When they came for Jonathon Ross, I said nothing…

[f4f3]

Well OK, that’s not strictly speaking true. When they came for Jonathon Ross, accusing him of being the poster-boy for racism and sexism, and he retaliated by calling one of the posters stupid, I said I was on his side in this one. If someone called me racist and sexist, I’d be pretty upset and I’d reply. (If they said I was an outsider and knew nothing of the Genre, I’d definitely think they were stupid, even if I didn’t have a pedigree of writing comics and SF and promoting the genre in mainstream cultural outlets).

For this, someone I’ve known in comics circles for 20 years said that I was “Not a deliberate collaborator but your approach had that effect.”

Round about then I flung my toys out of the pram. I may have used the words “pitchfork” and “lynch mob”. I was also castigated for not taking it on trust that because Ross had been accused of racism and sexism he was, ipso facto, a racist sexist. I hadn’t done my research (the primary sources I had neglected to investigate, apparently, were the dozens of tweets showing his racism and sexism, many of which my accuser had personally retweeted).

By that time, the point was moot, since Ross had already offered to withdraw and the Convention had grabbed at his offer gratefully.

Ross, apparently, is a comedian. I’m not a huge fan of his, because I don’t watch talk shows, and I don’t go to too many awards dinners. I liked him on the BBC’s film show, and I thought his Vampire Mobsters comic was a bit meh, but showed a lot of promise for a first timer.

Apparently his crimes, which have made him an unfit person to present the Hugo Awards (and don’t get me started on the Hugo awards) was that he’d told jokes which had been construed as sexist, racist, or both, and that he hadn’t been sufficiently contrite.

Well you know who else that rules out from hosting our little awards ceremony? Bill Hicks. Billy Connolly. Billy Crystal (you’re not telling me that Miracle Max isn’t a Jewish caraciture? That his "When Harry Met Sally" character isn't a women hater?) Dave Allan. Chick Murray. Miranda Hart (her portrayal of large women as clumsy and inarticulate is degrading to large women everywhere). Sandi Toksvig (she was nasty about the Scots on News Quiz the other week). Briefly, anyone. Everyone. Anyone who can be accused (because the accusation is all it takes) of being sexist, racist, sizeist.

I know and admit that I’m not safe. For a start, I wouldn’t be able to present the awards (I’m white, male, middle aged). And if I look at my Twitter timeline, I’ve made comments that the Westminster government is greedy, heartless and obsessed with passing power to their friends. And though I haven’t checked lately, I’m sure some of them are women. Some of them might even be black. Maybe I should just turn myself in now? Plus, I read Flashman books. I'm a fan of Cerebus. And I laugh at them. Take me away, please, it's for my own good...

Starting with fair intentions of making fandom more inclusive, we’ve ended up with a Macarthy-ite community of witch hunts and lynch mobs, of guilt by association and by presumption.

Fandom is not a safe place for me, and I won’t be any part of it. For those of you who think this bullying and shaming is acceptable behaviour, ask yourself who’ll speak up when they come for you?

Comments

[andrewducker]

"He’d told jokes which had been construed as sexist, racist, or both, and that he hadn’t been sufficiently contrite."
That, to me, sounds like someone avoiding saying "He told jokes that were racist and sexist, and did not apologise for doing so."

The point, with regards to LonCon is that it has a code of conduct, which clearly states:
"Loncon 3 should be a place where everyone feels welcomed and comfortable.
Discrimination or prejudiced behaviour (based on, but not limited to, gender, race, ethnicity, religion, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, or physical/mental disability) is not tolerated."
And the belief is that Jonathan Ross makes his living from exactly this kind of behaviour. That when a convention is trying to get past all sorts of unpleasant behaviour (like the recent SFWA ridiculousness) the last thing it needs is to bring in someone who is primarily known for it.

Of course, this could all have been managed, if the Loncon chairs had had an ounce of understanding or PR sense. See http://theferrett.livejournal.com/1903455.html for a great piece on how badly they handled this, and how they could have done it better.

[f4f3.livejournal.com]

"He’d told jokes which had been construed as sexist, racist, or both, and that he hadn’t been sufficiently contrite."
That, to me, sounds like someone avoiding saying "He told jokes that were racist and sexist, and did not apologise for doing so."

Well, no. It means that in a 20 year media career some people have taken offence at some things he's said. This doesn't mean he's Freddie Starr, Bernard Manning or Jim Davidson, it means some people found some things he said offensive.

Who exactly holds the belief that Jonathon Ross earns his living from discrimination or prejudiced behaviour ((based on, but not limited to, gender, race, ethnicity, religion, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, or physical/mental disability)? My first thought yesterday was that I hadn't got the memo about him being a racist misogynist. I STILL don't have the memo. Are you saying that TO YOU Ross is primarily known for discrimination or prejudiced behaviour ((based on, but not limited to, gender, race, ethnicity, religion, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, or physical/mental disability), that he's known primarily for this TO THE WORLD AT LARGE or that he's known primarily for this in fandom? In a portion of fandom?

The message I took from this, very strongly, is that fandom is not a welcoming place. That it applies capricious standards of who (not what, who) is welcome at a convention, and that this minority will use its power to exclude anyone who does not meet their standards - or their interpretation of their standards.

It's not a community I'd feel comfortable socialising in, not least because I'd be waiting for the tap on the shoulder, or the public shaming.

[andrewducker]

To me Ross is primarily known as someone who does mean things on air.

When I was young he was primarily known as someone who reviewed niche movies. But I haven't heard of him at all in over a decade apart from doing shock-jock stuff.

In the world at large? He's not known at all. The primary response from Americans has been "Who is this guy, and why is he involved in a Worldcon?"

The reaction from a lot of people to do with Worldcon was that _Jonathan Ross_ made them feel unwelcome. That his brand of humour made them not want to be there, and the choice from the committee to invite someone who was going to make people uncomfortable was insulting.

[ravurian]

MIchael, what exactly is the point you're trying to make here? Someone called Jonathan Ross on (yet more) racist and/or sexist remarks in a career littered with them, and he responded with 'you have hurt me by drawing to my attention the ways in which I have hurt you', and you agreed that this was an appropriate response? Have I understood you correctly? And then rather than keep your counsel until you were able to offer an informed opinion, you attempted to turn a discussion about a specific situation - Jonathan Ross' suitability to represent fandom - into a general rant about how white middle-aged men are no longer safe to be racist or sexist in fandom? And then you flounced out? That doesn't sound like you. Surely I've misunderstood.

[f4f3.livejournal.com]

I don't think you've misunderstood me. I think you're seeing what I say through a particular filter, and that it's causing a bit of cognitive dissonance, as you know me as a reasonable person with no previous form on racism and sexism who did not join in the Jonathon Ross lynch mob.

I saw someone being attacked for being racist and misogynistic, for not having any connection to the genre, and generally being insulted and bullied out of something he'd volunteered for at the request of a friend.

So far as I know, no one was calling him on anything he'd said - they were just saying he was misogynistic and racist, and unfit to do a presenting job because of things he's said over a twenty year period. That didn't strike me as an acceptable way to act, and I said so. I won't bring in the actual insults made, since I hadn't read them at the time, but it wasn't pretty.

Where did I say it was ok for middle aged men to be sexist and racist in fandom? Obviously you can't be talking about Ross - he's made a very respectful documentary on Dikto and presented comic awards in the past with no racism or sexism. So where did I say that? You've made it up and, to be honest, it's very insulting to someone who has no history of being any such thing. It does look like guilt by association.

And I'm not flouncing. I don't have the figure for it...

[f4f3.livejournal.com]

"The reaction from a lot of people to do with Worldcon was that _Jonathan Ross_ made them feel unwelcome. That his brand of humour made them not want to be there, and the choice from the committee to invite someone who was going to make people uncomfortable was insulting."

Yes. This. They made him feel uncomfortable. That was insulting. He had to go.

Just that.

[andrewducker]

Exactly. What the flying fuck was the committee doing inviting someone along to run a ceremony that's supposed to be at a convention with a fucking _code of conduct_ that says "Loncon 3 should be a place where everyone feels welcomed and comfortable." doing inviting someone who would make people feel uncomfortable?

It's boggling to the mind.

[andrewducker]

Not, by the way, that I think Jonathan Ross is that bad. I think this was a salvageable situational. Ross is someone who has learned from situations (see this for example.

But he definitely has a reputation, because of things like the insensitive remarks that led to that video, and bringing him in required some tact and salesmanship on the part of the committee (see the link in my first comment).

[parthenia14.livejournal.com]

Well, he's had a very popular late-night talk show for years, with a period in the wilderness after the Sachs/Brand thing.

On the whole, I've always liked him: he has a gambolling puppyish enthusiasm for film, comics and geekery of many sorts; and he seems to have the credentials for presenting an awards ceremony. His wife wrote Kickass, he's a comics buff and writer, and he loves his pets and his family. I'm not aware of him being sexist/racist. Occasionally a bit of a knob, I suppose. But I'm surprised that people thought he'd be mocking. Maybe they thought he'd be Ricky Gervais?

[parthenia14.livejournal.com]

I don't know where to start with this one, not least because I like Jonathan Ross and I know very little about the conference/awards. He's a bit Marmite, I guess, but I've never seen him as racist or sexist. Is he basically just an outsider to this particular event?

I think there is a lot of stuff in fan circles/Twitter circles that reminds me of The People's Front of Judea.

[andrewducker]

He's said things that have offended people on a variety of subjects - I'm not getting that people are objecting to him as an outsider (well, most Americans are going "Who?"), but because of the stuff around Andrew Sachs stuff, his interview with Gwyneth Paltrow, and (apparently) numerous other occasions.

I don't know much about him myself - he doesn't really show up on my radar - but the people who are upset about this seem to be genuinely upset by it.

a lot of stuff in fan circles/Twitter circles that reminds me of The People's Front of Judea

[jen-c-w.livejournal.com]

Parthenia has just summed up the internet in a sentence. Sorry to hear you're upset M, and can understand why if someone was chucking words like collaborative around.

Personally when I think of JR I think of his chat show on itv, which gets several million viewers and regularly has female guests. And his wife whom he clearly worships.

I don't follow him on twitter so I don't know whether he makes racist/sexist jokes on there, or to what degree he does so more than other comedians. I can see why he was upset at being called racist/sexist though and wanted to defend himself.

[ruric.livejournal.com]

Wow Michael I don't know where to start?

Fandom's an unwelcoming place for a middle aged white dude? Welcome to the experience the rest of the world has been living for decades!

I recognise that saying this as a middle aged white gal probably carries little weight but for once I disagree. I'm so very glad that people are finally being publicly called to account for dickish behaviour. It's 2013 - can we not be better at humour than making it all about taking the piss out of other people for being "other"?

Jonathan Ross is by no means the very worst offender of public figures (Jeremy Clarkson springs to mind immediately as someone I would personally like to see in the stocks) but like many comedians Ross's humour often tanges right along the line of bullying and shaming others. So hoist with his own petard? Let me wipe away a singular tear. I'm quite prepared to believe Wrossy is one of us, but if that's the "us" we're goign with as a public image? It's an "us" I want nothing to do with cause it sure as hell doesn't represent me.

And I think you miss the point with Miranda Hart and Billy Crystal. They both get away with their kind of humour because they are part of the groups they're poking fun at. They're not laughing "at" people, they're laughing "with" them. There's a whole world of difference right there. Something Miranda Hart might say would probably make me laugh like a drain - because she GETS it. Put those same words/situation in a pretty skinny girl's mouth or in a good looking guy's and it cuts to the bone because they don't get it - they're not laughing with you - they're laughing AT you.

[danieldwilliam.livejournal.com]

Ah – this fight.

[danieldwilliam.livejournal.com]

I’m not a great fan of Ross’s. I’ve enjoyed his film reviews. I don’t much care for chat and interview shows generally. So I don’t watch his. He’s not someone who looms large in my consciousness. I really disliked and disapproved of what he and Brand got up to with Andrew Sachs. I thought it was cruel and infantile and undeserved. It looks like he’s been (as one of the other commentators said) a bit of a knob on occasion.

I do see why a number of people at LonCon would have felt uncomfortable with him hosting the awards. They are entitled to their view I think. They are entitled to say, “if he’s going then I’m not.”

I also see that his invitation / volunteering to host the awards comes at a time when folk in these types of organisation are trying to change their culture. So, perhaps not the best choice or even a good choice. Perhaps, indeed, a poor choice.

But having caught up on some of the tweeting I’m a bit uncomfortable about some of the labels that have been stuck on Ross.

I was astounded to see Alistair Reynolds describe Ross as the most divisive figure in the UK at the moment. Stronger candidates to my mind include Clarkson and Farage, or Salmond or Trump or Gove or Chris Smith or even Still Thatcher. (Astounded to the point where I moved his most recent book from near the top of my purchase pile to closer to the bottom. Knobbery like Reynolds’ will have to wait a little longer for my cash.)

He seems to be being labelled as The Worst Person Ever, or even the Worst Thing Ever. To my mind these are still Hitler and being buried alive. I don’t see evidence of him being particular racist or sexist or other –ists. A knob, yes, but not a particularly racist or sexist knob.

And, I think, it ought to be sufficient for a group of people so say, “Hey, this guy is a total knob. We don’t want to be in the same room as a total knob right now. So don’t invite him.” That’s reason enough not invite him to a private event. As is, “This guy looks an awfully lot like the last 20 guys who hosted this event. How about we invite someone different this time and maybe next time too.”

But the need to translate his knobbery into evidence of extreme misogyny in order to justify not wanting him to present the awards seems unnecessary and counter-productive and evidence of a mind-set conducive to the sort of re-education circles that have worked so well in the past. Certainly a mind-set that feels comfortable with throwing the word collaborator against people who take a different view.

And so misogynist becomes, like fascist before it, a synonym for someone I don’t like and who I can make you feel slightly guilty for having some empathy with.

[f4f3.livejournal.com]

Well I know where to start. My discomfort isn't with being a middle aged white dude - I enjoy that, and am fully aware of the amount of free privilege I get from it. And I have the freedom to walk away from fandom when I think it turns ugly. It's also not about preserving anyone's freedom to be sexist or racist (I can and will make an argument in favour of freedom of speech elsewhere, but let's say that an environment with a policy against it is a special case).

My discomfort is with a culture which endorses bullying and shaming, perpetuated by people who've spent years deploring it. It doesn't matter that Ross may, or may not, be a knob. It matters that the behaviour towards him was totally unacceptable. It matters that if he can be treated like that, who's next?

I've never though the argument "Well, they started it", holds much weight, whether it's in the West Bank, Syria, or Science Fiction Fandom. The ends do not justify the means.

You give quite a sophisticated analysis of why sexist or racist comments from within an excluded group are not sexist or racist. What if someone diagrees with you? I happen to know people who think that a Moslem woman appearing in a movie warrants a death sentence. Are their comments sexist?

What if someone accuses you of being a collaborator because of your liberal analysis? Tell me true, how do you feel about Neil Gaiman this morning for asking Jonathon Ross to host the Hugo's? Is he a wee bit tinged by the friends he keeps?

This isn't about aspirations, or policies, or centuries of oppression. It's about unacceptable behaviour, and about that behaviour being deemed acceptable because it's us and not them.

And if you think labelling my viewpoint as invalid because you've labelled me is ok, then don't you think you're part of the problem?

[f4f3.livejournal.com]

What worries me isn't that it reminds me of the Judean People's Front (splitter) but that it reminds me of the behaviour that gave rise to the sketch. Denunciations and purges and factionalisation isn't any funnier in Fandom than it was in the Politburo.

Re: a lot of stuff in fan circles/Twitter circles that reminds me of The People's Front of Judea

[f4f3.livejournal.com]

I think that was my take on this originally - bullying and shaming isn't acceptable behaviour. No matter who it's coming from.

[f4f3.livejournal.com]

This is why LJ is better than Twitter - for the things that LJ is better at than Twitter, anyway.

Instead of dropping off a 140 character retort, I got to go away and think about what is making me uncomfortable here.

And it can be summed up in two words: Mary Whitehouse (or Tipper Gore, for those geographically othered).

When I grew up, the censors were the enemy. The aforementioned Mrs Whitehouse, and her Viewers and Listeners association, who held firm against nudity, and bad language, and poofs on our TV. The Lord Chancellors office, banning "The Romans In Britain" for showing naked poofs. Glasgow District Council, who banned "Life of Brian" from Glasgow's cinemas, and made me go to Bearsden if I wanted to watch it. And a long line of other censors, from Oz to Lady Chatterly, from the Windmill Theatre to Lenny Bruce, all of whom justified banning something not because it offended, but because it was likely to cause offence.

When did we become the people who warned our parents about the kind of people we used to be?

I'm profoundly uncomfortable about being on the side of the censors. On the side of those who think it's ok to ban something because someone might be offended. Because those who might be offended are protesting about it.

I can't help thinking that banning something because someone is uncomfortable with it, or might be uncomfortable with it, is not a good thing to do, whether those people are blue-rinsed or bi-sexual.

[f4f3.livejournal.com]

I'm seeing a lot of angst on my Facebook this morning from people denouncing Jeremy Clarkson for calling Scottish people "Tramps". I did point out that they weren't particularly bothered when he was getting stuck into Mexicans or Germans...

So what bothers me is that Ross was bullied and shamed, and that a large portion of fandom seems to think that this was OK. It isn't, no matter who it's aimed at.

I do feel a bit like Rumpole this morning, and let's face it, that's a badge of honour :)

[f4f3.livejournal.com]

Yup, this one :)

[andrewducker]

I'm against banning things. I fully support the right of Nick Griffin to say whatever he likes.

But that doesn't mean that I want to invite him to give a talk to a bunch of my friends.

Now, Jonathan Ross is not Nick Griffin, and I completely disagree with people who were labelling him as The Worst Person Ever (or whatever they were doing). But that doesn't mean he provides a friendly welcoming atmosphere to people, and if we're doing that (and Loncon is trying to do so) then they need to invite a speaker who _does_ provide that atmosphere.

I mean, I think Frankie Boyle is frequently hilarious - but I wouldn't invite him to be the host either.

And yes, LJ > Twitter for conversations. Twitter is shit for conversations, and FB is barely better.

[andrewducker]

Agreed. There have been some extreme voices (on all sides, as far as I can tell), and I don't think that labelling Ross as being The New Hitler does anyone any good.

[f4f3.livejournal.com]

Yes, although I think I would have invited Frankie Boyle - I'm twisted that way, and he did appear in GTA5 (see, that's the sort of comment that gets me into trouble).

I don't have anything to say, really, about whether Ross should have been asked to be host - I can see both sides of that story - but I think he was bullied and shamed when it was announced, and I don't think that's acceptable. And attacking people who say it isn't acceptable is also not acceptable. (Do I need to say that you've done no such thing? Probably not, but, for the avoidance of doubt, you've done no such thing).

[gmh.livejournal.com]

I do not think that reducing this to a 'censorship is good/bad/other' issue is entirely helpful.

What I think this is is the latest of skirmishes in a long and ongoing war in UK fandom (and wider, in Western culture as a whole); the progressive versus the pragmatic.

Many of the people going 'oh, hell no, not Wossy!' are what I'd class as the progressive wing of fandom; trying to make it safe and inclusive for all genders, ages and body types - and some of the things that have been said or done by the progressives would have been called 'political correctness' or 'affirmative action' in other spheres.

(Panel parity. Codes of conduct.)

To the progressive, SF fandom already has a lot of bad history and culture that needs to change - e.g. Harlan Ellison committing a sexual assault while MC'ing the Hugos, which was less than a decade ago!

Thus the attempt to push against the established culture of fandom by objecting to an MC who embodies a lot of what has previously been wrong with fandom.


To the pragmatists, Ross was the sort of Geeky Big Name who'd grab attention and the 'doing it for free' was the cherry on the top. Massive publicity for Loncon, bums on seats and a win for UK fandom.

So the pragmatist backlash against the progressives has been to say that they're purists, determined to keep SF the domain of the ideologically sound, shooting UK fandom in its own feet - and that the progressives should just shut up and sit down.

And this last is the key sentence.

It's not a question of 'censorship' versus 'no censorship'. It's a question of 'which censorship?'

I was in the panel room at Eastercon 2012 when the 2013 and 2014 bids were discussed; and someone asked if the 2014 Eastercon was going to follow the example of the 2013 Eastercon and institute panel parity during the Convention.

The 2014 Concom were definitely on the pragmatist side - and mocked the question as well. At which point the progressives in the room (a small minority) started objecting; and they were shouted down by the pragmatists. When the yea-or-nay vote on the 2014 bid was taken, only three people dared to vote against the bid - Farah, Paul Cornell and myself; and we were subjected to personal unpleasantness as a result.

That, too, is censorship - the censorship of the entrenched power base, the censorship that does not perceive itself as such, but dissuades anyone from speaking unless they're speaking along the accepted line.

Censorship happens - but in such cases, I'd rather it be done to benefit those who are usually marginalised and silenced.

[danieldwilliam.livejournal.com]

It’s probably kept you out of trouble elsewhere.

[f4f3.livejournal.com]

Thanks for this. You have an insider's view that's informative and reasonable, and I'm glad I got to read it. I agree heartily that the whole storm was of LonCon's making, and that there will be consequences for the committee and the convention as a result of it. But I came to the fiasco later, and commented on someone being hounded out because their face didn't fit, and subject to some pretty vicious bullying and shaming, which I didn't think was acceptable.

I don't want to get into a discussion about political correctness or affirmative action (I'm so old that I still think both of these are positive things), and I wouldn't have had anything to say at all if a genre savvy woman had been chosen to MC the awards. I'd probably have nodded and thought "another positive step". But I do have a problem with "our censorship (and invective, and public shaming) is better than their censorship".

Do I have to say I'm against the marginalisation of minority voices? Promoting those voices (not tolerating them, promoting them) is a good thing. That's using a positive tool, and I know you can argue that affirmative action means excluding excellent candidates in favour of the right kind of candidate, but I don't think that argument holds water. Besides, after my joke about my not needing to apply to present the awards, I'm not taking any more chances of being seen as a whining exponent of male privilege.

Censorship is never a good tool to use, whatever the reason. To widen this out to something you weren't commenting on, insults, bullying and shaming are also not good tools. Your censorship is not better than their censorship.

Means. Ends. You know what I mean.

[f4f3.livejournal.com]

You'd think so, wouldn't you?

[ruric.livejournal.com]

I don't agree with bullying or shaming either, but calling someone to account for behaviour which should be challenged is something I don't have a problem with.

So when groups that have been historically excluded yell long and loud and people who are not quite the worst examples of clueless-white-person-expressing-racist-sexist-views get caught in the backlash I can understand. I get the "Oh FFS not again" stance of the excluded groups and I get the "I'm no racist" insta-reaction from Ross.

But just for once I wish someone in the public eye would shut the hell up and examine their behaviour before hitting reply.

I'm fine with people disagreeing with me, I'm fine with being accused of collaboration.

I hope that I would be fine if someone accused me of making a racist or sexist comment because I was born in the 60s, I inhaled that crap with my first breath and checking your own privilege 24/7 is hard work and we all occasionally put a size 10 boot in our mouths. I would hope that I've scratched enough of the surface of the 'isms 101 to take a step back and look at what I was doing before snapping "that's not me".

That's what struck me about the first line of your post: "If someone called me racist and sexist, I’d be pretty upset and I’d reply." Would you reply first or would you pause to think whether they had a point? I think that's a key question we all need to think about.

How do I feel about Neil Gaiman? I feel that he's a lovely bloke with good intentions and has some problematic views which need to be challenged. and I'm glad to see that his fans don't give him a pass but call him on it. I'm pretty sure *I* have problematic views which need to be challenged and I work in a field where every day is about challenging society's view of groups who are disenfranchised and don't have a voice.

Most of my energy these days goes into fighting the battles where I know I can have an impact rather than screaming into an endless void! Over the last 12 months that's been doing a daily remedial Social Justice 101 with my boss - who has never worked in social housing, and kind of embodies the Oxbridge educated, Tory, Times reader who's never been challenged about his views. It's slow going but we're collectively chipping away at all his ingrained assumptions. *G*

I'm not labelling you (but I am pointing out you're using the same language guys who are trying to excuse racist/sexist behaviour have been using) or dismissing your view that bullying/shaming is unacceptable.

I also agree with you that people should do their own research and go to the source rather than taking internet rumour for truth.

The thing is your post taken as a whole didn't parse for for me, as if you were leading a call against unacceptable behaviour. These lines:

"I know and admit that I’m not safe. For a start, I wouldn’t be able to present the awards (I’m white, male, middle aged).

Starting with fair intentions of making fandom more inclusive, we’ve ended up with a Macarthy-ite community of witch hunts and lynch mobs, of guilt by association and by presumption.

Fandom is not a safe place for me, and I won’t be any part of it. For those of you who think this bullying and shaming is acceptable behaviour, ask yourself who’ll speak up when they come for you?"

These read like the standard excuse and massively exaggerated hyperbole you see in response to any of the recent call outs which have been happening over the past few years.

Was it your intention to provoke discussion by using the same terminology? if so, it worked!

one of two - I get carried away

[f4f3.livejournal.com]

Thanks for coming back on this - I'm absolutely fine with people disagreeing with me, and me them, and it's much more productive to have a dialogue about it than a series of disconnected press releases (cf my paper "Instructional Strategies Utilised With My Father's Mother On The Subject Of Extracting Ovine Protein").

"That's what struck me about the first line of your post: "If someone called me racist and sexist, I’d be pretty upset and I’d reply." Would you reply first or would you pause to think whether they had a point? I think that's a key question we all need to think about."

So yes, and also no.

Yes in that I saw a Tweet and responded imediately. It's what I do on Twitter (actually, and I've just realised this as I type, Twitter had nothing to do with it. I made an immediate response based on my emotional response to the Tweet, and then posted about it the next day, rationalising my emotional response. - and I've read Haidt and Kahneman, so I have no excuse for not seeing that earlier. Ok, that's a neat insight, and I'll try to work it into this response).

So, what I saw was someone being treated bady, and that's what I instantly responded to. I didn't stop to think, well, maybe he asked for it, or maybe he put himself in a vulnerable place, or maybe he made it worse for himself by smart mouthing his attackers. Someone was being attacked, I defended him.

You know what? I still don't see that as a bad response.

Everything in your note (which I'll treat with the respect it deserves in a minute) comes down to telling me that its's wrong to defend some people because worse things have happened to other people.

And I don't agree with that.

"How do I feel about Neil Gaiman? I feel that he's a lovely bloke with good intentions and has some problematic views which need to be challenged. and I'm glad to see that his fans don't give him a pass but call him on it."

I must run with the wrong crowd. Apart from some dirt-digging on his Scientologist upbringing, I've never seen anyone, anywhere, call Gaiman to account for anything until this happened. Not saying they haven't, just saying it's never impinged on a reasonably (ok, exceptionally) Geeky person who is somewhat familiar with fandom. Never.

"I'm fine with people disagreeing with me, I'm fine with being accused of collaboration."

I'm delighted when people disagree with me. How do I know what I believe, until I need to defend it? But I am absolutely not fine with being accused of anything. Maybe because the legal background makes me aware of how dangerous an accusation without evidence can be, when the accusation comes written down in a Police notebook (don't get me started on the Scottish Government's campaign to abolish the need for collaboration in criminal cases. Just don't). Maybe because of a passing knowledge of The Terror, and Lenin and Mao, and, (thanks Ali) The People's Front of Judea. You accuse me, of anything, and I will come back hard and unthinkingly. If you want to know my rationale for that, I'd point to growing up (in social housing) in an environment where the police could pile out of unmarked vans and give a good kicking to anyone who couldn't get out of the way.And then fit them up for possession. Where being accused of being in the wrong gang could get you beaten to death or, if you were lucky, just put in hospital. And that emotional response is still there, tempered with decades of experience and education that let's me respond to an accusation with words and not with fists or feet.

Perhaps I'm not very good at expressing this, and perhaps what I'm saying can't be heard over the clamour of what I am. Orwell said it more clearly (didn't he always?) in Homage to Catalonia:

“When I see an actual flesh-and-blood worker in conflict with his natural enemy, the policeman, I do not have to ask myself which side I am on.”

Two of Two: Did I mention long-winded?

[f4f3.livejournal.com]

And while we're on the subject of privilege... I know I won the privilege lottery when I was born male and white in a Western democracy. And I know that I was then given a big cherry on top of that by being given a free education which let me earn enough money to get myself out of the slums I grew up in. But I also know that classmates of mine died with avoidable diseases, were stabbed to death in playgrounds, were sent to jail for things they didn't do, where sent to jail for things that they DID do, and who still live in postcodes were the life expectancy is less than it is in sub-Saharan Africa. I don't need to be told to check my privilege, I bless it every time I drive to my mum's house.

Hmm. Enough about me, and more about my badly parsing post:

"The thing is your post taken as a whole didn't parse for for me, as if you were leading a call against unacceptable behaviour. These lines:

"I know and admit that I’m not safe. For a start, I wouldn’t be able to present the awards (I’m white, male, middle aged)."

You cut that one a wee bit early, I think - for one thing, I don't seriously think I should be asked to present the Hugos (unlike the Tweeter I was reading, who was certainly up for it). My point was that the sins of reading the wrong books or comics could also be counted against me (and by extension, others. See, it's not all about me).

"Starting with fair intentions of making fandom more inclusive, we’ve ended up with a Macarthy-ite community of witch hunts and lynch mobs, of guilt by association and by presumption."

I actually believe this one, though as well as confirming that the witch hunts and lynch mobs are not literal, I should probably have said "McCarthy-lite", not -ite. But I still don't want to be part of a community that thinks it's ok to bully and shame, no matter who they pick on. And who do it righteously.

I wasn't consciously echoing anyone else's response to anything. I'm speaking for myself and saying that fandom is becoming a place I don't feel comfortable in because of the behaviour I'm seeing demonstrated, and that it's not a place I'd feel safe in. If your response is that these feelings are a response to being called out on something, well no - they aren't. I feel genuinely uncomfortable about the things that are being said and done in the name of good intentions.

I don't think history excuses the actions, and I don't think the end justifies the means.

[parthenia14.livejournal.com]

I read one comment where the commentator (apparently seriously) suggested they should have got someone more lighthearted/hilarious, like Graham Norton.

...

Which got me thinking that maybe I just pick up on things differently, because I've always read Graham Norton's act as coming from a place of mild revulsion for people who are fans, whereas Wossy...well, he's there, bursting out of his Star Wars costume.

It's bothered me for reasons that I can't articulate very well. On the one hand, if this event has a dodgy history and everyone is trying to behave politely, maybe a laddish overgrown (fanboy) puppy of a presenter is not a great fit. You'd hope the powers that be would have thought through that one before announcing it.

On the other...Twitterstorms seem to be a new form of righteous moral panic that appears to come from a place of great delicacy and liberalism, but ends up as a different, right-on kind of mobbing. And fans seem to be saying of themselves, we are delicate, different creatures who shun attempts to make us mainstream. We need to stay in closed rooms and have another argument over whether Moffat or Davies has been worst for Doctor Who (insert more up to the moment literary sci-fi argument here).

[f4f3.livejournal.com]

Can we change "progressive" and "pragmatic" to "fundametalist" and "liberal"?

[f4f3.livejournal.com]

"...Twitterstorms seem to be a new form of righteous moral panic that appears to come from a place of great delicacy and liberalism, but ends up as a different, right-on kind of mobbing."

Yes, this is what gets to me - and that anyone who speaks up against it is denounced. It's not as if this is a new pattern, you can point to dozens through history. I suppose the only thing those different groups had in common was the iron-tight certainty that the behaviour was ok BECAUSE THEY WERE DOING IT.