|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Safe space room for POC=racial segregation. Got it.
This is somewhat of a derail, but... yes. It is. It is *exactly* the very definition of racial segregation. There's a world of difference between this and, for example, just setting a time and place for people of color to gather without, you know, disallowing whites.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, if there was an area which would be "whites only", I think nobody would not call it racial segregation. Outside of maybe Strom Thurmond from his grave.
|
Good gods. There is absolutely no excuse for this.At WisCon (I think it's a yearly thing) they have a lounge where white people are not allowed. Admission is explicitly based on skin color. I'm told it skirts anti-discrimination laws because you have to pay to for admission to the con, therefore it doesn't count as "public accomodation."I don't think it will be as bad as all that. I'm sure that some of the worst racial agitators (such as K. Tempest Bradford, who helped institute literal racial segregation at a SF con) will try to counter Vox Day's "anti-SJW" slate with a slate aiming to exclude white men, but hopefully more independently-minded voters will outnumber them enough that at least some apolitical/moderate works find traction on both sides and make it on the ballot on the strength of the actual writing.So if the only option for *everyone* is to use slates, everyone will. And when that happens, the competition will shift from competing books to competing slates. And I don't think anyone seriously thinks that slates aren't correlated with social cliques and political views. So, the entire focus of the awards is less about the books and more about competing factions in the SFF community.
Do you agree that this is a way in which slate voting can cause harm without using coercion or any other explicit illicit behavior?
Wait, what?!
Did she seriously do this, or are you in some way presenting facts out of context?
Remind me, is Bradford the same one who was insisting on 'read no white authors' for a year, too?
Edit: Yeah, thats her..
Mr. Correria's fisking of her article (including a link to the original article) is Here
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, so I disagree with people on both sides of the issue; no surprise there.
|
Safe space room for POC=racial segregation. Got it.
A form of self-segregation - yes. For all the complaining about Vox Day the real race baiter here is K. Tempest Bradford her SJW adherents who took "talk" and turned it into action.
Imagine the furor if it was the other way - a Safe Space for White Males.
Going to preempt this one - please, spare me the bilge that every space is already a safe space for white males. That level of self-righteous persecution would be extreme even for this website.
Edit: Oh wait, thejeff already snuck one in.
every space is already a safe space for white males
Having walked the streets of both Miami and Chattanooga, I can safely say that this is entirely inaccurate (which is your point, yes, I'm agreeing with you).
They tried 'better and gentler' for several years. No change. While there might be some hypothetical 'perfect middle ground', since no one is able to present it, it's obvious they used a tactic that would work, instead.One of Martin's ideas that I liked is the suggestion that instead of rousing sad/rabid puppies to take over the Hugos, those people could have instead made a new award that is meant to bring recognition to the works they think deserve. A significant part of their rhetoric is that they believe they have the numbers on their side - they say that the works that win the Hugo are not the most popular ones.
So, if they have the numbers, they could translate it into influence. Make a NotHugo award, figure a nomination and voting process, and run with it. If, indeed, the works they like are the ones that a wider audience would find more deserving, then over time the award will come to be recognized and appreciated.
That seems to me like a considerably more peaceful solution than taunting the Hugo voter crowed and then organizing a hijack of the nominations. It's a peaceful coexistence rather than open conflict.
Do you find this idea flawed or problematic in any way?
Because newly made up awards have the prestige of the oldest award for the genre, that the fathers and greats won...
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
When the point is to give a place for them to gather to deal with the hassles of discrimination and racist behavior, it's kind of silly to let anyone in to continue the same behavior.
So, white people oppress other people just by existing? You know how ridiculous that sounds when you unpack it, right?
It's like claiming the existence of the NAACP is horrible because a National Association for the Advancement of White People would be racist. There really is a difference. In a different world or maybe in some future time, there wouldn't be.
I'm kind of curious what definition you're using for racist here.
Merrion Webster defines 'racism' as..
1. a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 racial prejudice or discrimination
Definition 1 would seem to indicate a knee jerk belief that white people are intrinsically racist, oppressors is racist.
Now lets dig down that a bit...
Prejudice is defined as:
2
a (1) : preconceived judgment or opinion (2) : an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge
b : an instance of such judgment or opinion
c : an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics
I didn't include definition 1 because it was basically along the lines of beating someone severely (IE "Execute with Extreme prejudice!") and I didn't feel that relevant.
Given that the SPs are a group who is apparently philosophically (liberals, conservatives, libertarians, undefined) and racially (well they're all human but fit various subcategories. Mr. Correria has expressed a desire to be half-orc) diverse, I'd argue...
..to bring us back on topic before Chris Lambert shows up and whallops us with a giant beating stick of forum moderation...
This kind of emphasizes that arguments against the SP from the grounds of claiming them to be some variety of -ist or -phobe are specious, groundless attempts to distract from their core issue, which, as often stated, and I paraphrase as.. 'We think interesting books should be read, and a book shouldn't be rewarded just because a certain socioeconomic check-mark wrote it.'
|
|
Safe space room for POC=racial segregation. Got it.This is somewhat of a derail, but... yes. It is. It is *exactly* the very definition of racial segregation. There's a world of difference between this and, for example, just setting a time and place for people of color to gather without, you know, disallowing whites.When the point is to give a place for them to gather to deal with the hassles of discrimination and racist behavior, it's kind of silly to let anyone in to continue the same behavior.
I encourage any POC attending WisCon to come to that space if they need to discuss something that went down on a panel, continue a discussion that started at a panel, or if they just need a space to vent and calm down. I actually had some of the most enlightening conversations in that room during after-panel venting and I’m sure that will happen againIt's like claiming the existence of the NAACP is horrible because a National Association for the Advancement of White People would be racist. There really is a difference. In a different world or maybe in some future time, there wouldn't be.
Yeah, sorry theJeff, this makes no sense. They could just as easily set up a location ahead of time to meet, without including the "no whites allowed" clause. Just set it up ten minutes of walk away from the main event, make clear the reason for the meeting, and leave it at that. Actually preventing anyone who's white to enter is a taunt, an aggressive move.
Nope. Social context is irrelevant except in the most extreme cases. If you do a "non-X" event you are a racist, it really is as simple as that. Racism against the majority is every bit as insidious (and existent) as the other way around. I am, generally speaking, a man of nuance. I am willing to adjust my opinion according to what I see and not according to an arbitrary predetermined ideology. What I see here is racism, and calling it a "safe place" doesn't help.
What does it matter what the voters views are? It shouldn't at all. As long as they vote for a work that they enjoyed and thought was good, that is all that should matter. Do I think all the Puppies read every book, no, I don't. Do I think most of the other non-Puppies voters read everything they voted for as well, nope. And the very nature of voting for one thing excludes another, we certainly can't start to try and figure out why everyone votes the way they do, that is impossible, nor should it be attempted. They paid their money, they get to vote.
One thing to keep in mind is that the puppies organized "book bombs" of all of the things they put on their slate, where in one day the forum goers of Monster Hunter Nation go to Amazon and buy copies until the book is on the best seller list. Not to mention that the group is made up of people who spend their free time on a forum about a book series. So there is a good chance that a lot of the puppies did in fact read every work they nominated.
Remind me, is Bradford the same one who was insisting on 'read no white authors' for a year, too?
Edit: Yeah, thats her..
Mr. Correria's fisking of her article (including a link to the original article) is...
Yes it was. Doesn't seem like a horrible idea to me. More of a "If you're in a rut, get out of it and try a bunch of new things" than "White male writers are all horrible and you shouldn't read any of them".
For those who already read a broad spectrum of authors, it's probably a pointless exercise. For those who don't, maybe you'll find some interesting new voices.
For those who loudly insist they never consider the color or gender of the authors they read, only the quality of the work, it might be worth taking a quick look at the author bios and seeing if there is a trend. :) And then maybe seeing if there are works that seem appealing, but maybe from a slightly different perspective due to the different experiences that come with different races and genders.
If this was meant as a dig at the Sad Puppies, you may want to consider that there was more diversity on their slate than last year's winners.
|
|
All right, we're basically done here. We've reached the "White Men are the real victims of racism and sexism" threshold.Safe space room for POC=racial segregation. Got it.A form of self-segregation - yes. For all the complaining about Vox Day the real race baiter here is K. Tempest Bradford her SJW adherents who took "talk" and turned it into action.
Imagine the furor if it was the other way - a Safe Space for White Males.
Going to preempt this one - please, spare me the bilge that every space is already a safe space for white males. That level of self-righteous persecution would be extreme even for this website.
Edit: Oh wait, thejeff already snuck one in.
Please bold the part of my post (the only one in the thread besides this one) where I stated that?
Let go of the victim tag. Giving it up doesn't mean it shifts to the another side (race/sex/x) - it just means giving it up.Oh the irony here - a woman of color creating a safe space for people of color at a SCIENCE FICTION CONVENTION. If we are crossing any lines here it's the line of the absurd and surreal.
|
|
t does it matter what the voters views are? It shouldn't at all. As long as they vote for a work that they enjoyed and thought was good, that is all that should matter. Do I think all the Puppies read every book, no, I don't. Do I think most of the other non-Puppies voters read everything they voted for as well, nope. And the very nature of voting for one thing excludes another, we certainly can't start to try and figure out why everyone votes the way they do, that is impossible, nor should it be attempted. They paid their money, they get to vote.
Their views don't matter, what matters is that the glue that holds them together is a shared world view. It thus makes sense that a group wishing to compete with them will also have to be ideological (or have an even stronger unifying characteristic, but that's just another sort of clique).
If a fan finds himself having to be affiliated with the faction he can identify with the most in order to have a chance of sneaking in some of the works he/she liked to the nominated list, then the entire process becomes a contest between factions rather than between books. That's bad for the authors, for the fans and for the genre.
I know no simpler way of saying this.
|
|
All right, we're basically done here. We've reached the "White Men are the real victims of racism and sexism" threshold.Safe space room for POC=racial segregation. Got it.A form of self-segregation - yes. For all the complaining about Vox Day the real race baiter here is K. Tempest Bradford her SJW adherents who took "talk" and turned it into action.
Imagine the furor if it was the other way - a Safe Space for White Males.
Going to preempt this one - please, spare me the bilge that every space is already a safe space for white males. That level of self-righteous persecution would be extreme even for this website.
Edit: Oh wait, thejeff already snuck one in.Please bold the part of my post (the only one in the thread besides this one) where I stated that?
Let go of the victim tag. Giving it up doesn't mean it shifts to the another side (race/sex/x) - it just means giving it up.Oh the irony here - a woman of color creating a safe space for people of color at a SCIENCE FICTION CONVENTION. If we are crossing any lines here it's the line of the absurd and surreal.
Since I'm mildly evil, part of me wonders if you'd be able to enter such an area if you were in cosplay as a kree (blue), tamarian (orange) or gammoran (green) or zentraedi (all the colors of the rainbow).
Hi guys. As a total noob here, I find myself wondering something...
This "reactionary" hatred-promotion... Is this year the first year it has happened?
I am wondering whether this is largely a result of the con being held in America.
-Matt
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What's ironic about it? Are people at science fiction conventions incapable of racism (I feel required to specify:Racism against people of color.)
I guess its just hard for me to digest this form of racism with the stories of the ones I grew up with - parents in concentration camps, my dad having to give up his house (as a kid) to a Wehrmacht Officer, people being burned alive in their homes because of their race - you know - that kind of racism.
Maybe I am just too privileged to see this softer insidious (and stealth/Sith-like) modern racism that occurs at Science Fiction cons. You know - where a woman of color (who also happens to be a published science fiction writer) advocates reading books along racial gender lines and feels threatened enough to create a safe space for POC. Maybe the racism she fears is as legit as the ones facing POC 40 years ago - lynching, murder - killed by bombs or even just being barred from private spaces?
Barred from privates spaces...hmmm, reminds me of something.....?
|
Safe space room for POC=racial segregation. Got it.This is somewhat of a derail, but... yes. It is. It is *exactly* the very definition of racial segregation. There's a world of difference between this and, for example, just setting a time and place for people of color to gather without, you know, disallowing whites.
Coming from an Israeli I find this statement rather ironic, given the whole point of the state of Israel is a 'place where Jews can be Jews and be safe', which means it intended as a safe room for Jews on a global scale.
Hi guys. As a total noob here, I find myself wondering something...
This "reactionary" hatred-promotion... Is this year the first year it has happened?
I am wondering whether this is largely a result of the con being held in America.
-Matt
This is the 3rd year they have run a slate. The first year they were mostly irrelevant. The second year they got a few things on the list, which were basically blacklisted. This year they dominated the nominations.
This is the 3rd year they have run a slate. The first year they were mostly irrelevant. The second year they got a few things on the list, which were basically blacklisted. This year they dominated the nominations.
Thanks! So... Where were the cons held in 2013 and 2014?
-Matt
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Coming from an Israeli I find this statement rather ironic, given the whole point of the state of Israel is a 'place where Jews can be Jews and be safe', which means it intended as a safe room for Jews on a global scale.Safe space room for POC=racial segregation. Got it.This is somewhat of a derail, but... yes. It is. It is *exactly* the very definition of racial segregation. There's a world of difference between this and, for example, just setting a time and place for people of color to gather without, you know, disallowing whites.
Two things to that,
1) non-Jews are allowed in Israel (about 25% of the citizens of Israel are not Jews), but Jews are allowed unconditionally - there is a law that no Jew will be denied citizenship. The idea is not to have exclusively Jews, it's to have a majority of Jews. Which is exactly what would happen if K. Tempest would have just announced a meeting for POC, set it some slightly inconvenient walking distance from the main event, and left it at that. Also, Israel was created at the shadow of the Jewish holocaust of WWII, which is truly a historical extreme. Having said that...
2) The nature of Israel inevitably leads to rampant racism in this country, which continually appalls me. In this case, I believe that the net total is positive (though not by much) because I remain unconvinced that the world would be safe for Jews without an Israel - it has been less than eighty years since the entire race was nearly exterminated by effort of way too many in Europe. I admit I may be biased here.
Any way you slice it, though, there is an order of magnitude in difference between the circumstances that pushed the united nations to approve a Jewish country and those that pushed K. Tempest to organize a non-white zone in a sci-fi convention.
|
|
Everything short of physical violence doesn't deserve any consideration. No need for anyone to want to get away from it. To want a space where they can decompress or vent without worrying about setting off another round.
Are they even getting non-violent racism at the Con? "Don't go here", "we don't serve X"? Is that already really happening?
If it isn't then they are full of s*## and using the victim card as blanket cover and excuse for any and all shortcomings or challenges they may face (terrible writing that people do not want to read = because of racism and white power structure, et al).
I.E. - a cop out.
In real life you don't get to decompress and vent by renting out a space associated with a racial credential for entry - you should learn to deal with cope. Its a sci-fi con for heaven's sake, absurd. This is their attempt at a 1950's Golfing club (no women no blacks, unless they are your caddy) - was bad then and is bad now.
And another thing - if they (Bradford and adherents) want to go this route they should be called out and exposed for what they are - SJW racists.
Thanks! So... Where were the cons held in 2013 and 2014?14 was in London. 13 in Texas.
Ok, so, the time line we have...
2013 is when the reactionary hate voting began, and the con was in Texas.
2014 is the year of the blacklisting of the hate nominees, and the con was in London.
The con is in Washington State this year.
Hmm... Not conclusive, but I might be onto something.
-Matt
|
|
Everything short of physical violence doesn't deserve any consideration. No need for anyone to want to get away from it. To want a space where they can decompress or vent without worrying about setting off another round.
Are they even getting non-violent racism at the Con? "Don't go here", "we don't serve X"? Is that already really happening?
If it isn't then they are full of s&@+ and using the victim card as blanket cover and excuse for any and all shortcomings or challenges they may face (terrible writing that people do not want to read = because of racism and white power structure, et al).
I.E. - a cop out.
In real life you don't get to decompress and vent by renting out a space associated with a racial credential for entry - you should learn to deal with cope. Its a sci-fi con for heaven's sake, absurd. This is their attempt at a 1950's Golfing club (no women no blacks, unless they are your caddy) - was bad then and is bad now.
And another thing - if they (Bradford and adherents) want to go this route they should be called out and exposed for what they are - SJW racists.
I believe you are taking it too far. It is acceptable, I believe, to want to have a conversation with other POC if the subject of the conversation is your personal experience with being a POC in a white-dominated crowed. I get it, or at least I am willing to accept that I can't get it because I've never been in that situation myself. Fine.
Where this steps over the line is with the confrontational no-whites clause. It is easy (really, really easy) to come up with other ways to achieve essentially the same goal. However, they opted to announce publicly (and I assume enforce it if it came to that) that no white is allowed within a certain space. This is never legitimate, and has all the appearance of a provocation.
I have no choice but to accept that the only reason that they get away with such blunt behavior is that not many would dare to openly oppose the concept out of fear of being associated with racism.
2) Set up a meeting to discuss the fiction of non white authors, and the people who would make it are exclusively those who don't mind the color of the author of a novel, which should be the kinds of people you are willing to talk to anyway.
3) Open an internet forum X, make it a safe internet community where POC could take safety among themselves, and then during the con, instead of doing a "POC safe place", do a "X gathering" where the people of your forum could gather, and guess what... they are exclusively POC.
4) other ways that I'm sure 15 minutes of brainstorming could conjure
If all the normal, non confrontational, non insulting ways have been tried and failed, I could accept the safe place concept. Since none were... yeah. Racism.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks! So... Where were the cons held in 2013 and 2014?14 was in London. 13 in Texas.
Ok, so, the time line we have...
2013 is when the reactionary hate voting began, and the con was in Texas.
2014 is the year of the blacklisting of the hate nominees, and the con was in London.
The con is in Washington State this year.
Hmm... Not conclusive, but I might be onto something.
-Matt
"Reactionary Hate Voting."
Really? Why stop there.
Why not go with "Fascist Oppressor Hate McBad Racist Wrongthink Voting."
Alternatively, pointing your finger and screeching really loud might work too.
Such invective proves it's not for nothing that Mr. Correria gleefully bears the title of International Lord of Hate.
So far we haven't really concluded that SP has anything to do with hate, despite bloviation against Mr. Beale who isn't really with the SPs, except hate of undeserving works getting awards.
Also, the theory you're attempting to posit here is that somehow the horrible spectre of America is tainting this totally unbiased award process with a deep and abiding 'hatefulness.' Oh no, the hate !
It's as horrible insidious as it is vague and undefined.
I'm not sure what the something you think you're on is, Sir, but I imagine it's likely illegal in several American states.
Um... I just broke the law? Huh? That's a bit extreme, don't you think?
-Matt
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's nothing wrong with members of a protected class having a meeting space that excludes people who AREN'T in a protected class.
I went to one of the last remaining all-women's colleges. An all-male college is an abomination because men are the privileged group, so excluding women is a sexist holdover. An all women's college is an acceptable thing in our society, because women are a protected class, and studies continue to show that females in a mixed-gender environment participate less, and females in an all-female environment are much more assertive during and after that experience, and tend to achieve more/better for the experience.
This is similar. If POC want a place to meet that has only POC, and be able to discuss POC issues there, they shouldn't be criticized for that, and it isn't racist. Because they aren't excluding a protected class.
If caucasians want to go somewhere where there are predominantly caucasians, I expect they'll have no problem - pretty much anywhere at the con, they'll be the majority of the crowd. So they don't need or deserve the same consideration.
|
|
Such invective proves it's not for nothing that Mr. Correria gleefully bears the title of International Lord of Hate.
So far we haven't really concluded that SP has anything to do with hate, despite bloviation against Mr. Beale who isn't really with the SPs, except hate of undeserving works getting awards.
Mr. Beale may not really be with the SPs, since he made his own slate. He's definitely tapping the same vein though. Even more virulently. He also may have been more successful. It's likely from the nominations that the big change this year was the Rabid Puppies. Where the slates differed, the RPs did much better than the SPs.
Vox Day is not a just sideline distraction from the main SP story. He may well be the main event.
Its also equally possible that Beale might have selected stories that people liked.
He's irrelevant. Ultimately, Mr. Correria, Mr. Wright, Mrs. Hoyt and Miss Bradford are also irrelevant.
The real argument here, seems to be a concern regarding whether the slate voting somehow is a miscarriage of the intended system.
I may be wrong in summarizing the anti-slate side, so please, clarify or correct as needed.
The Anti Slate Side's Arguments is (again, please correct as needed):
Slate Voting Causes Individual Voters to Feel disenfranchised as they believe their votes will not contribute if they don't have dozens of people to back them up as well.
> Publicizing one's views in a public forum gives them greater weight and credence than that availed to individuals who do not have a similar outlet.
The Counter Argument being posited on that seems to be:
> Posited: Democratic voting is intrinsically linked to the idea of larger numbers of voters being successful in the voting.
> There is no moral problem or quandary intrinsic in publicizing your views with the intention of increasing people who support you. Essentially a market place of ideas thing.
This look along the right lines to you guys? I'm trying to bore down to the real argument here. Leaving aside the SJW-Racist-RarRar-Beale-and-Bradford-are-Meanies stuff that isn't really important here.
I went to one of the last remaining all-women's colleges. An all-male college is an abomination because men are the privileged group, so excluding women is a sexist holdover. An all women's college is an acceptable thing in our society, because women are a protected class, and studies continue to show that females in a mixed-gender environment participate less, and females in an all-female environment are much more assertive during and after that experience, and tend to achieve more/better for the experience.
Er... if this is true, isn't this simply confirmation of gender-based segregation as a good thing, for the benefit of females in general in that case?
I mean, if the studies are that indicative, than, by having mixed-gender colleges, aren't females being actively harmed by the experience?
The natural conclusion is that all-women's colleges should be the norm for women. In which case, why would being an all-men's college be a bad thing, unless the intent was that men just don't go to college?
I'd really appreciate insight into this matter in a non-aggressive way, because your conclusions don't seem to follow your evidence, and I really want to understand where you're coming from. Please correct me if I'm somehow misconstruing your point - that is not my attempt, hence it's behind the spoiler.
The problem, as I see it, is that by having a mixed-gender college or female-exclusive college, you're offering "bad choice v. good choice" given the evidence that you've presented, and the question arises, "Why make the obvious bad choice the preferred base, culturally?"
As a follow-up to your mention of studies, have any gender studies looked at all-men's colleges to compare and contrast the general behavior and skill of men?
In order to make the assertion that all-women's are innately superior, have the variations for the colleges and the ideals presented within been taken into account? (I.e. if there are fewer all-women's colleges left, does that, accidentally or not, skew the results to favorably show those with already strong self-determination, or does it show the actual result of an all-female environment)?
Again, I'm not challenging - I'm asking. This is an area that I've not heard of in terms of studies, so any non-pay links you could provide would be really interesting. Thanks in advance!
|
|
There's nothing wrong with members of a protected class having a meeting space that excludes people who AREN'T in a protected class.
I went to one of the last remaining all-women's colleges. An all-male college is an abomination because men are the privileged group, so excluding women is a sexist holdover. An all women's college is an acceptable thing in our society, because women are a protected class, and studies continue to show that females in a mixed-gender environment participate less, and females in an all-female environment are much more assertive during and after that experience, and tend to achieve more/better for the experience.
This is similar. If POC want a place to meet that has only POC, and be able to discuss POC issues there, they shouldn't be criticized for that, and it isn't racist. Because they aren't excluding a protected class.
If caucasians want to go somewhere where there are predominantly caucasians, I expect they'll have no problem - pretty much anywhere at the con, they'll be the majority of the crowd. So they don't need or deserve the same consideration.
No, just no.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
