite connotations, it's inevitable that one will sometimes be used when the other is intended, because of the way human brains process and produce language. This phenomenon has nothing whatsoever to do with racist ideologies, unless you subscribe to debunked pop-Freudian notions of slips of the tongue as revealing deep-seated prejudices in a "return of the repressed."
> 
> To elaborate: when "... of color" (e.g., "writer of color") is considered by many to be perhaps the _most_ sensitive term available—because most people would just say "Black writer" instead, and the primary reason to choose "... of color" is usually to emphasize solidarity/intersectionality with other nonwhite identities—and yet a very closely related term* is considered offensive, then sometimes, some people will end up saying the latter when they consciously want to say the former, simply because the terms are so similar and both have the same denotation, and the brain is a weird place when it comes to talking_._ This is a bit less common when the terms occupy displaced syntactical positions (in this case, after the noun vs. before it), but it does still happen that way.
> 
> ...



Oh, jeez, that puts things in an important context.


----------



## South by Southwest (May 23, 2022)

If no one ever allows anyone any moral slack, how are we to learn? I mean, don't we have to allow for the fact that at least some insensitive or even really deeply offensive comments can be genuinely _in_advertent?

It seems to me the conference organizers were a lot more interested in covering their own butts than they were in doing the right thing. And there's a lot of that these days.


----------



## MGibster (May 23, 2022)

payn said:


> Would it be appropriate for a neuro-divergent person to use the N word? Also, dyspraxia does not affect your intelligence and word choice. I find it far more likely in the moment she used the word for lack of a better term. I dont believe she intended any offense, I honestly believe that. Though, I dont accept these excuses for it being ok either.



Let's stick to what happened rather than the hypotethical.  The N word has never been a polite word, and was always used to dehumanize those of African descent.  Colored, on the other hand, was not generally thought of as dehumanizing or offensive within living memory of many Americans.  i.e.  It doesn't have the same history as that other word.  A lot of us aren't arguing that Lackey's choice of word was okay or appropriate, it's just that the Nebula's reaction to it was, as Ubram put it, "ham fisted" and in my opinion overly severe. 



Snarf Zagyg said:


> Unless there is something I'm missing, the learning experience I would take away from this is, "Don't attend events hosted by the SFWA. Because they might use you to "establish precedent and be a learning experience."



Yeah.  When the punishment is overly severe, it tends to erode people's respect for them (them being the rules).  I wonder if anyone in the future will think, "Yeah, I was offended by this statement, but after what happened to Lackey, I don't want to say anything."


----------



## Ibrandul (May 23, 2022)

jeremypowell said:


> One even hears that … understanding why something has happened amounts to condoning, excusing, or even repeating the offending act.





payn said:


> Would it be appropriate for a neuro-divergent person to use the N word? Also, dyspraxia does not affect your intelligence and word choice. I find it far more likely in the moment she used the word for lack of a better term. I dont believe she intended any offense, I honestly believe that. Though, I dont accept these excuses for it being ok either.



Verbal dyspraxia absolutely can affect word choice. There are several kinds of dyspraxia, ranging from stuttering to the inability to “retrieve” a word to the substitution of one word for another, as in the example I gave from an interview with Lackey. It’s primarily the “error: file not found” and “wrong word” kinds that correlate with dyslexia.

It’s not the only explanation for her word choice. But it’s a very plausible one given what we know of Lackey: dyslexic; has exhibited semantic substitution dyspraxia in previous interviews; and has for decades been widely regarded as one of the most progressive and inclusive white writers in SF.

As for whether it was “OK” or “appropriate”—see above.


----------



## payn (May 23, 2022)

Umbran said:


> So, at the moment, you are taking advantage of services and community provided by an organization with moderation polices, so take a thought to what you say in terms of what the analogous action here would be.
> 
> What happened at the Nebulas seems to me, as a person charged with supporting and enforcing such policies, to have been ham-handed and extreme*.  There are times for decisive and direct action, and there are times for dialogue.  This, to me, should have been the latter, rather than the former.
> 
> ...



Agreed. I do think the moderation went too far, but that some moderation was also appropriate. Ultimately, its for the SFWA to decide. 

In the past, they have received a lot of criticism for failing to moderate other guest speakers. That might be part of the overaction here. Who knows?


----------



## Ixal (May 23, 2022)

Its just silly that that people of colour is ok and respectful but coloured (people) is inherently a slur no matter the context when they mean the exact same thing.


----------



## J.Quondam (May 23, 2022)

Ixal said:


> Its just silly that that people of colour is ok and respectful but coloured (people) is inherently a slur no matter the context when they mean the exact same thing.



It's not really for someone not on the receiving end to decide what is "silly" or not.


----------



## Mannahnin (May 23, 2022)

Ixal said:


> Its just silly that that people of colour is ok and respectful but coloured (people) is inherently a slur no matter the context when they mean the exact same thing.



You might be surprised how much such linguistic constructions can matter.






						People-first language - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				









						Person of color - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				



_"The term "colored" was originally equivalent in use to the term "person of color" in American English, but usage of the appellation "colored" in the Southern United States gradually came to be restricted to "Negroes",[12] and is now considered a racial pejorative.[13] Elsewhere in the world, and in other dialects of English, the term may have entirely different connotations, however; for example, in South Africa, "Coloureds" refers to multiple multiracial ethnic groups and is sometimes applied to other groups in Southern Africa, such as the Basters of Namibia."_


----------



## Ixal (May 23, 2022)

Mannahnin said:


> You might be surprised how much such linguistic constructions can matter.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It obviously does not matter enough for the NAACP to rename itself NAAPOC because C is so offensive.


----------



## Morrus (May 23, 2022)

Ixal said:


> Its just silly that that people of colour is ok and respectful but coloured (people) is inherently a slur no matter the context when they mean the exact same thing.



Not really. Language isn't about logic. It never has been. To expect it to suddenly start being now is unrealistic.

Language is an organic thing which grows and changes through use. In this case, the two terms you cite, while seeming superficially similar to you, were historically used in different ways and have different baggage. So one is OK and the other is not.


----------



## Mannahnin (May 23, 2022)

Ixal said:


> It obviously does not matter enough for the NAACP to rename itself NAAPOC because C is so offensive.



Do you know whether they've considered a change, and do you think you're in an informed position to judge the various factors that go into such a decision for them?  That "obviously" seems a bit dubious, to me.


----------



## Cadence (May 23, 2022)

Ixal said:


> It obviously does not matter enough for the NAACP to rename itself NAAPOC because C is so offensive.




If you check their web-page, they seem to just use the "NAACP" throughout, without saying what the words are.   The full name seems to appear only on the logo (which I'm guessing dates to the first decade or two of the 20th century).

It's history, including the Springfield race riot of 1908, fighting Jim Crow, fighting segregation, etc... is at NAACP - Wikipedia


----------



## Ixal (May 23, 2022)

Mannahnin said:


> Do you know whether they've considered a change, and do you think you're in an informed position to judge the various factors that go into such a decision for them?  That "obviously" seems a bit dubious, to me.



Not really. Either they considered it and so far deemed it acceptable or did not even feel the need to consider it at all. Because otherwise they would have changed it.


----------



## Mannahnin (May 23, 2022)

Ixal said:


> Not really. Either they considered it and so far deemed it acceptable or did not even feel the need to consider it at all. Because otherwise they would have changed it.



As simple as that, huh?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 23, 2022)

delericho said:


> given that the NAACP hasn't felt the need to change its name,



Trust me, there are a lot of us who wish they would.  Still, it’s expensive and confusing when an established institution/organization changes its name.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 23, 2022)

This Effin’ GM said:


> Different word. Homonyms may be spelled the same but are different words.



It’s not a different word, it’s the same word with different accreted definitions due to use.  Like “run”.


----------



## This Effin’ GM (May 23, 2022)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> It’s not a different word, it’s the same word with different accreted definitions due to use.  Like “run”.



Ok.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 23, 2022)

Bunker said:


> When I was in London UK just a couple of years ago, that word was everywhere. Supermarkets aisles, in the names of chinese restaurants, everywhere. Once you noticed it it was hard to unnotice it. That news hasn't spread beyod the borders of the US yet!



No joke, in my hometown of New Orleans, you could find “Wop Salads” on menus all over the city well into the 1980s.  And it didn’t really get fully replaced by “Italian salad” until almost 2000.


----------



## MGibster (May 23, 2022)

J.Quondam said:


> It's not really for someone not on the receiving end to decide what is "silly" or not.



English is very often silly, but your point is valid.  


Mannahnin said:


> You might be surprised how much such linguistic constructions can matter.



I agree.  I think the general consensus here is that the words we use matters, and we should address people as they wish to be addressed.  



Mannahnin said:


> Do you know whether they've considered a change, and do you think you're in an informed position to judge the various factors that go into such a decision for them? That "obviously" seems a bit dubious, to me.




According to the Reverend William Barber, former president of North Carolina chapter of the NAACS:  







			
				William Barber said:
			
		

> There has been some internal wrestling with the name, but one reason it hasn’t been changed is out of respect for history and the founders.




I can see where he's coming from.  Changing the name might be seen as a slap in the face to folks like Walter White, Ida B. Wells, and W.E.B. DuBois.  But as Barber said, the name is something the origanization has wreslted with.  At any rate, I don't know if this particular tangent matters all that much.  While I have no problem saying the entire name of the NAACP or the United Negro College Fund, I'm sure as heck not referring to any living person using either archaic description.  English really is funny sometimes.


----------



## billd91 (May 23, 2022)

Ixal said:


> It obviously does not matter enough for the NAACP to rename itself NAAPOC because C is so offensive.



NAACP has a long and storied history under that name. They're not going to change it because you think there's some inconsistency about whether or not the term "colored people" is broadly considered insensitive or pejorative. Sometimes, that historical identity is more important than shifting terminology.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 23, 2022)

Myrdin Potter said:


> Personally, I much prefer black or Black as it is a color like white (and neither is accurate for the actual skin color). I honestly don’t know about others and how they want their skin color described. My wife and many Asians I know are offended by POC.



I go by “black”, as do my parents.  While I’m not _offended_ by terms like “African-American” or “PoC”, I know some are.  Mom, for one, REALLY hates “African-American”, and you will unleash a lecture if you use it in reference to her.

(OTOH, Mom is a bit weird about terminology.  She’ll give a different incensed lecture when someone in media says the phrase, “the N-word”.  I always ask her “What would you have them say?”, which usually just gets me the Mom Eye.)


----------



## Echohawk (May 23, 2022)

Mannahnin said:


> _Elsewhere in the world, and in other dialects of English, the term may have entirely different connotations, however; for example, in South Africa, "Coloureds" refers to multiple multiracial ethnic groups and is sometimes applied to other groups in Southern Africa, such as the Basters of Namibia."_



Until this thread popped up, I had absolutely no idea this was an offensive term in many places. It turns out that's simply because I happen to live in a country where it has an accepted, non-offensive meaning. Given my country's appalling history on matters of race, and acknowledging my own privilege—I'm a white South African with a multiracial family—I feel strongly that I have a _particular_ duty to pay close attention to these issues. Consequently I'm grateful to have learned from this thread that a word I might innocently use in my country would be considered offensive elsewhere.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 23, 2022)

jeremypowell said:


> She is also verbally dyspraxic; watch any YouTube interview with her and this is immediately obvious if you know what to look for. The stumbles are very brief, and usually she immediately corrects herself, and she is brilliant and articulate so that's the general impression one comes away with



All the more reason for a swift apology *and* an explanation.  If she is indeed dyspraxic, she may be no more responsible for this slip than a Tourette’s sufferer who uses profanity & slurs. 

That would turn this mess into a VERY teachable moment, as the saying goes.  I personally never heard of her being diagnosed as such.  Hell- I never heard her (or 99% of the authors on my shelves) speak. 

And I wouldn’t be surprised to find the complaining panelist to be similarly in the dark.


----------



## payn (May 23, 2022)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> No joke, in my hometown of New Orleans, you could find “Wop Salads” on menus all over the city well into the 1980s.  And it didn’t really get fully replaced by “Italian salad” until almost 2000.



Here in the twin cities they proudly advertise the "Hot Dagos" around town.


----------



## Blue (May 23, 2022)

payn said:


> I do appreciate the context of the incident. I could be convinced that total removal is a punishment too far. I also respect the Nebula Conference for their choice in how to handle it. To often folks are allowed to use outdated language under the guise of "they are old" and I don't find it to be an acceptable excuse. Also, it doesn't matter if Lackey was up for an award, how many times have folks allowed terrible behavior to go on because of somebody's legacy? That is also an unacceptable excuse. Not sure what the best answer is, but I am glad Nebula Conference has decided to put some standards in place. This isn't about who finds it offensive or who doesn't, its about how an organization chooses to uphold their moderation policies.



This feel like the zero tolerance policies at schools.  I remember a story from a decade ago about 2nd graders pretending their pencils were gun and making shooting noises at each other and getting suspended for multiple days.  (Link below.)

Mercedes Lackey was in the process of praising Delaney.  _We have a context._  We know as much as it's possible for another person to know the intent of another that it was not being used in a negative way.  The term was during the authors life an acceptable term.  Your stance seems that we must hard line punish even when there is no intent, no harm to the recipient (Delaney did not take it as a slur), for something that was once acceptable and is now somewhat borderline, to a punitive level of punishment - not just removed from that event but from all panels, ejected from the convention, and publicly shamed via social media.

Sorry, zero tolerance rules aren't good.  When you punish the innocent as well as the guilty because your criteria are poor, you are doing a bad job.

"It is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer". --Benjamin Franklin, Letter to Vaughn, 1785









						2nd Grade Boys Suspended for Pretending Pencils Are Guns
					

Two Suffolk second graders have been suspended for making shooting noises while pointing pencils at each another.




					www.nbclosangeles.com


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 23, 2022)

payn said:


> Here in the twin cities they proudly advertise the "Hot Dagos" around town.



Wow!  And what are those?  An ethnic hot dog variant?


----------



## Ralif Redhammer (May 23, 2022)

If ever there was a sci-fi author that I'd trust to understand and navigate the complexities of language, it would be Delany.



The Myopic Sniper said:


> The writer she referred to, Samuel Delany, has responded on Facebook. If the forum moderators have an issue with the language feel free to edit or delete it.
> 
> ""Colored ladies," was what my aunts Bessie and Sadie referred to themselves as, and I favored "black"(with a small B, because because of my experiences in '68, with the activists who changed the country from "Negro" to Dr. Du Bois's preferred term). Among colored or black or Negro folks he had no problem—since scientifically there is no such thing as race, the terms are all social constructs. With all due respect for anyone over 60, there are no "bad words;" it depends alone on the vernacular you were brought up with. (Prescriptive usage and grammar starts out as a lost cause.) I would like to see institutions leave their hands off the spoken language of their elders. At 8 years my junior, and a native of a city I am very fond of, Mercedes Lackey has my permission to speak of me in any way she chooses. "Person of color" is just awkward (so I wouldn't use it myself); my paternal grandfather was born a slave, and there were white mongrels and Native Americans scattered throughout; "colored" has no negative connotations among any speakers black or white in my family and never had.”"






Snarf Zagyg said:


> Well, take it up with Samuel Delaney. Words and context are tricky, and there isn't universal agreement on some of them.




As an aside, I stopped reading Mercedes Lackey years ago after I realize just how frequently certain problematic tropes crop up again and again. Not saying she should be censured, and I hope that she uses this as a learning opportunity.


----------



## payn (May 23, 2022)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Wow!  And what are those?  An ethnic hot dog variant?








Its spicy Italian sausage, in a marinara sauce, served on Italian white bread (sometimes open faced like the picture). Very delicious, but I didnt know it was derogatory until I was well into my adult years. Nobody seems to care.


----------



## Parmandur (May 23, 2022)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I go by “black, as do my parents.  While I’m not _offended_ by terms like “African-American” or “PoC”, I know some are.  Mom, for one, REALLY hates “African-American”, and you will unleash a lecture if you use it in reference to her.
> 
> (OTOH, Mom is a bit weird about terminology.  She’ll give a different incensed lecture when someone in media says the phrase, “the N-word”.  I always ask her “What would you have them say?”, which usually just gets me the Mom Eye.)



Around here, the norm among African-Americans is "black" informally, "African-American" formally, and "People of Color" when speaking academically or more broadly. I get the logic of "PoC" and use it, but given the shifting history of terminology and it's linguistic clunkiness I don't predict it will have a long shelf-life.


----------



## Parmandur (May 23, 2022)

payn said:


> View attachment 248955
> 
> Its spicy Italian sausage, in a marinara sauce, served on Italian white bread (sometimes open faced like the picture). Very delicious, but I didnt know it was derogatory until I was well into my adult years. Nobody seems to care.



In my experience, Italian-Americans actually seem to relish leaning into old slurs as a middle finger to The Man, and hard, to an uncomfortable degree. Hence songs like "Bibbity Bobbitty Boo."


----------



## payn (May 23, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> In my experience, Italian-Americans actually seem to relish leaning into old slurs as a middle finger to The Man, and hard, to an uncomfortable degree. Hence songs like "Bibbity Bobbitty Boo."



From an immigrant perspective, the Irish had it bad, then the Italians, etc.. Thing is they also got glamourized as gun rustlers and mafia dons. They dont have to put up with systemic discrimination and generalization (though it still happens to small degrees). It's easier to laugh at the joke when you are doing it together, unlike when you are always the target of it.


----------



## Nikosandros (May 23, 2022)

One little - and not very relevant - thing that I personally find interesting is that all those "Italian" dishes must be recipes that have been created by immigrants in the US with some form of culinary syncretism, because I've never seen them here in Italy.


----------



## Parmandur (May 23, 2022)

Nikosandros said:


> One little - and not very relevant - thing that I personally find interesting is that all those "Italian" dishes must be recipes that have been created by immigrants in the US with some form of culinary syncretism, because I've never seen them here in Italy.



Syncretism, and Italian regional differences. The vast majority of Italian Americans are Siciliano or Napolitano (except around here, actually, we got a lot of Genevesi and Lombard immigrants in Northern California). I have a friend from Bergamo that swears that nobody in Italy uses garlic or tomatoes in cooking and she gets actively angry about Italian-American food,  bit other friends from other parts of Italy who say Bergamo is practically part of Germany...

But yeah, a lot of Italian immigrants had to improvise with what ingredients were available locally, hence stuff like cheddar "Macaroni and Cheese."


----------



## MGibster (May 23, 2022)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I go by “black, as do my parents. While I’m not _offended_ by terms like “African-American” or “PoC”, I know some are. Mom, for one, REALLY hates “African-American”, and you will unleash a lecture if you use it in reference to her.



A few years back, in some circles at least, it became somewhat trendy to refer to Americans as "USians."  And at first I found it amusing, but after a bit it annoyed the hell out of me.  In my entire life, I've never referred to myself as a USian, I didn't know anyone else who referred to us as USians, and I didn't care for others to to identify me in a manner that had nothing to do with how I identified myself.


----------



## Parmandur (May 23, 2022)

MGibster said:


> A few years back, in some circles at least, it became somewhat trendy to refer to Americans as "USians."  And at first I found it amusing, but after a bit it annoyed the hell out of me.  In my entire life, I've never referred to myself as a USian, I didn't know anyone else who referred to us as USians, and I didn't care for others to to identify me in a manner that had nothing to do with how I identified myself.



It sounds natural in most European languages like French or Spanish, is the thing. So a lot of Americans who speak Spanish do actually identify thst way.


----------



## MGibster (May 23, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> It sounds natural in most European languages like French or Spanish, is the thing. So a lot of Americans who speak Spanish do actually identify thst way.



 I never heard it growing up in Texas were there were plenty of Spanish speakers.  If you've got some cites that it was common for Spanish speakers to refer to Americans as USians prior to the 21st century I would be very interested in learning more.


----------



## Parmandur (May 23, 2022)

MGibster said:


> I never heard it growing up in Texas were there were plenty of Spanish speakers.  If you've got some cites that it was common for Spanish speakers to refer to Americans as USians prior to the 21st century I would be very interested in learning more.



My hometown (Hayward, CA) has a Hispanic majority, and "Estadounidense" is the standard in Spanish for someone from the United States.


----------



## payn (May 23, 2022)

MGibster said:


> A few years back, in some circles at least, it became somewhat trendy to refer to Americans as "USians."  And at first I found it amusing, but after a bit it annoyed the hell out of me.  In my entire life, I've never referred to myself as a USian, I didn't know anyone else who referred to us as USians, and I didn't care for others to to identify me in a manner that had nothing to do with how I identified myself.



This is the first time I have even heard of this. How is it even pronounced?


----------



## Parmandur (May 23, 2022)

payn said:


> This is the first time I have even heard of this. How is it even pronounced?



I've never heard anyone say it in English, seems unwieldwith the way English forms adjectives.


----------



## Ibrandul (May 23, 2022)

payn said:


> This is the first time I have even heard of this. How is it even pronounced?



"Yoo-ess-ee-enn."

I know people who use it in spoken American English.

To me it falls into the same category as people who try to pronounce "folks" with an extra bit of sibilance on the end to make it clear they're saying "folx," not "folks." Yes, I have heard this too in spoken American English—they sound like cartoon snakes.


----------



## MGibster (May 23, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> My hometown (Hayward, CA) has a Hispanic majority, and "Estadounidense" is the standard in Spanish for someone from the United States.



I took Spanish, and I'm way, way rusty, but I remember that as the standard.  But that's a far cry from USian.  And I'm not going to complin about Spanish speakers saying Estadonuidense instead of American.  It's not like a Mexican is going to get angry at me because I don't say Mexicano.  



payn said:


> This is the first time I have even heard of this. How is it even pronounced?



Beats me.  I really only saw it used in online spaces.  It seemed ubiquitous a few years back, but I don't see it used all that often any more.  Just a passing fad I guess.


----------



## billd91 (May 23, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> Syncretism, and Italian regional differences. The vast majority of Italian Americans are Siciliano or Napolitano (except around here, actually, we got a lot of Genevesi and Lombard immigrants in Northern California). I have a friend from Bergamo that swears that nobody in Italy uses garlic or tomatoes in cooking and she gets actively angry about Italian-American food,  bit other friends from other parts of Italy who say Bergamo is practically part of Germany...
> 
> But yeah, a lot of Italian immigrants had to improvise with what ingredients were available locally, hence stuff like cheddar "Macaroni and Cheese."



One of the things highlighted by things like this (Bergamo-style Italian cooking vs Bergamo being practically part of Germany) as well as the debates over Black vs African-American, POC vs more specific references, and any other way to assert identity via food, cultural practice, or terminology is just how many different perspectives there are even among insiders within these communities (forget outsiders trying to impose viewpoints from outside the community). And along with that, we also see how much difficulty people with different perspectives have in communicating and understanding each other.


----------



## Mallus (May 23, 2022)

payn said:


> Here in the twin cities they proudly advertise the "Hot Dagos" around town.



In New Jersey that's proudly advertising your desire to be found floating in the Hudson River.


----------



## TheSword (May 23, 2022)

So when I read this article, and being into my racing… I thought one of Lewis Hamilton’s staff had been kicked out of the venue 

Doh.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (May 23, 2022)

TheSword said:


> So when I read this article, and being into my racing… I thought one of Lewis Hamilton’s staff had been kicked out of the venue
> 
> Doh.




Toto Wolff: _No, TheSword, no, this comment was so not right! _


----------



## Rabulias (May 23, 2022)

Did the panel event complete? Was an objection raised or a reaction evident in the panel discussion? That would have been the opportunity for Mercedes Lackey to apologize. If the offense was reported to the organization only after the event completed and participants dispersed, that seems a bit dodgy.


----------



## MGibster (May 23, 2022)

Rabulias said:


> Did the panel event complete? Was an objection raised or a reaction evident in the panel discussion? That would have been the opportunity for Mercedes Lackey to apologize. If the offense was reported to the organization only after the event completed and participants dispersed, that seems a bit dodgy.



I handle a lot of similar complaints at work, and it's very typical for someone to make a complaint _after _the offensive statement was made rather than during the same event.  A lot of times people are processing their thoughts and aren't really sure what the best way to proceed is.  Barring some extraordinary evidence, I have my doubts that the timing of the complaint indicates anything dodgy.  But since Lackey still had other panels to attend, it appears as though the complaint was made very quickly and Nebula acted very swiftly.


----------



## This Effin’ GM (May 23, 2022)

Yeah I mean I wouldn’t want to be the one to stop a panel with someone well known in it to voice a grievance. Would it be brave? Sure. But that’s putting myself and my pain in a position I may not want to be in.


----------



## Ondath (May 24, 2022)

Asking someone to put themselves out in the open in the heat of the moment when they received an offense would add to the unjust burden at hand, so most organisations I know also accept dealing with stuff retroactively. In my uni's TTRPG club we instated new inclusivity policies and allowing people to reach out to us in private if something untoward happens was something that was of concern to us.

That said, and while I lack the full Usonian (given the discussion in this page, I couldn't help but bring this adjective to the talk) context when it comes to racial topics such as these, it really seems like an overblown response to me. If one of the panelists was personally offended, surely the organisers could've tried to handle the issue in private? I think reaching out to Lackey beforehand to make sure she is aware of the implications of her utterance and allowing her to be accountable for the matter herself would've been better for everyone involved? This seems weird to me especially since the panel was celebrating Lackey and she was slated to talk afterwards. Maybe they did try to settle things in private but Lackey doubled down, who knows, but the way things currently stand this really feels like it does nobody good.


----------



## The Myopic Sniper (May 24, 2022)

I was kind of hoping for a journalistic take on this story since the timelines I have gleaned from Twitter, Facebook and Reddit threads seem confusing or contradictory. All I have seen is a mention in Locus that basically an extended quote from the SFWA statement. 

It is strange how no one seems to want to cover this story, even as clickbait, when the press was all over the Romance Writers of America situation last year.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 24, 2022)

Nikosandros said:


> One little - and not very relevant - thing that I personally find interesting is that all those "Italian" dishes must be recipes that have been created by immigrants in the US with some form of culinary syncretism, because I've never seen them here in Italy.



A lot of Italian American cuisine altered because of the availability of premium ingredients like meat.  And as noted, a bunch of those recipes are based on southern Italian versions.  

The last time I went to Rome (2015), that difference was VERY evident. The cuisine was much more minimalist and delicately seasoned as compared to 90% of the Italian I find here in Texas- even the stuff done by recent immigrants.

There’s a _fantastic Italian restaurant & _pizzeria a few miles from here owned and operated by a Sicilian woman who is a 3rd generation restauranteur.  She imports some of her ingredients from the old country, and some she prepares from scratch from family recipes.  Her pizzas are definitely more like American style pizzas than the ones we had in Rome, but still distinctly different.

And OMG her capers!  The only ones iv EVER had where their floral notes are not completely overwhelmed by the pickling.  Truly a revelation!


----------



## dragoner (May 24, 2022)

Sadly enough, the SFWA is a house that catches fire quite regularly, so that maybe the press outside is somewhat leery.


----------



## Parmandur (May 24, 2022)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> A lot of Italian American cuisine altered because of the availability of premium ingredients like meat.  And as noted, a bunch of those recipes are based on southern Italian versions.
> 
> The last time I went to Rome (2015), that difference was VERY evident. The cuisine was much more minimalist and delicately seasoned as compared to 90% of the Italian I find here in Texas- even the stuff done by recent immigrants.
> 
> ...



We're at the point where there is fusion between Italian-American food and more autentico Italian food in restraints around here: recent immigrants combining their style with what an American audience expects.


----------



## Zardnaar (May 24, 2022)

MGibster said:


> Like Negro, I typically wouldn't use colored unless describing something in its historical context such as the Bureau of Colored Troops or Negro league baseball.  I would never describe someone today as a Negro or colored person though.  And while I've used "people of color" in recent years, I try to avoid it because it makes me a little uncomfortable because to my ear it's very close to calling someone colored.
> 
> _Blazing Saddles _was released in theaters way back in 1974.




 I know I was born in 78 though. 

 I saw it as a child mid 80's though at least 88 or earlier as parents were not divorced. 

 Small Town NZ and only black family in town was a dentist from South Africa. 

 I didn't understand some references into the 90's and alot was osmosis from American TV shows.


----------



## Myrdin Potter (May 24, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> My hometown (Hayward, CA) has a Hispanic majority, and "Estadounidense" is the standard in Spanish for someone from the United States.



If that is where you live vs. where you are from, we live just a couple of towns apart.


----------



## Parmandur (May 24, 2022)

Myrdin Potter said:


> If that is where you live vs. where you are from, we live just a couple of towns apart.



Where I am from, but we may still be just a few towns apart, give or take a Bay.


----------



## Myrdin Potter (May 24, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> Where I am from, but we may still be just a few towns apart, give or take a Bay.



I live 2 towns to the east of Hayward down 580.

I am from Montreal, which is a lot of towns away.  

And that is a strange place for prejudice where you have to hear someone speak to figure it out.


----------



## Parmandur (May 24, 2022)

Myrdin Potter said:


> I live 2 towns to the east of Hayward down 580.
> 
> I am from Montreal, which is a lot of towns away.
> 
> And that is a strange place for prejudice where you have to hear someone speak to figure it out.



Yeah, I know where you mean, knew a lot of people in that area growing up. I'm the opposite direction at this point in my life, across the Bay to the Southwest.

I know some people who have lived in Montreal, sounds like a different scene from Silicon Valley.


----------



## Ixal (May 24, 2022)

By the way, according to his twitter Larry Dixon, Mercedes's husband, was also banned from Nebula because of guilt by association.


----------



## John R Davis (May 24, 2022)

Ixal said:


> By the way, according to his twitter Larry Dixon, Mercedes's husband, was also banned from Nebula because of guilt by association.



Really?

Glad I don't drive a Mercedes or I'd be doomed too!


----------



## Tonguez (May 24, 2022)

MGibster said:


> A few years back, in some circles at least, it became somewhat trendy to refer to Americans as "USians."  And at first I found it amusing, but after a bit it annoyed the hell out of me.  In my entire life, I've never referred to myself as a USian, I didn't know anyone else who referred to us as USians, and I didn't care for others to to identify me in a manner that had nothing to do with how I identified myself.



I use USAians quite often as it makes it easier to distinguish peoples from other parts of the American continent - like Canadians or Columbians or Native Americans.  Many of the terms used for peoples across the globe began as exonyms, used by others to label different national or ethnic groups, so being offended by it is somewhat a privileged position…


----------



## Ondath (May 24, 2022)

Ixal said:


> By the way, according to his twitter Larry Dixon, Mercedes's husband, was also banned from Nebula because of guilt by association.



Wow they just *suck* at crisis management, don't they?


----------



## Umbran (May 24, 2022)

Ondath said:


> If one of the panelists was personally offended, surely the organisers could've tried to handle the issue in private?




Organizations today have to contend with social media - if they try to handle the issue in private, and the offended party is not satisfied, the issue will not stay private, and it looks like an attempt to cover it all up.


----------



## MGibster (May 24, 2022)

Tonguez said:


> I use USAians quite often as it makes it easier to distinguish peoples from other parts of the American continent - like Canadians or Columbians or Native Americans. Many of the terms used for peoples across the globe began as exonyms, used by others to label different national or ethnic groups, so being offended by it is somewhat a privileged position…



Yeah, calling someone a USAian is a political statement more often than not, which is one of the reasons I find it annoying while I don't have any problem with estadounidense.  And I really love how privilege continues to be used as a club, implying that it's wrong for me to be offended when someone deliberately refers to me using a term they know is not in common use.  But I digress, I simply brought USAian as an example of a label being applied that one might not identify with personally.  This is beyond the scope of the board and I'll not discuss this topic further.


----------



## Umbran (May 24, 2022)

Tonguez said:


> Many of the terms used for peoples across the globe began as exonyms, used by others to label different national or ethnic groups, so being offended by it is somewhat a privileged position…




If we are going to compare across history, we _WANT_ folks of today and tomorrow to appear privileged in comparison with yesterday.  

Isn't the whole thread about how things done in the past are sometimes now inappropriate?   Exonames were commonly used in the past?  Okay.  That doesn't make it appropriate to continue applying exonames.


----------



## Ondath (May 24, 2022)

Umbran said:


> Organizations today have to contend with social media - if they try to handle the issue in private, and the offended party is not satisfied, the issue will not stay private, and it looks like an attempt to cover it all up.



While I understand that, having read the Twitter thread of the panelist who was offended by the utterance, I think it's a bit of a reach to say that she would've been unsatisfied. She only shares her personal experience hearing the word, doesn't even point to Lackey by name but only warns people who'll listen to the panel that they should look out for the moment - in case they also become uncomfortable with it. I hardly think she'd have wanted Lackey (and her husband, who had nothing to do with the panel where this occurred and was writing glowing tweets about how wonderful the event was the day before) to be humiliated and banned in this way. This to me looks like the organisation overreacting in the worst way possible, even beyond what the person who was initially offended by the statement had in mind.

To be clear, what I meant by handling the issue in private was reaching out to Lackey in private at first, and maybe asking for her to make amends with the offended person and then making a statement with everyone involved (the idea of an impromptu panel on proper language is a decent idea and I don't think anyone would've opposed to that, I think). If Lackey would've doubled down at this stage, then the decision they've taken in its current form would've been justified. Instead they seem to have decided to ban Lackey while she was sleeping (if what her husband said is anything to go by), and then make a public statement that just says that Lackey said a slur with no context (making everyone think she uttered something far worse). This isn't crisis management, it's crisis production.


----------



## Ixal (May 24, 2022)

Ondath said:


> This isn't crisis management, it's crisis production.



As Umbran pointed out, thanks to social media, there is no space for reluctance or half measures. If, in the eyes of the twitter user, Nebula did not act quickly and decisively enough they are complicit, support racism and become a target themselves.
So companies play it safe and react with maximum force whenever there is just a hint of a complain in order to appease the mob.


----------



## Ondath (May 24, 2022)

Ixal said:


> As Umbran pointed out, thanks to social media, there is no space for reluctance or half measures. If, in the eyes of the twitter user, Nebula did not act quickly and decisively enough they are complicit, support racism and become a target themselves.
> So companies play it safe and react with maximum force whenever there is just a hint of a complain in order to appease the mob.



I'm well aware of that, but that doesn't make the organisers' decision less morally abhorrent. There is no reasonable way of dealing with The Mob, and giving into their wishes doesn't make the world a better place. Ignoring whatever outrcry they whipped up in the heat of the moment, or better, acting with moral integrity and letting people draw their own conclusions would've been better for everyone involved, especially when it comes to making the world a better place. The world doesn't get any better when we don't allow people to get better, if anything we'll entrench people who could've been swayed to see their errors double down because now they see people claiming moral superiority basically harassing anyone who doesn't toe the line. It basically makes what the extremist idiots think about progressivism seem likely. 

Edit: I had a very poor choice of words there especially given the racial context of the situation, so I changed it. Apologies.


----------



## Irlo (May 24, 2022)

Deleted.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (May 24, 2022)

(Edited. TY!)


----------



## delericho (May 24, 2022)

Ixal said:


> As Umbran pointed out, thanks to social media, there is no space for reluctance or half measures. If, in the eyes of the twitter user, Nebula did not act quickly and decisively enough they are complicit, support racism and become a target themselves.
> So companies play it safe and react with maximum force whenever there is just a hint of a complain in order to appease the mob.



The problem with that is that if they have overreacted to appease the mob, they have become complicit in the bullying of Mercedes Lackey, which is itself no good thing.

Racism is deplorable, but responses must be proportionate. Our world is not improved by forgetting that.


----------



## Ondath (May 24, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> I saw that as well. I agree with your point and second it, but also note that there has been linguistic drift in the slang and informal meaning of the term.
> 
> Which we should try and avoid given the history.



That's an absolutely fair point, I'll edit my post to avoid the specific term I used.


----------



## dragoner (May 24, 2022)

Given all that has happened, this is rather tame, I don't see the fight continued other places either.


----------



## Umbran (May 24, 2022)

Ondath said:


> While I understand that, having read the Twitter thread of the panelist who was offended by the utterance, I think it's a bit of a reach to say that she would've been unsatisfied.




I'm not saying she would or wouldn't have.  I'm saying that, in the moment, the organization likely had concerns.

Step back to just after this happened.  The twitter thread you reference hasn't happened yet, I expect.  The organization has had a complaint about a Major Name.  What do they do?  This becomes a problem of risk mitigation, for the organization.

They _do not know_ what will satisfy the offended person.  And, beyond that, they have public opinion to consider - satisfying the person who lodged the complaint may not be sufficient.  Wider fandom will hear about this, and have opinions.  This kind of thing has turned into social media PR nightmares before.


----------



## AnotherGuy (May 24, 2022)

Echohawk said:


> Until this thread popped up, I had absolutely no idea this was an offensive term in many places. It turns out that's simply because I happen to live in a country where it has an accepted, non-offensive meaning. Given my country's appalling history on matters of race, and acknowledging my own privilege—I'm a white South African with a multiracial family—I feel strongly that I have a _particular_ duty to pay close attention to these issues. Consequently I'm grateful to have learned from this thread that a word I might innocently use in my country would be considered offensive elsewhere.



Going on from @Echohawk's post the word's use in America is very different to that of South Africa and to reflect how big the divide is - your typical South African coloured would be offended to be called black while your typical South African black would be offended to be referred to as coloured.

The world is wildly diverse in thinking.


----------



## Carlsen Chris (May 24, 2022)

John R Davis said:


> I wonder if the 80 year recepient was offended, or others were befended on their behalf?
> 
> I'm from the UK and the C always confuses me? POC is ok but C isn't?



History's a hellava thing.


----------



## MGibster (May 24, 2022)

Umbran said:


> They _do not know_ what will satisfy the offended person. And, beyond that, they have public opinion to consider - satisfying the person who lodged the complaint may not be sufficient. Wider fandom will hear about this, and have opinions. This kind of thing has turned into social media PR nightmares before.



Yes, and this is at atmosphere we as a whole have cultivated these last couple of years and should probably work to change.  It just isn't healthy.  But you're right, and I think it's important to recognize that organizations are under a fair amount of pressure to act swiftly at any perceived wrong.   And when they're under that kind of pressure to immediately act, they're going to make some mistakes.


----------



## Irlo (May 24, 2022)

MGibster said:


> Yes, and this is at atmosphere we as a whole have cultivated these last couple of years and should probably work to change.  It just isn't healthy.  But you're right, and I think it's important to recognize that organizations are under a fair amount of pressure to act swiftly at any perceived wrong.   And when they're under that kind of pressure to immediately act, they're going to make some mistakes.



It's important I think to acknoweldge that organizations make mistakes handling issues when there's NO pressure to act at all. Often, the mistake is to not act at all.


----------



## payn (May 24, 2022)

Irlo said:


> It's important I think to acknoweldge that organizations make mistakes handling issues when there's NO pressure to act at all. Often, the mistake is to not act at all.



There is no standard at the moment. Its the wild west in adjudicating policy. In the past, it was usually just swept under the rug privately. "_That's just Offensive Oliver he didnt mean any by it_." Now, folks are demanding more accountability and the stakes are up considerably. There is no context and level of severity. No considering the difference between Offensive Oliver is a dink, and Offensive Oliver should be in prison.


----------



## Deset Gled (May 24, 2022)

Ixal said:


> By the way, according to his twitter Larry Dixon, Mercedes's husband, was also banned from Nebula because of guilt by association.




Regardless of the original incident, I find this response to be very troubling. Has this been verified?


----------



## Bedrockgames (May 24, 2022)

Umbran said:


> I'm not saying she would or wouldn't have.  I'm saying that, in the moment, the organization likely had concerns.
> 
> Step back to just after this happened.  The twitter thread you reference hasn't happened yet, I expect.  The organization has had a complaint about a Major Name.  What do they do?  This becomes a problem of risk mitigation, for the organization.
> 
> They _do not know_ what will satisfy the offended person.  And, beyond that, they have public opinion to consider - satisfying the person who lodged the complaint may not be sufficient.  Wider fandom will hear about this, and have opinions.  This kind of thing has turned into social media PR nightmares before.




But I think this gets back to why twitter isn't a very good venue for sorting this stuff out. It is also very hard for people to know what is actually going on if the actual word isn't described by many of the news sites covering it (I actually had to come here to find out what the word was that she used). We should have organizations investigating before issuing a judgment but twitter pushes things in the opposite direction. And it looks like the writer she was talking about when she used the word has said it wasn't an issue. To me, this certainly looks conversation worthy. I don't use that word (and one of my issues with POC is how closely it resembles that word). But my gut reaction is she is an older woman who probably got her wires crossed trying to use POC or something to that extent. I could be wrong however. I think this sort of situation is the kind of thing that an organization should investigate before taking action. I think the twitter issue is it heightens the need for a rush to judgment and I don't think you get good outcomes that way (and I am not saying I am sure what the outcome should be as I am still learning about what happened, but it does seem like something that could more easily have been addressed by her saying she was sorry and meant to use another word). It is certainly a word a lot of people find off putting, and it isn't he preferred terminology, but when I saw a headline reading she had used a racial slur (and the article never said what word she had used) I immediately thought it must have been the N word or something on that level for another group.


----------



## Bedrockgames (May 24, 2022)

MGibster said:


> Yes, and this is at atmosphere we as a whole have cultivated these last couple of years and should probably work to change.  It just isn't healthy.  But you're right, and I think it's important to recognize that organizations are under a fair amount of pressure to act swiftly at any perceived wrong.   And when they're under that kind of pressure to immediately act, they're going to make some mistakes.




I think this is definitely true. At the same time, part of what will bring things to a healthy level is organizations resisting this pressure and being more patient and thoughtful in their actions. Just as a general rule, quick summary judgments are not usually as good as more deliberate ones.


----------



## South by Southwest (May 24, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> But I think this gets back to why twitter isn't a very good venue for sorting this stuff out.



It is an incompetent venue. The bread and butter of Twitter is outrage, not accuracy.

But Umbran is right that companies today have no choice but to deal with it.


----------



## Ixal (May 24, 2022)

Deset Gled said:


> Regardless of the original incident, I find this response to be very troubling. Has this been verified?



No idea how to verify it, this is his twitter




__





						The Gryphon King, Larry Dixon (@LarryDixonTGK)
					

It appears I won't be on the Collaborations panel at the #Nebulas because I awoke to find myself banned from the conference for something I didn't say, on a panel I wasn't on.  I'm not that hard to reach, am I?  @sfwa isn't issuing any official statements about that.




					nitter.net


----------



## doctorbadwolf (May 24, 2022)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> it was the go-to word when stronger slurs would have been considered a breach of etiquette or to give bigots plausible deniability on their hate.



Absolutely. I’ve had older folks get uncomfortable when I used “Black”, while younger folks assume that as the correct term, and many don’t like “POC” unless referring to someone in a context that doesn’t specify race, especially referring to contexts shared by different POC. And then there’s BIPOC, which I’m just old enough to now be struggling to remember that term exists much less use it…


Mallus said:


> this seems like the kind of mishandled overreaction that can do real harm to the cause of social justice (the rightwing media loves stuff like this),



IMO this reaction is misguided. The anti-inclusive media will crap on the rest of us all day with about the same intensity no matter what. I’m not convinced they’ve ever changed anyones mind from valuing inclusivity to not.  

At worst they embolden people already on their side, and they’ll do that regardless of whether we occasionally misstep or not.


----------



## Deset Gled (May 24, 2022)

Ixal said:


> No idea how to verify it, this is his twitter
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Thanks.  This is obviously one sided, but sounds pretty bad for SFWA.  I was wondering if maybe SFWA had commented on it, or he had more details or discussion.


----------



## Myrdin Potter (May 24, 2022)

SFWA is a private organization and they have published policies with pretty harsh action laid out. Their general philosophy and their leadership is well known. This type of reaction is not really a surprise. 

The smart thing to do is not join their organization and not participate in their events, not to complain that the scorpion stung the frog while crossing the river.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 24, 2022)

At this point, I have to wonder about Lackey‘s silence.  If her claimed neurodivergence is the cause or significant contributing factor to this kerfuffle, the longer she waits to say something to that effect, the less believable it becomes.


----------



## South by Southwest (May 24, 2022)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> At this point, I have to wonder about Lackey‘s silence.  If her claimed neurodivergence is the cause or significant contributing factor to this kerfuffle, the longer she waits to say something to that effect, the less believable it becomes.



Maybe, but I don't want to underestimate the extent to which perhaps she feels bullied and mistreated herself and so just wants to walk away from the whole experience.

The online "moralizing bullies" really are bullies and take their delight not in decency, but in destruction. Lackey might simply be terrified of saying _anything_ at this point. I mean, in a similar circumstance I probably would be.


----------



## Ondath (May 24, 2022)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> At this point, I have to wonder about Lackey‘s silence.  If her claimed neurodivergence is the cause or significant contributing factor to this kerfuffle, the longer she waits to say something to that effect, the less believable it becomes.



Well this is a really weird line to take. If we're okay with the panelist expressing her discontent over the word used later after having processed everything (with which I'm absolutely fine), then we can allow her some time as well. Especially since according to her husband, "She is horrified by this. She is shivering, crying uncontrollably." And given how any statement on her side might be taken in bad faith, I can't blame her for not saying anything yet for the moment. Arguing that her neurodivergence becomes less believable the more she stays silent is absolute nonsense.


----------



## billd91 (May 24, 2022)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> At this point, I have to wonder about Lackey‘s silence.  If her claimed neurodivergence is the cause or significant contributing factor to this kerfuffle, the longer she waits to say something to that effect, the less believable it becomes.



You might want to check out Larry Dixon's twitter stream, then. He indicates that's she's been pretty hysterical about the whole episode. And lots of the twitterverse is very much piling on. It's ugly.


----------



## South by Southwest (May 24, 2022)

Ondath said:


> Arguing that her neurodivergence becomes less believable the more she stays silent is *absolute nonsense.*



I will agree with everything except this part.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (May 24, 2022)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> At this point, I have to wonder about Lackey‘s silence.  If her claimed neurodivergence is the cause or significant contributing factor to this kerfuffle, the longer she waits to say something to that effect, the less believable it becomes.




_If you want to be a decent person, you should care about how you treat other people. What else is important in life? It’s right and fit that we discuss how we can treat each other better. Our chat can’t be limited to not punching your little sister or not eating your roommate’s leftover Pad Thai. Most of the time we treat other people kindly or cruelly by talking — talking to them or about them. If we want to be better people, we should think about how we talk to and about other people — including when we’re mad at them. It’s easy to be nice to someone when you’re happy with them. It’s harder to be kind when dealing with our enemies, strangers, and the least of us. So it’s legitimate to examine how we respond to speech that makes us mad. We should have a thoughtful conversation about whether modern American culture encourages us to react excessively and even cruelly to speech we don’t like, how that impacts people, and what we should do about it. ..._


Ken White. I recommend the whole thing. It's a nuanced essay that I suggest people read- and it gets at the issue that I think is often forgotten. That of proportionality.

I am not sure it is appropriate to say that a person who may be overwhelmed and neurodivergent has some duty to you to speak out ... is proper.

It's like the old saw about the problems with people checking for drugs-

Q- Why'd you pull him over?
A- He looked too nervous.

Q- Why'd you pull the other guy over then?
A- He looked too calm.

This type of public shaming, especially in these circumstances, can be incredibly difficult. I can't imagine going to an event where you are going to be honored for a lifetime of work and have this happen. I don't know how I would react- maybe I would be screaming and outraged. Maybe I would want to hide away and lick my wounds. But I hope I wouldn't be judging how someone else should react to something which, quite frankly, is pretty devastating.


----------



## Ondath (May 24, 2022)

South by Southwest said:


> I will agree with everything except this part.



Arguing that someone's disability may not be a valid excuse unless they immediately give an explanation seems unnecessarily harsh to me. It basically demands that the disability be performed in an "acceptable" way and that otherwise they're "faking it" or "using it as an excuse", and that's nonsense.

That said, I feel like I'm getting unnecessarily invested in the discussion and I don't want to offend anyone. I think I'll unwatch this thread and remove myself since there isn't much we can do by discussing this topic anyway.


----------



## South by Southwest (May 24, 2022)

^^ I'm 100% with Snarf and greatly admire White's essay.

I guess the saddest thing to me in all of this is that the person who felt hurt by Lackey's comment didn't take her concerns to Lackey herself in private first. Whenever I have my first (or second) quarrel with someone's choice of words, I greatly prefer to go to them one-on-one, express my complaints, but also listen closely and at length to their side of the whole thing, and then make whatever judgments only after walking through that whole process.

And Twitter ain't never gonna help any of us do _that__._


----------



## MGibster (May 24, 2022)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> At this point, I have to wonder about Lackey‘s silence. If her claimed neurodivergence is the cause or significant contributing factor to this kerfuffle, the longer she waits to say something to that effect, the less believable it becomes.



I think part of the problem is that we want answers now.  I think Lackey's much better off giving some serious consideration into what she wants to say before issuing a statement.


----------



## Cadence (May 24, 2022)

South by Southwest said:


> I guess the saddest thing to me in all of this is that the person who felt hurt by Lackey's comment didn't take her concerns to Lackey herself in private first. Whenever I have my first (or second) quarrel with someone's choice of words, I greatly prefer to go to them one-on-one, express my complaints, but also listen closely and at length to their side of the whole thing, and then make whatever judgments only after walking through that whole process.




Power and prestige differences are a thing.  I can totally see the moderator not doing it.  Presumably someone on the board could have though.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (May 24, 2022)

Cadence said:


> Power and prestige differences are a thing.  I can totally see the moderator not doing it.  Presumably someone on the board could have though.




That's the flip side of this; I don't blame the person who felt uncomfortable but didn't raise the issue immediately, either. Sometimes things take a while to process. Sometimes it's difficult to speak up in the moment, especially when there is a differential (real or perceived) in power. My read of her initial tweet is that it came from a place that, even if I don't 100% agree with it, was certainly thoughtful and considered and did not attempt to "name and shame" or otherwise turn this into a big thing. 

I do blame the SFWA for the handling of this - everything from the initial handling to the tone-deaf press release that practically demanded to be misread.

....and I blame twitter. Because, c'mon. Twitter.


----------



## SehanineMoonbow (May 24, 2022)

I don't come on these forums much anymore, but I learned about this yesterday and wanted to just express my thoughts.

I've been reading Lackey's Valdemar Chronicles, and it saddens me to learn of this. I don't think she meant any harm but what she said; I think it was a slip of the tongue, or ignorance (not knowing it was an offensive term). This doesn't diminish the fact that someone was hurt by it, but either discussing it with her privately, or correcting her gently, would have been a better approach than taking to Twitter. Because...it's Twitter. Post something on Twitter, and 1)you don't get the full context, and 2) it's a surefire way to get people riled up and spiteful. This was handled poorly on all sides.

I hope Lackey is given the chance to learn, and isn't condemned to the fire for this (assuming she didn't mean anything malicious by it). I've always given her kudos for being brave enough to write queer characters in the '80s and 90s, so I hope her comment was a misunderstanding, rather than intended racism.


----------



## Hussar (May 25, 2022)

South by Southwest said:


> ^^ I'm 100% with Snarf and greatly admire White's essay.
> 
> I guess the saddest thing to me in all of this is that the person who felt hurt by Lackey's comment didn't take her concerns to Lackey herself in private first. Whenever I have my first (or second) quarrel with someone's choice of words, I greatly prefer to go to them one-on-one, express my complaints, but also listen closely and at length to their side of the whole thing, and then make whatever judgments only after walking through that whole process.
> 
> And Twitter ain't never gonna help any of us do _that__._



And here we have the winner.

There was absolutely no reason to take this into the public realm as a first reaction.  This was a relatively minor problem that could have been resolved in 30 seconds had the person on the panel simply taken the tiniest moment to react appropriately.  We HAVE these sorts of policies in place in organizations like this specifically to deal with problems like this.  I am 100% sure that the SFWA has harassment and whatnot policies publicly stated and freely available to all members.  The person on the panel chose to ignore all of that to take to Twitter.  Now, apparently, what she wrote on twitter wasn't all that inflammatory or accusatory either, but, still, if you have an issue at a conference, TALK TO THE CONFERENCE MANAGERS FIRST.

What's the point of having policies in place if people will just ignore them.  The whole reason this became a huge issue is because the policies were ignored.  If you (general you) have an issue like this, you take it to the proper channels first.  Then, climb the chain if necessary.  Posting it on Twitter should be your last resort, not your first reaction.

All this does is fuel the folks who claim that they are being bullied by the Twitter mob and that we're being repressed.  It just flies straight up my nose when people cannot be bothered to actually follow the clearly laid out procedures that they AGREED TO before attending a panel.  It's inconceivable that the SWFA wouldn't have these procedures in place and that they wouldn't have made them clearly available to everyone on the way in the door.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (May 25, 2022)

Here is the statement by Mercedes Lackey regarding the event~



​


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 25, 2022)

Ondath said:


> Well this is a really weird line to take.



This isn’t a weird line: this is celebrity “branding” defense 101.  You get out in front of the scandal- whatever it is- ASAP, because you only have a small golden window of opportunity to do so before things start looking…artificial.  Less than genuine.

I’m not saying she doesn’t deserve time to compose herself and consider her response.  She absolutely does.

And the thing is, despite not being a Hollywood A-lister, we’re still not talking a “Regular Jane“ here.  She’s a successful writer with an agent and asoociations with at least one publisher.  Even if _she_ is unaware of how to do this, there are those around her who know or should know how.

_Especially_ if this is the result of a known issue she has with spoken language.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 25, 2022)

billd91 said:


> You might want to check out Larry Dixon's twitter stream, then. He indicates that's she's been pretty hysterical about the whole episode. And lots of the twitterverse is very much piling on. It's ugly.



I don’t do Twitter, Facebook or any social media beyond 3-4 message boards and an image hosting site.  In part because of the toxicity of their environments.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 25, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> Here is the statement by Mercedes Lackey regarding the event~
> 
> 
> 
> ​



That looks perfect to me.


----------



## MGibster (May 25, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> Here is the statement by Mercedes Lackey regarding the event~



I'm hoping the Nebula Conference apologizes to Lackey.  But I'm picturing them having a _Burn Before Reading_ moment.  


CIA Superior : What did we learn, Palmer?

CIA Officer : I don't know, sir.

CIA Superior : I don't $%#@in' know either. I guess we learned not to do it again.

CIA Officer : Yes, sir.

CIA Superior : I'm %$@#$ if I know what we did.

CIA Officer : Yes, sir, it's, uh, hard to say

CIA Superior : Jesus %##@!ing Christ.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 25, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> I am not sure it is appropriate to say that a person who may be overwhelmed and neurodivergent has some duty to you to speak out ... is proper.



It’s not a duty to me, it’s her self-preservation.  How you handle your mistakes can radically affect the quality of your future.


----------



## MGibster (May 25, 2022)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> This isn’t a weird line: this is celebrity “branding” defense 101. You get out in front of the scandal- whatever it is- ASAP, because you only have a small golden window of opportunity to do so before things start looking…artificial. Less than genuine.



On the flip side, how many times on social media have we seen people dig themselves in deeper because they make ill advised statements in an attempt to fix things?


----------



## South by Southwest (May 25, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> Here is the statement by Mercedes Lackey regarding the event~



This makes me so sad: her emotional suffering is evident throughout that message. I really don't think Mrs. Lackey is the one who needs to issue an apology.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 25, 2022)

MGibster said:


> On the flip side, how many times on social media have we seen people dig themselves in deeper because they make ill advised statements in an attempt to fix things?



Lots.  That’s kind of beside point though.  There’s a reason why the quick apology is brand management 101 stuff: it is successful the vast majority of the time.  People LOVE genuine contrition.  The people who fail at it often make apologies that fail to seem genuine…or seem like apologies at all.  

If you take too long, as I was worried might be the case here, people start assuming you’re only apologizing because complaints reached a critical mass, not because you’re genuinely sorry X happened.


----------



## MGibster (May 25, 2022)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Lots. That’s kind of beside point though. There’s a reason why the quick apology is brand management 101 stuff: it is successful the vast majority of the time. People LOVE genuine contrition. The people who fail at it often make apologies that fail to seem genuine…or seem like apologies at all.



I get where you're coming from, but Lackey is a human being not a brand.  We should probably try to be a little more charitable to people who don't have a history of bigoted statements or bad behavior.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 25, 2022)

MGibster said:


> I get where you're coming from, but Lackey is a human being not a brand.  We should probably try to be a little more charitable to people who don't have a history of bigoted statements or bad behavior.



She’s both a human AND a brand.  Any celebrity- big or small- is.

Personally, I was in a very similar situation on ENWorld a couple years before I was asked to be a Mod.  The Charlie Hedbo incident had just happened.  I made a comment blaming Islamic radicals…at least I *meant* to.

Due to careless proofread and editing on my part, my condemnation of radical Islam became one *condemning the entire faith, all billion+ of them.*  I got a 2 week ban.  Because I wasn’t as frequent a visitor to the site back then, I was a good 10 days into my ban before I even knew it had happened.  I was *mortified* when I got back and read the reason for my ban.

_The first thing I did when the ban was lifted_ was to post a thread describing what happened and apologizing for it.  Said thread was shut down in hours by Umbran, who pointed out that publicly commenting on moderation was forbidden by the ENWorld ToS.  Fortunately, he didn’t give me a second infraction. 

Thing is, I *needed* to make that apology.  Even though it was accidental, _I posted what I posted, and what I posted was offensive._  I had to take responsibility for my action, even though it was a simple mistake.

Ms. Lackey made a slip of the tongue.  She meant no harm, but clearly caused some.  By apologizing for her mistake, she confirms to those who know her and illustrates to those who don’t that her word choice was merely a gaffe, and not a window to an unsuspected character flaw.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 25, 2022)

Now what’s needed is the followup “In regards to an incident that has been revealed to be a perfect storm of unfortunate events leading to profound misunderstandings…” message from the SFWA.


----------



## Myrdin Potter (May 25, 2022)

SFWA is more likely to say that she just revealed her actual bad think feelings and bury her further as admitting weakness to the mob is not their style.


----------



## Hussar (May 25, 2022)

Myrdin Potter said:


> SFWA is more likely to say that she just revealed her actual bad think feelings and bury her further as admitting weakness to the mob is not their style.



I want to say you're wrong, but, this isn't the most unlikely result unfortunately.  Hopefully cooler heads will prevail.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 25, 2022)

Hussar said:


> I want to say you're wrong, but, this isn't the most unlikely result unfortunately.  Hopefully cooler heads will prevail.



I suspect if Ms. Lackey’s apology is publicly accepted by the person who first took umbrage, that will give the SFWA enough cover to de-escalate.


----------



## Ixal (May 25, 2022)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Ms. Lackey made a slip of the tongue.  She meant no harm, but clearly caused some.  By apologizing for her mistake, she confirms to those who know her and illustrates to those who don’t that her word choice was merely a gaffe, and not a window to an unsuspected character flaw.




Was there really any harm done (to someone besides Lackey)? I will never understand the American definition of harm and how easily it gets thrown around.
Hearing a word you do not like, which many people do not even consider a slur, is not harm. Especially when you put it into context (something people seem to be able to do as otherwise they would constantly claim being harmed by rap songs which make use of the N word. Instead there are discussions about who is allowed to use the word and who not. So why not put this colored here into context?).
Its getting ridiculus with people getting offended by a country named Montenegro (actual example, there are tiktok videos about it) or that some languages have words that sound like the N word (and those people were aware that the others speak a different language).

And whats even more frightening is how normalized this outrage and the expected kowtow to the mob is and how many posters seem to ignore the collective punishment against Lackey's husband, a practice usually only associated with hardcore dictatorships.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 25, 2022)

Ixal said:


> Hearing a word you do not like, which many people do not even consider a slur, is not harm.



Not everyone shares that perspective.



Ixal said:


> Especially when you put it into context (something people seem to be able to do as otherwise they would constantly claim being harmed by rap songs which make use of the N word.



There’s a sizeable portion of the American black community that never cared for efforts to “reclaim” or “repurpose” that word, and still do not care for it to this day.  The view articulated then was that it was misguided and ultimately confusing.  Personally, while I do LISTEN to and enjoy rap that uses it, I really wish they had made different lyrical choices.



Ixal said:


> Its getting ridiculus with people getting offended by a country named Montenegro (actual example, there are tiktok videos about it) or that some languages have words that sound like the N word (and those people were aware that the others speak a different language).



I’m aware of that, and I’m sadly bemused by it.  But the phenomenon ISN’T limited to variations on a racial slur’s sound.  There’s a linguistic concept called “false friends”- words that sound alike and may even resemble words in other languages or other dialects, but have no actual relation to each other.  For example, “mist” in English (a form of low lying cloud) and in German (manure) have completely different meanings.  Or consider the differences between English and American uses of “rubber” and “fag”.


----------



## Ixal (May 25, 2022)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Not everyone shares that perspective.



Which part, that hearing a word you dislike is not harm or that many people do not consider colored to be a slur (already implied by "many". At least the person Lackey spoke to did not consider it to be one according to her own statement).


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 25, 2022)

The former.


----------



## Ixal (May 25, 2022)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> The former.



So is Montenegro existing causing harm? Or people speaking chinese?
You can find examples of people getting offended by that for both.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 25, 2022)

Ixal said:


> So is Montenegro existing causing harm? Or people speaking chinese?
> You can find examples of people getting offended by that for both.



Montenegro contains a false friend.*  That someone takes offense at it is easily rectified by explanation.  See also Niger.

As for people speaking other languages, yes, people get upset about that.  Some whenever it occurs, some only situationally.

But here’s the thing: you don‘t really have the power to tell someone not to be offended by something by your mere say-so.  Trying to do so has a high probability of simply reinforcing their negative feelings.  I mean, have you ever told your significant other to simply “not be angry” about something they were already very angry about?  How did that work out?

You can’t control someone’s level of negativity, you can only control your response to it.


* See previous post that was probably edited while you were already responding, or this link:




__





						False friend - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Ixal (May 25, 2022)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Montenegro contains a false friend.*  That someone takes offense at it is easily rectified by explanation.  See also Niger.
> 
> As for people speaking other languages, yes, people get upset about that.  Some whenever it occurs, some only situationally.
> 
> ...



Explanation does not help in all cases. The one about speaking chinese were made aware that it was in another language and what its translation is before the word was used. Yet they still got offended, complained and there were job related consequences because of it (luckily not permanent ones).
Its the na-ge incident from USC if you want to look it up. It was in the news.

Making "someone is getting offended" the only scale for when actual harm is done is ridiculus because you can always find people who get offended about something, including things they are completely uninformed about like Montenegro existing. Especially when it more often then not creates an outcry on social media, requires public apologies and often has real world consequences like the loss of a job.
At some point you have to say "when you get offended by that its on you and just hearing the word does not cause harm".

In the US the word harm seems to become more and more a synonym for slight discomfort.


----------



## Cadence (May 25, 2022)

Ixal said:


> Explanation does not help in all cases. The one about speaking chinese were made aware that it was in another language and what its translation is before the word was used. Yet they still got offended, complained and there were job related consequences because of it (luckily not permanent ones).
> Its the na-ge incident from USC if you want to look it up. It was in the news.
> 
> Making "someone is getting offended" the only scale for when actual harm is done is ridiculus because you can always find people who get offended about something, including things they are completely uninformed about like Montenegro existing. Especially when it more often then not creates an outcry on social media, requires public apologies and often has real world consequences like the loss of a job.
> ...




Which feels like it quickly becomes all complaints are baseless and folks should just put up with whatever slurs colleagues, employers, customers want to hurl at them. 

Processes can almost always be made better.  By itself, not being perfect seems an odd reason to throw out a process instead of improving it, since nothing is perfect - even things that can have bad real-world consequences.

Bullied LGBTQ+ kids committing suicide, black employees finding nooses in lockers until they quit their jobs, women being mocked behind closed doors by male supervisors and paid less in line with the stereotypes, etc... are all real world consequences too.


----------



## Myrdin Potter (May 25, 2022)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I suspect if Ms. Lackey’s apology is publicly accepted by the person who first took umbrage, that will give the SFWA enough cover to de-escalate.



They cannot de-escalate. The conference is over and the panels she was removed from are done and gone. Her husband was also kicked off and those are done and gone. The public statement saying what she said was a slur with zero context has already been done.


----------



## AnotherGuy (May 25, 2022)

Ixal said:


> In the US the word harm seems to become more and more a synonym for slight discomfort.



If that is indeed the case, they should really rethink the spell level for Harm.


----------



## Janx (May 25, 2022)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Now what’s needed is the followup “In regards to an incident that has been revealed to be a perfect storm of unfortunate events leading to profound misunderstandings…” message from the SFWA.



I would bet money that ain't gonna happen until Lackey sues the crap out of them.

It seems from earlier posts that Lackey has Wordlexia, what I call word slip-ups.  Verbal Dyspraxia it was really called.  Happens to me to.

Somebody was offended. We got that.  It's a word best avoided, even if it wasn't used derisively.

Were they hurt by it? Did the level of racism in the world increase because Lackey said it? Did more people become extremist? Did they feel like Lackey was trying to make them cry?

Was Lackey hurt by this?

Seriously, nobody talks about that. I bet she cried. She was embarrassed. Shamed. Her husband got hit by it, too. What' he'd do wrong?

Her entire weekend was ruined and likely it seemed her reputation.

And she's not even one of those actual racist trolls like the ones jacking the voting against NK Jemisin.

Wow. Circular firing squad works again.

I smell a defamation lawsuit.  If the person who was offended thought they had a case, they had jack taco compared to what was done to Lackey.

"She used a word not directed at me that though it had a past racist context was not used in a hateful speech" doesn't hold as much water to the actual harm done to the Lackeys by the response.

All somebody had to do was speak to her.  Offended party to con staff. Con staff to her. Lackey wouldn have posted the same apology.

Here's the extra harm. The racism level in the world did not increase because of what Lackey said. The hurt the offended party felt is much smaller than the racism increase that will happen because of the response of "what happened to Lackey" being used to radicalize more people.

Again, congrats to that person. Their response to being offended will increase the level of racism they are likely to encounter.

Good plan.


----------



## AnotherGuy (May 25, 2022)

Janx said:


> Again, congrats to that person. Their response to being offended will increase the level of racism they are likely to encounter.



Your post was fantastic. Finally someone eloquently articulated the bigger picture which often is never considered. 
This exact things happens a lot with other communities too.


----------



## payn (May 25, 2022)

Janx said:


> I would bet money that ain't gonna happen until Lackey sues the crap out of them.
> 
> It seems from earlier posts that Lackey has Wordlexia, what I call word slip-ups.  Verbal Dyspraxia it was really called.  Happens to me to.
> 
> ...



There is some awful precedent you are trying to set up here. This sounds like you have to have measurable example of offense before you even dare raise the issue or people will sue the hell out of you. Also, they will blame you for causing the thing you are offended by in the first place. What role do we know the offended person took in all this? Did they simply raise an objection and the SFWA took it from there? If thats the case, its on SWFA not the person for reporting the objection.


----------



## Mallus (May 25, 2022)

Samuel R. Delany's should be the last word on this. Because there's no one better with words in all of science fiction & fantasy than Chip (plus he has relevant lived experience and all...).


----------



## Mannahnin (May 25, 2022)

Janx said:


> All somebody had to do was speak to her.  Offended party to con staff. Con staff to her. Lackey wouldn have posted the same apology.
> 
> Here's the extra harm. The racism level in the world did not increase because of what Lackey said. The hurt the offended party felt is much smaller than the racism increase that will happen because of the response of "what happened to Lackey" being used to radicalize more people.
> 
> Again, congrats to that person. Their response to being offended will increase the level of racism they are likely to encounter.



This stinks of blaming the victim.  Lackey made a mistake, and one which was inadvertently hurtful.  The offended party on the panel was restrained and reasonable in their response.  SFWA went overboard and appears to have exacerbated the harm of the incident past what it should have been.

Conventions are in a bit of a no-win situation with incidents of author/guest misbehavior.  For decades authors who misbehaved were shielded from consequence (like Asimov's notorious treatment of women, among other famous examples) and convention organizers covered for them.  Now they are attempting to make clear that the old patterns are being broken, and occasionally going overboard, as seems to be the case here.

No disagreement that Twitter is toxic.  But this argument is equally so.



Mallus said:


> Samuel R. Delany's should be the last word on this. Because there's no one better with words in all of science fiction & fantasy than Chip (plus he has relevant lived experience and all...).



Eh. I think his viewpoint is important, but he's not the only person affected.  Far from it.


----------



## Cadence (May 25, 2022)

Mannahnin said:


> Conventions are in a bit of a no-win situation with incidents of author/guest misbehavior.  For decades authors who misbehaved were shielded from consequence (like Asimov's notorious treatment of women, among other famous examples) and convention organizers covered for them.  Now they are attempting to make clear that the old patterns are being broken, and occasionally going overboard, as seems to be the case here.




Their harassment policy seem to have more levels and guidance built in than the moderation one.  I hope they will be making a more detailed moderation one now - it feels like it would help a lot in the future.   Policies - Nebula Awards Conference Online


----------



## Janx (May 25, 2022)

Mannahnin said:


> This stinks of blaming the victim.  Lackey made a mistake, and one which was inadvertently hurtful.  The offended party on the panel was restrained and reasonable in their response.  SFWA went overboard and appears to have exacerbated the harm of the incident past what it should have been.
> 
> Conventions are in a bit of a no-win situation with incidents of author/guest misbehavior.  For decades authors who misbehaved were shielded from consequence (like Asimov's notorious treatment of women, among other famous examples) and convention organizers covered for them.  Now they are attempting to make clear that the old patterns are being broken, and occasionally going overboard, as seems to be the case here.
> 
> ...



You're right, it does. Sorry. I'm not naming the offended party. They have cause to be offended, regardless of whether we can find another person like them who disagrees with them.

The real offender is SFWA. It was their event. If they had an Asimov on their hands, that's one thing. Or a racist. They didn't. They had a little old lady who has a record of verbal tongue tying who was saying something nice, with a bad choice of words.


----------



## Janx (May 25, 2022)

Mallus said:


> Samuel R. Delany's should be the last word on this. Because there's no one better with words in all of science fiction & fantasy than Chip (plus he has relevant lived experience and all...).



I disagree. While it should hold weight that the guy she was talking about did not find offense with her choice of words, it's common to find someone within a demographic who disagrees with the rest on whether something is offensive.

I don't know how to measure offensiveness. I just try to be wary if somebody's found a guy who says it's OK.


----------



## Ixal (May 25, 2022)

Janx said:


> I disagree. While it should hold weight that the guy she was talking about did not find offense with her choice of words, it's common to find someone within a demographic who disagrees with the rest on whether something is offensive.
> 
> I don't know how to measure offensiveness. I just try to be wary if somebody's found a guy who says it's OK.



As opposed to find one guy who says its offensive like Montenegro or na-ge?


----------



## MGibster (May 25, 2022)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I suspect if Ms. Lackey’s apology is publicly accepted by the person who first took umbrage, that will give the SFWA enough cover to de-escalate.



It's a little too late to disarm a grenade once its blown up in someone's face.  It doesn't mean the SFWA can't apologize, but they did the opposite of deescalate, and this overshadows anything else that might have happened this year.  "Remember the year the SFWA kicked their own Grand Master, and her husband, out of the event?"  



Dannyalcatraz said:


> There’s a sizeable portion of the American black community that never cared for efforts to “reclaim” or “repurpose” that word, and still do not care for it to this day. The view articulated then was that it was misguided and ultimately confusing. Personally, while I do LISTEN to and enjoy rap that uses it, I really wish they had made different lyrical choices.



And I don't feel as though I'm in any position to determine for someone else what they should or shouldn't find offensive.  The best course of action is to accept that they find it offensive, maybe find out why they find it offensive, and proceed from there.  


Janx said:


> I would bet money that ain't gonna happen until Lackey sues the crap out of them.



I know we're a litigious people, but I'm not seeing much of a defamation case here as she's a public figure and the bar is rather high.  Lackey would have to demonstrate that the defaming words somehow harmed her in some tangible way (economically for example), and I'm not sure it has.  And, like it or not, Lackey did refer to someone else as colored.  Even if the SFWA overreacted and did not handle the situation at all appropriately, Lackey said what she said.  



payn said:


> Also, they will blame you for causing the thing you are offended by in the first place. What role do we know the offended person took in all this? Did they simply raise an objection and the SFWA took it from there? If thats the case, its on SWFA not the person for reporting the objection.




I'm with you on this, I put this squarely on the shoulders of the SFWA and not the person for reporting the objection.  I think this might make it _less_ likely for people to report something they find offensive because they see the response is way out of proportion.


----------



## This Effin’ GM (May 25, 2022)

Ixal said:


> As opposed to find one guy who says its offensive like Montenegro or na-ge?





Ixal said:


> Its getting ridiculus with people getting offended by a country named Montenegro (actual example, there are tiktok videos about it) or that some languages have words that sound like the N word (and those people were aware that the others speak a different language).






Ixal said:


> So is Montenegro existing causing harm? Or people speaking chinese?
> You can find examples of people getting offended by that for both.






Ixal said:


> including things they are completely uninformed about like Montenegro existing.




Holy crud you really want to talk about these tiktok videos.


----------



## Mallus (May 25, 2022)

Janx said:


> I disagree. While it should hold weight that the guy she was talking about did not find offense with her choice of words, it's common to find someone within a demographic who disagrees with the rest on whether something is offensive.
> 
> I don't know how to measure offensiveness. I just try to be wary if somebody's found a guy who says it's OK.



You're right, of course. I was trying a little too hard to be clever and also to give props to a man who writes sentences like no other.

The other members of that panel had every right to have their own reactions. As did everyone in the audience, and everyone else informed of the incident, for that matter.

The real fault here is with the SFWA and their rapid and unequivocal response to a situation (and to people) who deserved more nuance and restraint.


----------



## Ixal (May 25, 2022)

This Effin’ GM said:


> Holy crud you really want to talk about these tiktok videos.



Because they are two very good examples of the current silliness of the offended person alone decides if something is offensive and that public reaction and apology (and consequences) are required. There are certainly more but those two came to mind.

And as much as I want to talk about them others want to sweep them under the rug because, probably, they would find it very hard to defend why the offended person is right.


----------



## This Effin’ GM (May 25, 2022)

Ixal said:


> Because they are two very good examples of the current silliness of the offended person alone decides if something is offensive and that public reaction and apology (and consequences) are required. There are certainly more but those two came to mind.
> 
> And as much as I want to talk about them others want to sweep them under the rug because, probably, they would find it very hard to defend why the offended person is right.



(Looks at posts content. Looks at your desire to conflate this with an anecdotal evidence of something you find ridiculous). 

Look bud. No one is stopping you from starting a thread to talk about these tiktok videos. Saying people are sweeping it under the rug in a forum not having anything to do with it sounds a lot like sealioning to me.


----------



## Cadence (May 25, 2022)

Ixal said:


> Because they are two very good examples of the current silliness of the offended person alone decides if something is offensive and that public reaction and apology (and consequences) are required. There are certainly more but those two came to mind.
> 
> And as much as I want to talk about them others want to sweep them under the rug because, probably, they would find it very hard to defend why the offended person is right.




In just about everything there is an example that is beyond the pale, ridiculous, or an extreme outlier that provides no insight - and has essentially nothing to do with the topic at hand.

"This person is offended by pineapple pizza, so we can never talk about pineapple pizza!", for example, is an inane derail.

Is "colored" widely considered as bad as the words we can't type here?  No, of course not.  But it isn't hard to google up things about it and why it's best avoided and probably wouldn't have just been offending one person in the context we're discussing.


----------



## Ixal (May 25, 2022)

deleted as per Umbrans request.


----------



## Umbran (May 25, 2022)

Ixal said:


> And as much as I want to talk about them others want to sweep them under the rug because...




Stop right there.  At this point you get into mind reading and ascribing intent to others, and that's a problem.

I would suggest all sides of the discussion consider the difference between a generalization, and an absolute statement.  Be sure you are making the form of statement you really want to support.  And also, be sure you are not responding to generalizations as if they were absolutes.

I would also like everyone to consider that making the point that an absolute isn't, in fact, absolute is not necessarily the win you think it is.


----------



## MGibster (May 25, 2022)

Cadence said:


> "This person is offended by pineapple pizza, so we can never talk about pineapple pizza!", for example, is an inane derail.



I just opened a Twitter account to complain about you talking about pineapple pizza.  But you're right, we can always find examples of people going beyond the pale who are ridiculous outliers.  



Cadence said:


> Is "colored" widely considered as bad as the words we can't type here? No, of course not. But it isn't hard to google up things about it and why it's best avoided and probably wouldn't have just been offending one person here.



I sure as heck wouldn't describe someone that way.  Mostly because it's not 1940.


----------



## This Effin’ GM (May 25, 2022)

MGibster said:


> I just opened a Twitter account to complain about you talking about pineapple pizza.



I followed it, I’m looking forward to all them fire takes on peoples takes on pineapple pizza.


----------



## Cadence (May 25, 2022)

Ixal said:


> Except that unlike the pinapple thing those things happened and are not just theoretical. If you defend the stance that the only measure if something is offensive is when someone says it it, like what is used here to justify why a apology is even needed for saying colored, then you also have to defend those instances I posted for the same reason.




It feels like whether "colored" is problematic goes beyond one person at a panel.   And also that it's a bit deeper than one ill-informed tik-tocker offended by a country's name.

2020 - Column: Why is ‘people of color’ OK but not ‘colored people’? A reading list for white folks

2019 - Coloured | The Spectator
and Frank Harris III: Is ‘colored’ seeping back into language?

2016 - Why Is Colored Person Hurtful and Person of Color OK? A Theory of Racial Euphemisms.
and What it means to be colored

2015 - Warning: Why using the term 'coloured' is offensive

2014 - The Journey From 'Colored' To 'Minorities' To 'People Of Color'

2013 - 2013 Reddit ELI5 Link

2010 -  As the word used before the one in the article title -  How old was Harry Reid when the word Negro became taboo?

2003 - Project MUSE - What's in a Slur?

1992 - https://www.jstor.org/stable/2749204?seq=1

1991 - Page 4 has a survey - https://www.jstor.org/stable/455882?seq=4

MacMillan Dictionary - offensive words for people according to nationality or ethnicity - synonyms and related words | Macmillan Dictionary

Collins Dictionary - Coloured definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary

Oxford English Dictionary (via lexico.com) - COLORED English Definition and Meaning | Lexico.com

History of use in style guides (colored was to be avoided in a 1977 style guide)- AP tackles language about race in this year’s style guide

Wikipedia article - Colored - Wikipedia


----------



## doctorbadwolf (May 25, 2022)

Janx said:


> Again, congrats to that person. Their response to being offended will increase the level of racism they are likely to encounter.
> 
> Good plan.



This is a very bad take. 

One person overreacting to something (and this isn't even  case of that, except on the part of the convention) has never turned a non-bigot into a bigot, and it never will. At worst, it changes the talking point used by a bigot from some other thing, into the case of the person overreacting to something.


----------



## Myrdin Potter (May 25, 2022)

doctorbadwolf said:


> This is a very bad take.
> 
> One person overreacting to something (and this isn't even  case of that, except on the part of the convention) has never turned a non-bigot into a bigot, and it never will. At worst, it changes the talking point used by a bigot from some other thing, into the case of the person overreacting to something.



I agree that a bigot is a bigot. I think you missed the point here, though. People who see such encounters but have not engaged yet have a much higher chance of a negative emotional response and can easily serve to push them to harden their opinions.

Ask yourself what the average person’s reaction would be to this story now that enough details are out.


----------



## Myrdin Potter (May 25, 2022)

I read a lot of Delaney when I was younger and continue to think he is an excellent writer. I have a hard time being positive about him (as opposed to his work) because of his association with an organization almost everyone would have an issue with.


----------



## BookTenTiger (May 25, 2022)

Myrdin Potter said:


> I agree that a bigot is a bigot. I think you missed the point here, though. People who see such encounters but have not engaged yet have a much higher chance of a negative emotional response and can easily serve to push them to harden their opinions.
> 
> Ask yourself what the average person’s reaction would be to this story now that enough details are out.



I would assume the average person would be more likely to think, "Wow, what an unfortunate miscommunication. This reminds me to be extra careful when talking about race."

Than, "Wow, I should be more racist!"


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 25, 2022)

Ixal said:


> Explanation does not help in all cases.



True.  But it does in many.


Ixal said:


> Its the na-ge incident from USC if you want to look it up. It was in the news.



I know it well, as wel” as similar cases here in Texas involv8ng the Spanish word for “black”.


Ixal said:


> Making "someone is getting offended" the only scale for when actual harm is done is ridiculus



_No one _is making the absolutist claim that it should be “the only scale”.

On the contrary, you seem to be willing to claim being offended is completely harmless and ignore it altogether.  The studies of stress effects on human mental and physical health would tend to belie its total harmlessness.


----------



## Myrdin Potter (May 25, 2022)

BookTenTiger said:


> I would assume the average person would be more likely to think, "Wow, what an unfortunate miscommunication. This reminds me to be extra careful when talking about race."
> 
> Than, "Wow, I should be more racist!"



I think the average person will think, “wow, these people are crazy about what they get upset about.” And “boy, did SFWA overreact. They must have real issues.”

Neither of those are bigoted responses but don’t help if other issues come up later.


----------



## Willie the Duck (May 25, 2022)

BookTenTiger said:


> I would assume the average person would be more likely to think, "Wow, what an unfortunate miscommunication. This reminds me to be extra careful when talking about race."
> 
> Than, "Wow, I should be more racist!"



I do think these missteps feed the notion of a great big-bad 'woke mob' coming to make everyone's lives miserable at the slightest provocation (especially people who mistake anecdotes for actual statistics).


----------



## South by Southwest (May 25, 2022)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> You can’t control someone’s level of negativity, you can only control your response to it.



_That_ is a vitally important lesson that I wish I had learned a lot earlier than I did.


----------



## AnotherGuy (May 25, 2022)

BookTenTiger said:


> I would assume the average person would be more likely to think, "Wow, what an unfortunate miscommunication. This reminds me to be extra careful when talking about race."
> 
> Than, "Wow, I should be more racist!"



This happens in the trans communities too. Coincidentally yesterday I watched a round-table discussion with several members of that community and one of the topics that came up was how this over-reactionary response and militant activism is alienating and hurting the community, from their perspective. All of them were in agreement on this. The Dave Chapelle backlash was also addressed and they defended him tooth and nail against those who wanted to cancel him.

The over-reaction and aggressive activism cements an us-vs-them mentality and discourse sadly is completely lost. It is why you have organisations like the LGB Alliance. A movement funny enough they support.


----------



## Janx (May 25, 2022)

Willie the Duck said:


> I do think these missteps feed the notion of a great big-bad 'woke mob' coming to make everyone's lives miserable at the slightest provocation (especially people who mistake anecdotes for actual statistics).



and that's how it works. Youtube can make you a flat-earther in 3 weeks.  Tucker Carlson can make you racist in 2.

Even racists have valid points about problems (well, not their points about race). But things like fear of "the mob". They're off base, but guess what, that concern is in regular folks as well.  And they build off of that until they got you hooked in on their bad stuff.

So anytime the circular firing squad comes out, we are playing into their hands. Make dang sure your target is worthy of taking down.


----------



## MGibster (May 25, 2022)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> On the contrary, you seem to be willing to claim being offended is completely harmless and ignore it altogether. The studies of stress effects on human mental and physical health would tend to belie its total harmlessness.



Because it's not always visible, it's very easy to overlook someone's experiences in the past that might have led to their reaction.  In a vaccuum, maybe Lackey's word choice isn't a big deal, but placed within the context of an individual's experience over the course of their life, it's perfectly reasonable for them to have chafed.  Surly all of us has been in a situation where something we initially blew off just kept rubbing us the wrong way until it became a sore spot.   And you're spot on about the impact stress can have on people.  It's not harmless.


----------



## Gradine (May 25, 2022)

Mannahnin said:


> People-first language - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Janx (May 25, 2022)

MGibster said:


> Because it's not always visible, it's very easy to overlook someone's experiences in the past that might have led to their reaction.  In a vaccuum, maybe Lackey's word choice isn't a big deal, but placed within the context of an individual's experience over the course of their life, it's perfectly reasonable for them to have chafed.  Surly all of us has been in a situation where something we initially blew off just kept rubbing us the wrong way until it became a sore spot.   And you're spot on about the impact stress can have on people.  It's not harmless.



that, and as somebody not targeted by such language, it's easy for me to play devil's advocate, or let it slide. It's far from personal.

somebody else, that's their lived experience and yet another harassment vector.

just talking about it with others could be stressful. Let alone to someone who wants to give it a pass.

complex stuff because it IS personal


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 25, 2022)

Myrdin Potter said:


> They cannot de-escalate. The conference is over and the panels she was removed from are done and gone. Her husband was also kicked off and those are done and gone. The public statement saying what she said was a slur with zero context has already been done.



While the conference is over THIS YEAR, a public apology with an explanation of how the situation spiraled out of control could reset expectations for future SFWA gatherings, and make it possible for Ms. Lackey to attend those gatherings with *less* pushback than their saying nothing at all.

“Justice must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done.”Lord Hewart once wrote in a judicial opinion.  Just as Ms. Lackey recognized her gaffe, the SFWA needs to own their overreaction, both for their membership and their own goodwill.

If they don’t?  Even if they privately agree that she’s welcome to return to their events, people would question why.  They would also petition for removing her from the SWFA’s list of honorees.


----------



## Umbran (May 25, 2022)

Janx said:


> But things like fear of "the mob".




Scared of saying the wrong thing and being caught by "the mob"?

Stop for a moment, and consider how often we have been told about the other perpetual fears out there - women in perpetual fear of being targeted for sexual assault and harassment, people of color in perpetual fear of being found guilty of "existing while black".

Welcome to the club, I guess.


----------



## Janx (May 25, 2022)

Umbran said:


> Scared of saying the wrong thing and being caught by "the mob"?
> 
> Stop for a moment, and consider how often we have been told about the other perpetual fears out there - women in perpetual fear of being targeted for sexual assault and harassment, people of color in perpetual fear of being found guilty of "existing while black".
> 
> Welcome to the club, I guess.



pretty much.

I'm aware of all that.

I don't think of it as the same club, because the actual risks aren't the same scale.  But somebody's working that angle on folks to promote their agenda. Which is usually tied to bigotry.


----------



## Myrdin Potter (May 25, 2022)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> While the conference is over THIS YEAR, a public apology with an explanation of how the situation spiraled out of control could reset expectations for future SFWA gatherings, and make it possible for Ms. Lackey to attend those gatherings with *less* pushback than their saying nothing at all.
> 
> “Justice must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done.”Lord Hewart once wrote in a judicial opinion.  Just as Ms. Lackey recognized her gaffe, the SFWA needs to own their overreaction, both for their membership and their own goodwill.
> 
> If they don’t?  Even if they privately agree that she’s welcome to return to their events, people would question why.  They would also petition for removing her from the SWFA’s list of honorees.



To de-escalate just means that they are brushing off the crimes of an old white woman who made a much less powerful younger black woman feel poorly. Just because of a few extra words said which obviously are just because that old woman was caught saying out loud what she believes in her heart. No no no.


----------



## BookTenTiger (May 25, 2022)

Myrdin Potter said:


> To de-escalate just means that they are brushing off the crimes of an old white woman who made a much less powerful younger black woman feel poorly. Just because of a few extra words said which obviously are just because that old woman was caught saying out loud what she believes in her heart. No no no.



You are making a lot of assumptions.


----------



## Hussar (May 25, 2022)

payn said:


> There is some awful precedent you are trying to set up here. This sounds like you have to have measurable example of offense before you even dare raise the issue or people will sue the hell out of you. Also, they will blame you for causing the thing you are offended by in the first place. What role do we know the offended person took in all this? Did they simply raise an objection and the SFWA took it from there? If thats the case, its on SWFA not the person for reporting the objection.




There is another route though that should have been taken. 

Follow the practices established by the policies of the group that you agreed to follow before taking it to public airing. Note I mean general you here. 

The SWFA like any organization has complaint procedures in place. Had those actually been followed likely none of this would have happened. 

It’s when people compleyetly ignore what they we’re supposed to do in the first place that all these kinds of overreactions could be avoided.


----------



## Myrdin Potter (May 25, 2022)

BookTenTiger said:


> You are making a lot of assumptions.



That Twitter will be Twitter?


----------



## doctorbadwolf (May 26, 2022)

Myrdin Potter said:


> I agree that a bigot is a bigot. I think you missed the point here, though. People who see such encounters but have not engaged yet have a much higher chance of a negative emotional response and can easily serve to push them to harden their opinions.
> 
> Ask yourself what the average person’s reaction would be to this story now that enough details are out.



"Man that sucks."? 

"Man those book nerds sure got egg on their face, now."? 

No one is going to go from ally to enemy of inclusion, over it.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (May 26, 2022)

Janx said:


> and that's how it works. Youtube can make you a flat-earther in 3 weeks.  Tucker Carlson can make you racist in 2.



No, they can't.


Janx said:


> So anytime the circular firing squad comes out, we are playing into their hands. Make dang sure your target is worthy of taking down.



No, we are not. 

This entire mindset is ridiculous, and feeds into the "don't rock the boat" narrative that makes it harder to actually effectively advocate for social justice and positive change.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 26, 2022)

Myrdin Potter said:


> To de-escalate just means that they are brushing off the crimes of an old white woman who made a much less powerful younger black woman feel poorly. Just because of a few extra words said which obviously are just because that old woman was caught saying out loud what she believes in her heart. No no no.



Based on what I’m reading, I don’t believe that she’s a racist,  beyond this isolated incident, I don’t see a pattern that would indicate such.  Indeed, when she misspoke, she was in the process of praising the person to whom she referred as “colored.”

Is that dispositive?  Of course not.  For all I know, she could have a B&B she only rents to the KKK.  But I’m willing to give her the benefit of the doubt.


----------



## Hussar (May 26, 2022)

I’m pretty willing to fling the poop pretty widely here. This is a textbook example of how not to deal with this issue pretty much front to back.


----------



## South by Southwest (May 26, 2022)

BookTenTiger said:


> You are making a lot of assumptions.



I'm pretty sure that post was parody.


----------



## Umbran (May 26, 2022)

BookTenTiger said:


> You are making a lot of assumptions.




Not just making assumptions.  Ignoring the evidence.  It isn't like she's an unknown - she was being given the grandmaster for a reason.

Mercedes Lackey has been one of the most prolific writers in the sci-fi and fantasy genres since she began in the mid-1980s.  She writes more than 5 books a year on average, and has over 140 titles under her belt.  

It would be extremely strange, stretching credulity, to have those 140 works published, and then be suddenly revealed as a bigot by one slipped word while speaking in praise of a black author.  As if... after decades and millions of words expressed, _this one word_ is what shows her true colors?  

That doesn't really survive a sniff test.  



South by Southwest said:


> I'm pretty sure that post was parody.




Poe's Law in action - parody fails when it is indistinguishable from the real thing.


----------



## South by Southwest (May 26, 2022)

Umbran said:


> Poe's Law in action - parody fails when it is indistinguishable from the real thing.



Fair enough. It surely is one of the curses of the internet that the lines between simple humor, sincere speech, and trolling are too often awfully hard to discern. Facial expressions, body posture, verbal timing, and all that.


----------



## Myrdin Potter (May 26, 2022)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Based on what I’m reading, I don’t believe that she’s a racist,  beyond this isolated incident, I don’t see a pattern that would indicate such.  Indeed, when she misspoke, she was in the process of praising the person to whom she referred as “colored.”
> 
> Is that dispositive?  Of course not.  For all I know, she could have a B&B she only rents to the KKK.  But I’m willing to give her the benefit of the doubt.



I do not believe that she is a racist as well. Even if it was not a mess up, a verbal stutter that she said happened, but instead she did use the word, that is not evidence of racism to me if there is nothing that backs that up. At worst insentitive.

My comment was both sarcasm/parody and deeply held cynicism. I wish I was only making fun, but I actually believe that the SFWA will not apologize and that any sign of them backing down (which as an institution they have not on these types of things for a long time) would be reacted to exactly as I said on Twitter. Because I have seen that over and over.

They should not have issued the statement that they did - directly saying said a racial slur and they should not have kicked her husband out as well. 

As to why I think they acted in the way they did, I would certainly trod over the clear lines here while responding to one moderator while another is commenting. I hope I am smart enough to avoid that. But this is an organization that has applauded similar actions over the last decade and I don’t think the public shaming was not on purpose.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 26, 2022)

To be clear: I don’t think the action the SFWA took was inherently unjustified or heavy handed.*  I think the action the SFWA took was unjustified _in this particular case._

IOW, I wouldn’t have an issue with the SFWA acting as they did if the case were much more clear cut.  But in this case, they hastily jumped to an unjustified conclusion, resulting in an undeserved punishment.

Is there some kind of past event I’ve missed that might have caused them to rush to judgement?





* except banning her husband (?) as well.  That was out of line, IMHO.  There’s a time to ban “known associates”, and based on what has been revealed, this wasn’t anywhere near justified.


----------



## Myrdin Potter (May 26, 2022)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> To be clear: I don’t think the action the SFWA took was inherently unjustified or heavy handed.*  I think the action the SFWA took was unjustified _in this particular case._
> 
> IOW, I wouldn’t have an issue with the SFWA acting as they did if the case were much more clear cut.  But in this case, they hastily jumped to an unjustified conclusion, resulting in an undeserved punishment.
> 
> ...











						A history of racism led to an implosion of the romance publishing world. Now can it change?
					






					www.vox.com
				




Fear. And policy.


----------



## Janx (May 26, 2022)

Myrdin Potter said:


> A history of racism led to an implosion of the romance publishing world. Now can it change?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



there's also the Sad Puppies and the Hugos, which hits closer to the SFWA









						How conservatives took over sci-fi's most prestigious award
					

It's the latest skirmish in a larger war for nerd culture's soul.




					www.vox.com


----------



## Myrdin Potter (May 26, 2022)

Janx said:


> there's also the Sad Puppies and the Hugos, which hits closer to the SFWA
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That is a completely different award. 

I am pretty sure the much more recent complete meltdown of a similar organization was on their minds.

I also think it was their intent to use the chance they were given.


----------



## billd91 (May 26, 2022)

I know people who now steer away from WisCon, a local and long-running feminist sci-fi convention in Madison that is coming up just this weekend, over issues of safety and inclusiveness and have done so for most of the last decade. This may seem weird, but there are some very virulent strains of non-inclusiveness embedded within some ostensibly inclusive venues. And I don't mean excluding bigoted politics - I mean being so focused on certain identities that others feel a degree of hostility in panels and gatherings. TERF-esque behavior isn't confined to radical feminists and transphobia. You're either with the in-crowd or you're an outsider.

And small(ish) conventions, enthusiast organizations, and so on seem to be really fertile venues for these issues to arise.


----------



## Dausuul (May 26, 2022)

billd91 said:


> I know people who now steer away from WisCon, a local and long-running feminist sci-fi convention in Madison that is coming up just this weekend, over issues of safety and inclusiveness and have done so for most of the last decade.



That's a shame. I went to WisCon sixteen or seventeen years ago, and it seemed like a very nice con back then. But things do change.


----------



## Janx (May 26, 2022)

Myrdin Potter said:


> That is a completely different award.
> 
> I am pretty sure the much more recent complete meltdown of a similar organization was on their minds.
> 
> I also think it was their intent to use the chance they were given.



Obviously.

but the RWA is further from the demographic than the Hugo kids in the same genre. These folks go to the same meetings. And the anti-NK Jemisin drama is ongoing. Including GRR Martin's rambly bit about how awesome racist Campbell was.


----------



## Myrdin Potter (May 26, 2022)

Janx said:


> Obviously.
> 
> but the RWA is further from the demographic than the Hugo kids in the same genre. These folks go to the same meetings. And the anti-NK Jemisin drama is ongoing. Including GRR Martin's rambly bit about how awesome racist Campbell was.



Sad Puppies was 7+ years ago and really had nothing to do with SFWA. And I am pretty sure that Mercedes Lackey and her husband were opponents to them. The Romance Writers association and awards are directly inline with the SFWA and very recent.


----------



## tomBitonti (May 26, 2022)

Can someone say for what purpose the word was used?  Why was Delaney's skin color relevant?  After reflection, I'm finding that I care more about the answer to this question than to which particular word was used.

Do we know the full circumstances of what happened?  Is it possible that other factors led to the decisions that were made?

Tom Bitonti


----------



## MGibster (May 26, 2022)

tomBitonti said:


> Can someone say for what purpose the word was used? Why was Delaney's skin color relevant? After reflection, I'm finding that I care more about the answer to this question than to which particular word was used.






			
				Mercedes Lackey said:
			
		

> On a panel at the 2022 Nebulas, I had the chance to celebrate authors who wrote positive gay characters long before me.
> 
> Chip Delany is obviously a major player in that game. Because there are two Samuel Delanys–there’s one from Texas–I wanted to make sure people got hold of the right one. So, in my excitement, I got caught in a mental/verbal stumble between “black” and “person of color,” and as best I can remember, what came stuttering out was something like “spcolored.”


----------



## tomBitonti (May 26, 2022)

That's a ... problematic ... usage.  Using skin color as a way of distinguishing people suggests a categorical difference based on skin color.  This is (in my opinion) not a useful way of thinking.  I don't think that such a way of distinguishing people is useful except in the very specific circumstance of picking a person out of a group which was immediately present.  I would expect that there are more important ways to distinguish the two Mr. Delaney's.

TomB


----------



## MGibster (May 26, 2022)

tomBitonti said:


> That's a ... problematic ... usage. Using skin color as a way of distinguishing people suggests a categorical difference based on skin color.



 It's no different than distinguishing between someone based on height, hair color, or a myriad of other phenotypes.  The only problematic aspect of Lackey's statement was the word she used.


----------



## billd91 (May 26, 2022)

tomBitonti said:


> That's a ... problematic ... usage.  Using skin color as a way of distinguishing people suggests a categorical difference based on skin color.  This is (in my opinion) not a useful way of thinking.  I don't think that such a way of distinguishing people is useful except in the very specific circumstance of picking a person out of a group which was immediately present.  I would expect that there are more important ways to distinguish the two Mr. Delaney's.
> 
> TomB



I can see the point, but it's kind of a strange beast - would dancing around the fact that he's black mean you were trying to minimize an aspect of his person that has probably had a major effect on him? If you try to distinguish them by indicating one's from Texas, the other NYC does that come across as dog whistling something about his identity? Is taking an effort to be color blind, in a case like this, a good or bad thing?
I don't think any one of these questions is necessarily obvious or has a completely right answer.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 27, 2022)

tomBitonti said:


> That's a ... problematic ... usage. Using skin color as a way of distinguishing people suggests a categorical difference based on skin color.



Sometimes it happens.

My circle of friends in college had a LOT of guys named Brian.  And one was known as “Black Brian”, because he was the only one who was black.  He and I were not the only blacks in the group…but close.


----------



## MGibster (May 27, 2022)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> My circle of friends in college had a LOT of guys named Brian. And one was known as “Black Brian”, because he was the only one who was black. He and I were not the only blacks in the group…but close.



In my board game group we had a lot of Mikes and one of them just said, "Call be Brown Mike."  Not everyone was cool with that, so he became Spicy Mike instead.  Mike did not like spicy food.


----------



## Hussar (May 27, 2022)

tomBitonti said:


> That's a ... problematic ... usage.  Using skin color as a way of distinguishing people suggests a categorical difference based on skin color.  This is (in my opinion) not a useful way of thinking.  I don't think that such a way of distinguishing people is useful except in the very specific circumstance of picking a person out of a group which was immediately present.  I would expect that there are more important ways to distinguish the two Mr. Delaney's.
> 
> TomB



I don't think anyone is defending the use of the word.  No one is saying that it's a good thing that she did this or anything like that.  I think the larger issue, at least for me, is that this got aired out in public when there seemed to be absolutely no need for it to be and that the SFWA seems to have over reacted.

I think most people would agree that some action being taken would absolutely be appropriate.  Having a quiet word, maybe having the two talk to each other and an apology, or any number of other actions could have been taken, LONG before this became a Twitter Fitshorm.  

In any case though, I don't think anyone thinks Ms. Lackey's use was a good thing.


----------



## Dausuul (May 27, 2022)

Hussar said:


> I don't think anyone is defending the use of the word.  No one is saying that it's a good thing that she did this or anything like that.  I think the larger issue, at least for me, is that this got aired out in public when there seemed to be absolutely no need for it to be and that the SFWA seems to have over reacted.
> 
> I think most people would agree that some action being taken would absolutely be appropriate.  Having a quiet word, maybe having the two talk to each other and an apology, or any number of other actions could have been taken, LONG before this became a Twitter Fitshorm.
> 
> In any case though, I don't think anyone thinks Ms. Lackey's use was a good thing.



Agreed. The proper solution would have been for someone--either the person who raised the issue, or one of the con organizers--to talk to Ms. Lackey in private, explain the situation, and ask for her to address the issue publicly in the way she has now done, with a prompt and obviously heartfelt apology. If she'd refused to do so, _then_ throwing her out would have been on the table.

I still put more blame on the con organizers than I do on the person who originally tweeted about it. That person was herself dealing with an unpleasant shock. Going on social media in a moment of shock is a phenomenally bad idea, but social media companies pour massive amounts of money and ingenuity into training us to do exactly that.

However, being a con organizer means taking on the responsibility to handle these situations with a level head. The initial tweet meant that some amount of fitshorm (as you so aptly put it) was inevitable, but it could have been handled so much better than it was. The con could have de-escalated things and instead chose to escalate wildly.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (May 27, 2022)

Dausuul said:


> However, being a con organizer means taking on the responsibility to handle these situations with a level head. The initial tweet meant that some amount of fitshorm (as you so aptly put it) was inevitable, but it could have been handled so much better than it was. The con could have de-escalated things and instead chose to escalate wildly.




Unless there is some further information I am unaware of, I agree with this 100%.

I don't put any blame on Ms. Lackey- based on what we know (and since the actual video isn't available) it really does appear to be a misstatement by someone who isn't comfortable with public speaking, and was explained and apologized for.

I don't put any blame on the person who raised the issue. While in an ideal world I would have preferred that she raise the issue at the time, or with the con organizers, or ... any medium other that Twitter ... I also understand that there will be times when people need to process, and for twitter, her original message was considerate, and wasn't a "name and shame." 

But every single thing the con did made this worse. As far as I can tell based on what has been revealed, they didn't even discuss this with Ms. Lackey before booting her. They also did guilt-by-association and booted her husband (????). And then, most egregiously of all, they made a press release and publicized their actions (which is naming and shaming) ... and by using that verbiage and simultaneously removing the video, they made every single person assume the absolute worst about the person. I, like almost every single person who heard about this, assumed that there was some type of racist rant involving a very different word, based on the release and the severity and swiftness of the response.

Given that the SFWA had their own issue recently (as pointed out in this thread, they tweeted, and then stuffed down the memory hole, a reference to "comfort elf") I have to question how they could be so forgiving of their own verbal miscues and so unforgiving of others. 

I wish we could all be a little more generous to each other, I guess. The world might be a little better.


----------



## MGibster (May 27, 2022)

I wish everyone would stop being so reasonable.  You're runing my perception of the internet.


----------



## Hex08 (May 27, 2022)

payn said:


> To often folks are allowed to use outdated language under the guise of "they are old" and I don't find it to be an acceptable excuse.



I'm going to have to disagree with you here, biology matters. As we age our brains shrink, it starts in your 30s - 40s and the rate increases in your 60s. The area of our brain most affected is the prefrontal cortex which is where executive functions like impulse control, reasoning, problem solving, memory and social interactions are handled. This means that communications problems arise as does a loss of the ability to learn something new and problems with recalling words. When older people slip up and say something that appears racist it doesn't mean they are (or are not) racist nor does it mean that they "just grew up in a different era" (even though they did), it could just mean "they are old" and are falling victim to the biology of the human body.

Everyone has inappropriate thoughts, it's those executive functions that keep people from acting on them or voicing them. Blaming older people for the natural loss of an ability to apply filters is unfair.


----------



## MGibster (May 27, 2022)

Hex08 said:


> I'm going to have to disagree with you here, biology matters. As we age our brains shrink, it starts in your 30s - 40s and the rate increases in your 60s. The area of our brain most affected is the prefrontal cortex which is where executive functions like impulse control, reasoning, problem solving, memory and social interactions are handled.



I'm in my 40s and the language drift has affected me.  If I tell you someone is a nice guy I don't mean that they're a "nice guy."  Some people are proud to identify themselves as queer these days, while I don't have a problem referring to queer studies, I don't think I'll ever be able to bring myself to call someone queer.  And anti-racist?  To me, it sounds like a petulant teenager shouting, "I'm not just not racist, I'm anti-racist!"  Yeah, I know what it means, but I find it especially amusing when we apply the label to people that died many decades ago.  But then historians very often apply modern labels that would have no meaning to the conteporaries they write about.


----------



## The Myopic Sniper (May 28, 2022)

Fox finally got around to reporting on the controversy today as a "woke liberals are eating their own" story on Hannity. 

It must be a slow news week for them.


----------



## Ryujin (May 28, 2022)

Nevermind. Sorry.


----------



## MikeP (May 29, 2022)

So far, I've heard lots of speculating & abstract theorizing & still no indication that anyone has found out what was said, exactly. I have some inside info from someone who was watching the panel. Because I know this, I believe two things are likely to change if more people knew it, too: 1) Opinions will still be split; 2) The split will likely shift. In short, it does matter. You should know more of the context. The author's apology & explanation did not contain these specifics. Neither did the spouse's objections on Twitter. Here's what I heard. It's hearsay, when you hear it from me, but it's a quote from an eyewitness.

"She was describing what a great author he was, explaining how influential his work was, mentioned all the awards he got, etc. etc. and then said it was all the more remarkable because he had to overcome hardships because he was a colored author."

Now, I will make my comment, based on this. Admittedly, I'm interpreting. In this context the speaker is not quite saying precisely that this fellow author ought to be characterized as colored, but that the fact is that there were people who knew him & could have an opinion of him, and some of them would've considered him to be colored. In the past, that would've created various forms of bias, conscious or unconscious. That likely would've caused problems for him. Which we, seeing it, would consider to have been hardships to overcome. In light of which, we should see his accomplishments as even more laudable & worthy of our appreciation.

A perhaps more careful phrasing, with my interpretation, could've been "he had to overcome hardships because he would have, in the early part of his career, been thought of as a colored author."


----------



## Myrdin Potter (Jun 1, 2022)

No change in SFWA statement or any clarification.

As I said, I do not expect any.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 1, 2022)

Disappointing.


----------



## billd91 (Jun 1, 2022)

Myrdin Potter said:


> No change in SFWA statement or any clarification.
> 
> As I said, I do not expect any.



Of course not. They have the honor and integrity of the organization to look out for. Think of what impact this would have on future presidents... sorry, directorates of the SFWA, if they were to publish some form of retraction or apology now. What does a little collateral damage mean compared to that?


----------



## tomBitonti (Jun 1, 2022)

MikeP said:


> A perhaps more careful phrasing, with my interpretation, could've been "he had to overcome hardships because he would have, in the early part of his career, been thought of as a colored author."




Additional text omitted.

I dunno.  I'd change the focus onto those who are creating impediments.  The problem is not Delaney’s skin color; the problem is the prejudice of other people.  But, I don't know if this is worth pointing out.  *Any* successful artist had many challenges to overcome.  Prejudice may or may not have been the greatest of these. The focus should be on the quality of Delaney's writing and his accomplishments.

Tom Bitonti


----------



## MGibster (Jun 1, 2022)

tomBitonti said:


> I dunno. I'd change the focus onto those who are creating impediments. The problem is not Delaney’s skin color; the problem is the prejudice of other people. But, I don't know if this is worth pointing out. *Any* successful artist had many challenges to overcome. Prejudice may or may not have been the greatest of these. The focus should be on the quality of Delaney's writing and his accomplishments.



It sometimes strikes me that you're damned if you do and damned if you don't.  If you recognize someone's race, well, you shouldn't focus on their race, you should focus on their accomplishments.  But if you ignore their race, well, that's a problem as well.  I was fortunate enough to meet Raye Montague when I was working at a historical archive many years ago and she was being interviwed as part of an oral history project.  I chatted with Montague, an African American, and learned was a Naval engineer and was a pioneer in the use of computers to design ships.  She was one of designers of the Eisenhower class carrier my sister served on.  I commented that women were underrepresented in engineering today, and it seemed quite an accomplish for a black woman to have such a role back in the earlyt 70s.  I didn't feel the least bit embarrassed or wrong about noting the extra bit of difficulty she must have encountered (including not being accepted into engineering schools because of the color of her skin).  She mentioned that she got hired once just on the strength of her resume, and her new coworkers were surprised when a black woman showed up.  Montague joked that they must have thought she was a Frenchman or something.  

People and the situations we get into are complicated, but I think most of us don't have an issue recognition their identity or the challenges they faced because of it.  Did Lackey make it all about race?  No.  Not from anything I've seen.


----------

