Soon after the 2021 Hugo Awards finalists were announced, Chris Logan Edwards asked in comments here, “How is ‘George R.R. Martin Can Fuck Off Into the Sun’ not a violation of the DisCon III Code of Conduct?” That eye-catching phrase is attached to a Best Related Work finalist whose complete title is “George R.R. Martin Can Fuck Off Into the Sun, Or: The 2020 Hugo Awards Ceremony (Rageblog Edition)”, Natalie Luhrs (Pretty Terrible, August 2020).
The specific issue is that DisCon III disseminated this phrase on its website, in press releases, and on YouTube – and in doing so the committee itself (not Natalie Luhrs’ blog publication) violated their own Code of Conduct.
The applicable parts of DisCon III’s Code of Conduct are —
We do not tolerate harassment of convention attendees in any form. Behavior that will be considered harassment includes, but is not limited to…
Comments directly intended to belittle, offend, or cause discomfort including telling others they are not welcome and should leave…
We require attendees to follow the CoC in online interactions with the convention (including the volunteer mailings, wiki, and other online facilities), at all convention venues and convention-related social activities.
I sent Edwards’ question to several committee members together with the request, “If your immediate thought is that the Hugo voters can trump your Code of Conduct, please explain why you think that.”
DisCon III’s decision to broadcast this phrase on their own platform means they also are committing to having it repeated over and over again in all their venues. As Elio M. García, Jr. explained in another comment here:
Websites around the world have amplified that a member of the WSFS should fuck off. Every official publication that lists the nomination is telling a member of the WSFS to fuck off. The Hugo Nominees discussion panel will have people talking about how GRRM (and Robert Silverberg) should fuck off. On the night of the ceremonies, the screen, the presenter, the sign language interpreter will be announcing to an audience of hundreds that specific members of the WSFS should fuck off.
(Garcia is webmaster of Westeros, a George R.R. Martin fan site not run by the author.)
Tonight Adam Beaton, the Worldcon’s Outreach Division Head, emailed the committee’s reply to my question:
Our response for publication is, “DisCon III does not publicly comment on potential Code of Conduct matters.”
Have a great day, Mike!
The leadership is going to find out how hard it is to administer a Code of Conduct they are unwilling to publicly account to themselves.
Discover more from File 770
Subscribe to get the latest posts to your email.
But this isn’t an ad. This is a Hugo nomination. They are free to reject ads, they are not free to reject Hugo Nominations (that meet all other criteria).
This reminds me of the Dichotomy Paradox:
Various people will be involved in choosing how to present the information and in actually presenting it — it will be a collaborative process. Setting the policy for WHAT information will be presented is its own collaborative process, and one I’m trying to encourage to a better outcome than the first time around.
Something can be raised as a potential Code of Conduct issue before anyone has reached any conclusions about an “end goal.” You’re presuming that there was a calculated agenda in raising the subject at all, which reminds me of the Barflies who were absolutely convinced — and probably still are — that before Jason Sanford filed his investigative report there were a bunch of other people coordinating to amplify the story on their platforms and bring down Baen.
Yes, that’s a common rhetorical strategy, trying to argue against something other than the person’s actual proposition. I think you had a name for it, something about straw.
Why do I have to make the point again that I’m not calling for the nomination to be rejected? I should have been a pair of evil sexy lamps.
Rcade brought up ads. I quoted his post about it. Here it is again
His point is that if someone bought an Ad, Discon could exercise its discretion and reject the ad.
My point is that DisCon can not exercise their discretion and reject the Hugo nomination.
Comparing Hugo noms to ads is foolhardy as they are not the same
@Rose Embolism
I still have no idea why you addressed it to me, then, since I’ve claimed absolutely none of those things, and your other comment was also… accusing? me of wanting things I had literally just said I thought would be very inappropriate.
I mean, fuck, I haven’t even decided, or said so far as I recall, if I really support switching to using the subtitle. It’s probably the least worst option suggested so far, I guess, but I don’t love it for the exact reason people are objecting to it happening – the author doesn’t consent.
The entire argument I’m making with regard to the finalist is “an attack embedded into a thing the person loves is cruel”. That’s it. Only that. If you want to assign a bunch of other shit to me… Well, can I introduce you to Hampus’ evil sexy lamp? It would mind less.
(I wish to state for the record that clearly a Best George category should be for the best fannish blog comment.)
I only support a Best George category if there is a Best Dragon category.
@alexvdl
Okay, I’m going to need you to bring the quote from whoever advocated here that Luhrs should be forced (HOW?) to change the title of her blog post. As far as I can recall, even the few on these boards who think she shouldn’t have titled it that way to begin with haven’t demanded that, though I might have missed it.
As for the concern that omitting part of the title in DisCon official communications and announcements would constitute a ‘sanction’ instead of an avoidance of the DisCon staff to violate their own CoC (out of an excess of caution, or not) I’d rather hear Rose Embolism’s answer on the subject.
I think we might all want to consider being evil sexy lamps. However, as charming as I find Hampus’s, I’d prefer mine had a sexy shoe.
Rose Embolism:
Not that either. It’s having DisCon saying it that makes people uncomfortable. I doubt anyone fucking cares that the word “fuck” was used, or at least I have seen zero pearl clutching about that particular issue.
As far as a CoC violation, there’s a question on the table for many of us as to whether it would be committed by DisCon itself, if it uses the title “George R. R. Martin Can Fuck Off Into the Sun” in its official capacity.
ETA: I am totally and enthusiastically in favor of a Best George category and mildly enthusiastic about Best Dragon, but I’d like to know more.
On the ballot, Jayn. There are people that want the title changed on the ballot.
@alexvdl
My love of dragons is sufficiently well-known around these parts that I was represented in absentia by a little garden ornament dragon at the File770 library in the Worldcon park a couple of years ago so no arguments here.
I don’t care that the word “fuck” is used in the title. What I think I have come to terms with my issue being, is that the entire title feels like it belittles and embarrasses the Hugos. This list of nominations:
Feels quite a bit different than this list:
I have no problem or issue with the blog post or what she says; but it just feels like, to an outside or to the general fandom, the shortened title feels more…IDK, respectful (?) to the Hugos. (And sure, I can get that the Chuck Tingle nomination from a few years ago presents the same issue…and I wish that could be changed too.)
Not what you wrote, dude.
You wrote “OR,” not “and.” The proposition that Luhrs’ blog title be “forcibly” changed (again, how?) is different from the proposition that it be referred to on the ballot by a part of the title that Luhrs wrote, not the whole of it. The second proposition is indeed something some people here have proposed. The first proposition is something I’m fairly certain NO ONE here has advocated – unless you can bring me a quote.
alexvdl: rcade’s point is that DisCon III can exercise editorial discretion about what it communicates to the members even if the issue is not a CoC violation.
In almost every past case communicating the titles of Hugo finalists has been nothing more than a mechanical act. This is one of the times when there is something more at stake.
rcade’s view about editorial discretion can be viewed in the light of past experience. In 2016, the MidAmeriCon II committee did not have to put Daniel Enness’ Safe Space as Rape Room in the Hugo Voter Packet just because it was a finalist: 2016 Hugo Voter Packet Released by MidAmeriCon II. In that case they didn’t cite the Code of Conduct because theirs only governed what would happen at the con — they cited legal advice that in certain countries downloading it might violate the law.
And can we skip past the next chess move where people gasp and pretend I’m saying the present finalist violates the law? I don’t think that at all.
Rose Embolism: people are seeing this whole debate as not simply a tone argument, but an attack on Luhrs and everyone else who was angered by Martin’s actions – or even the activist segment of fandom.
Yes, and that’s because the people who see it that way insist on classifying Worldcon members into 1 of only 2 groups:
Either you are happy to see a title which is an abusive personal attack constantly published and broadcast by DisCon III and the Hugo Awards for the next 8 months, or you’re a dirty racist, misognynist, transphobic pig who loves GRRM, thinks he can do no wrong, and defends what he did to last year’s Hugo Awards Ceremony.
That’s it, for those people. That’s all they can see: either you agree with them 100%, or you agree with them 0%.
The reality is that there is a very large 3rd group, who range from unhappy to incandescent with fury about what GRRM did to the Hugo Awards Ceremony last year, but who also don’t believe a title which is an abusive personal attack should be constantly published and broadcast by DisCon III and the Hugo Awards for the next 8 months.
Cheryl S said:
As a long-time Jean Shepherd fan, I cheerfully suggest this sub-$10 (give or take shipping for non-Primers) prop replica from A CHRISTMAS STORY– a Hallmark product, of all things. I believe this satisfies all criteria so far other than “evil.” (You can spend more, I see some up to $200, which are “life size.”)
It’s almost as if you have to read the entire post to understand the context of the sentence you cherry picked.
If you look at the sentence in the context of the original post you can see I’m discussing the ballot. Even if it wasn’t clear, I have now clarified.
Taking me out of context to argue some dumb shit I didn’t say is sorta understandable at first, but since I clarified continuing to argue against a point I didn’t make is silly. You can continue to argue against your misinterpretation of a comment I can not edit, but that’s on you.
@Mike Glyer: the Hugo voter’s packet is a bonus, neither the existence, nor being included in it, is not a mandate. If Luhrs’s work was left out of the packet, I think that’d be dumb, but something the con has discretion over.
Luhrs’s work was nominated with the title that’s on the ballot, and I don’t believe that DisCon has the authority to change that outside of Luhrs’s permission. Could they do it anyway? Sure, they control the presses.
I don’t know that it’d end well.
Just be careful with the Best George award or you’ll have a lot of confused football fans voting for the late George Best. Or steer into the skid and name the award after George Best. Whatever works for you.
Rose Embolism: Its impossible to make the case that this is a CoC violation without making the case that the people responsible for it violated the CoC.
Correct. In this case, “the people responsible for it” are the DisCon III and Hugo Awards committee, who have been continually publishing and broadcasting a title which is an abusive personal attack. They’re violating the standards they’ve published in their own Code of Conduct.
Daniel Dern:
Well, I’d like to read by my evil sexy lamp, but one of my children is getting that for Christmas. Maybe both. They’re adults now, but when they were quite small, they charmed a child-phobic Brit by insisting he watch A Christmas Story with them and explained the jokes he didn’t get. Last I heard, he was the father of five.
alexvdl:
That’s kind of the thing, that it’s not going to end well for DisCon whatever they choose to do.
Lydy Nickerson: Let me see if I understand this correctly: although you have said that you believe that at least some of the nominators made their nomination in bad faith, that fact is not particularly relevant, and therefore it is not a violation of the CoC. Do I have that correct?
Yes, I’ve said that numerous times now. Which is why I don’t understand why you keep trying to attribute it to me as part of my argument, when I’ve repeatedly made clear that it’s not. You’ve also tried to attribute the “fuck is a bad word” argument to me, despite me making it clear that I don’t care about the work “fuck” being used in blog post title or even appearing on the Hugo ballot.
Lydy Nickerson: My inference was that you would say that the nominators violated the CoC.
I’ve been extremely plain-spoken in my comments on this thread. If that had been what I meant, that is what I would have said. I have not said this. I have not meant this. Why is this so hard for you to believe? Why would you insist on ascribing things I haven’t said to me?
Apparently, in order to not be falsely accused of saying things, I have to specifically say that I’m not saying them. So here you go:
Is there anything else that I need to pre-emptively deny, in order to avoid being falsely accused of it?
Lydy Nickerson: What I’m seeing is that you are saying that there is, in fact, a violation of the CoC, but that the offender is DisCon, not Luhrs, not the nominators, not the voters, but DisCon itself. And the target is the DisCon membership. Am I correctly representing you? Or have I missed the mark, again?
I’m sitting here absolutely stunned. I’ve said this possibly close to two dozen times in this comment thread and the other, yet it is only just now finally actually being heard and understood, and I am incredulous that it has taken this much time, and this many repetitions on my part, for that to finally happen.
Lydy Nickerson: If the institution acts in ways that suggest it does not support the values of its Code of Conduct, that’s definitely a problem that needs to be addressed, but I am not sure that attempting to get it to enforce its CoC against itself is the correct way forward. I think its the wrong tool for the job.
Fine. Call it whatever you want. It is a problem that needs to be addressed. Perhaps the correct way forward is simply for DisCon III to state “We do not feel that constantly publishing and broadcasting for the next 8 months a title which is an abusive personal attack is consistent with the values of our Code of Conduct. Therefore, the subtitle for this piece will be used in all official communications by DisCon III and the Hugo Awards.”
Are you saying it might be for the Best?
@alexdvl
When you’re going around saying that people are advocating that Luhrs’ title be “forcibly” changed without anyone having actually advocated any kind of force, then you’re throwing around inflammatory accusations without a basis. I didn’t make you use the words.
@Rose Embolism
But if DisCon has members e-mail announcements and pronounce the title during the ceremony complete with the demand made in insulting terms that GRRM go away and not come back – there WILL be actual people of the DisCon staff saying and writing that demand.
I don’t think the fact that it’s part of their duty as DisCon staff to write and speak the title and that they therefore don’t personally INTEND to insultingly tell GRRM to get out (an addendum that doesn’t necessarily follow, BTW) means that the title is transformed in their mouths into a collection of syllables without that meaning. It says what it says. And the meaning of the words can be construed as a violation of the letter of the CoC.
If we assume that it isn’t a violation of the CoC for DisCon people to write and say the “fuck off and don’t come back” title because they don’t have the PERSONAL intention to tell GRRM so, even though they ARE saying the words that mean exactly that – well, that seems to me to be passing the buck a little.
It could apply to any nominee, as others have noted, to make the most scurrilous insults to be repeated aloud at the Con for kicks and giggles. “It’s in the title, so we can’t omit it! And because we didn’t write it ourselves, it doesn’t matter if we repeat ‘XYZ is a whore who should be driven forth’ aloud at the Con! Our intentions are pure and that divests what we’re saying of hostile content to XYZ!”
Now, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with Luhrs’ title as it stands. Anger can be justified in rhetoric and reality, it can be necessary to say that someone is detrimental enough that they SHOULD leave a group, and it shouldn’t be up to DisCon to say that her piece is an unacceptable nominee because she said that. And I DO think that GRRM deserved to get smacked down in no uncertain terms for his performance.
But I also think that this may open the door to future misuse. So I’m kind of torn, and see why this is not a simple issue. Which is why I ask again if you think that using only Luhrs’ subtitle instead of the fuck-off-and-don’t-come-back part would be a sanction against Luhrs.
Something can be both a George and a Dragon. For example, it can be a book by Gordon Dickson… Whether dragons can wear sexy, evil shoes, that’s a different question, and probably not the version of Cinderella you were looking for.
@JJ: It is exhausting and discouraging that you are as angry with me when I understand you as when I misunderstand you. We have interacted for years on this blog, and I have always respected your opinions, even when I disagreed with them. I have not accused you of bad faith when you have misunderstood or misstated my opinions, and yet you appear to be accusing me of bad faith for finally understanding yours. This asymmetry is distressing to me. I have tried, very hard, to ask questions I wanted the answers to, and to avoid gotcha questions. Where you have told me that I have misunderstood or mischaracterized you, I have made real attempts to understand my error. At this point, I think the best I can hope for is that I am receiving some of the accumulated frustration that this conversation has engendered, and this isn’t all on me. But, well, maybe it is. In which case, our relationship was less mutual than I thought, which is kind of sad.
This is probably partly because I still do not see the title as a personal attack. Lacking that understanding, I have assumed that the problem was the way in which it was phrased, and so fixated on the swear. I could be wrong, but it is my impression that if the blog post had been titled, “GRRM Was the Worst Toastmaster in the History of the Hugos and Should Leave Fandom” it would not have aroused as much ire. But from my perspective, that title would have been a much more personal attack. Yeeting someone into the sun is clear hyperbole, and again, I do not interpret it as a wish for harm, but rather as a wish to be left alone. But to reiterate, because I don’t really get why you and other people feel that this is a personal attack, I have attached greater significance to the phrase “fuck off” than you think is warranted. I apologize for my error.
I may be slow on the uptake, I grant you. My best defense is that the conversation is long, diffuse, and complicated.
Here is one of the places where I feel very misunderstood by you. I really thought I had been clear from the very first that my primary interest was in whether or not this was a Code of Conduct violation. My belief, which I have explained, that it is not a CoC violation has never been represented as a belief that there was no issue, no problem, no reason to discuss. I have repeatedly said that I thought it was a hard problem, and that I believed that it needed to be appropriately addressed. Exactly what the appropriate response is has been less clear to me, but I’ve been trying very hard to ask questions I want to know the answers to, and listen to those answers, and evolve my understanding based on those answers.
I have also said almost exactly this. I don’t know that you actually noticed that. In my first long post, I said, “The obvious response to dealing with the captive audience situation is one that’s been discussed, not using the full title of the blog post. Maybe that is a way forward. I’m not sure. ” As the conversation has developed, I have acknowledged this several times as a possible way forward. I think it has potential consequences, and I’m concerned about them, but I am not on the side of “No changes.” I’m on the side of exploring our options.
Here’s the thing that really worries me: there’s a pattern where a person is aggressed against and who tries to deal with it and fails will suddenly lose their temper and start screaming invective. And when this happens, it is very common to accuse the person screaming invective of abuse, rather than the person whose been provoking that person. In a lot of these discussions, I worry that we are losing the fact that Luhrs may actually be in the position of someone who has been aggressed against and who has lost her temper, and we are tut-tutting her tone rather than looking at the issue she’s trying to raise. And I am probably a part of that, too. In a CoC that I ran, we wouldn’t discipline the screaming person. We would take them someplace where they felt safe, let them vent, and then try to clean house with the aggressor. But that model doesn’t really work with an old blog post. And I don’t see that we are likely to make any significant, structural changes to our institutions to deal with GRRM’s bad behavior last Hugo Awards Ceremony.
@Lydy Nickerson
I can’t speak for anyone else, but I would’ve had the exact same problem with “… Was the Worst Toastmaster in the History of the Hugos and Should Leave Fandom” as I do with “… Can Fuck Off Into the Sun” as a Hugo finalist – either way, personal attack on Person embedded into thing Person is known to love. But I also have no opinion on the CoC aspect..!
(I’m snipping the name because, honestly, it’s kind of exhausting quoting it otherwise. No criticism intended or implied of people who don’t.)
@Meredith: My apologies, I must have misinterpreted what you were asking- I didn’t take it as rhetorical. I also definitely didn’t mean to imply that you personally were in favor of such.
As for calling this a code of conduct violation, please note where I work a code of Conduct violation is a serious and formal procedure, one that can result in a student being suspended or expelled. It is also something that hasto involve an action by a person. For instance, the students found cheating on finals recently were a CoC violation; on the other hand, the racist literature that was distributed among buildings on campus, while taken very seriously, did not fall under CoC (unless a student was found to have distributed them). The same principle also applies to harassment. Fundamentally though, organizations cannot be held accountable for a CoC violation, individuals are. Actions by organizations are an entirely different legal avenue.
So when I hear the title called repeatedly a CoC violation, then my question has to be “Who is doing the CoC violation”. Which is why I’m getting frustrated and seeing it as people dancing around the bush- saying that a CoC violation has occurred, while saying its not a person makes no sense.
It also makes no sense to say that only the convention is violating CoC by repeating the title. If it is a violation of CoC or harassment to repeat the title, then it’s a violation of CoC and harassment to create the title in the first place, and a violation of CoC to vote for it. If one believes the title is harassment and a CoC violation, then one has to believe Luhr engaged in such, and that DisCon has a responsibility to act accordingly.
Note: personally, I do not believe that Lehr engaged in harassment or a CoC violation, but that’s not my responsibility to decide- that’s the ConCom.
@jayn: I see the difficult position that you’re bringing up there, and I don’t see an easy solution, because I can ALSO see falling the other way- being able to change titles without consent of the author can also lead to an abuse of power. this might be something to bring up in the business meeting.
@Meredith: Thanks. That confirms my suspicion that I over-emphasized the word “fuck” when trying to understand why people thought that that the title was a personal attack. I will think on this more.
@Rose Embolism: you are saying what I tried to say much more succinctly. Thank you.
@Daniel Dern: I would read the HELL out of that version of Cinderella. Just sayin’.
The nature of the violation and its source has been repeatedly described by me. There are people setting policy for what gets publicized, who are writing scripts, producing video, who do all the steps needed to distribute this title to audiences. Why do you keep repeating that unless the source of the violation is the name you’re insisting on, it’s not a person.
And this kind of violation doesn’t require any kind of draconian off-with-their-heads response. It can be solved by a process change to avoid repetition. DisCon III’s CoC says measures taken may include “mediating solutions between parties.” That approach isn’t confined to CoC situations, either, you know.
Lydy Nickerson: you appear to be accusing me of bad faith for finally understanding yours
No Lydy, I’m not. I actually met you in person several years ago, and I’ve always respected you in your interactions here and elsewhere (and still do). I apologize for getting so salty in my last comment.
I’ve just been sitting here facepalming in exasperation. I am sure you can understand why I am incredibly frustrated, and feel as though I’ve been beating my head against the wall, that instead of my words being read as written, they’ve been continually discarded, and all of these other meanings and intentions which are not mine have been inserted in their place by other people who aren’t willing to accept that what I am actually saying is what I actually mean.
I know that Code of Conduct issues are your area of specialization, and I am aware of, and greatly appreciate, the massive contributions to fandom you have made in that area.
I understand that you don’t feel this is a Code of Conduct issue – but I don’t know what else you call it when the DisCon III and the Hugo Awards Committee are doing something that is clearly massively inconsistent with the values stated in their CoC – something which a lot of people have already said is hurting them.
I also think it’s important for people to recognize that while GRRM aggressed worst against last year’s Hugo finalists with that narcissistic, passive-aggressive performance, he also aggressed against every Worldcon member who wanted the ceremony to be a celebration of joy, who wanted to honor the finalists and winners, who agreed with the change of name to the Astounding Award, who wasn’t interested in having an almost 2 extra hours of their precious time wasted during Worldcon by a his self-absorbed, disrespectful ramblings.
He didn’t just say “fuck you” to the Hugo finalists, he pretty much said “fuck you” to all of the Worldcon members. And I’d like people to acknowledge that there were a whole lot of people not just hurt by that last year, but who now, like me, are being hurt again by seeing the Worldcon and the Hugo Awards continually repeat a title that is an abusive personal attack.
I’m sure that there are indeed people who are “tut-tutting” Luhrs for her tone, which is wrong – but reading all of the comments on this post, it’s very obvious that there are a lot of people like me who aren’t doing that. I feel as though some of the people making the accusations of tone-policing are absolutely refusing to consider that is far from all that is actually being said and done – and some are perhaps even doing so because they think that it gives them an immediate “you’re tone-policing, end of discussion, I win” trump card. The question of tone-policing is the starting point of discussion – not the stopping point.
Lydy Nickerson: And I don’t see that we are likely to make any significant, structural changes to our institutions to deal with GRRM’s bad behavior last Hugo Awards Ceremony.
As I said in a previous comment, I’m working on continually letting Worldcons and Worldcon bids know what sort of expectations I have of the convention and the Hugo Awards going forward – and holding them to those standards. I hope a lot of people are doing that. I hope that because what happened last year was so bad, a lot of people have been shaken out of their complacency, and have recognized that there is a need to do so much better starting now.
I think part of the problems that have occurred with Hugo ceremonies, especially last year’s, is that it’s regarded as being a purely technical and logistical event, and so people with technical and logistical expertise are volunteering and being recruited to work on it – without the recognition that it’s also hugely an event about people, and we need staff members who are experts on the people side of it also playing a big role in the planning and running of the program.
It’s incumbent upon all of us who care about Worldcon and the Hugo Awards to pay attention, ask lots of questions, watch what’s being done, and give feedback early and often. And, if we have the ability and the available time, to volunteer to help.
@MIke Glyer: I still feel like you are trying to split the baby, here. If the writer of the post, and the nominators of that post are not in violation of the CoC, then I don’t think you can hold the people responsible for accurately conveying the vote results are in violation. I guess you could argue that within the context of the blog post, it was not a violation, but I really don’t see how you can say that the context of nominating it for a Hugo, with the attendant attention this puts on the post and its title, is not a violation.
Lydy Nickerson: I’ve read the post at least six times since it was published, having needed to consult it for factchecking, and it has never crossed my mind that what Natalie Luhrs had to say about being pissed off by GRRM connected in any way with DisCon III or any Code of Conduct.
When I saw the livestreamed Hugo announcement, I cringed to see that insult dished out as part of the official video. Then, when someone asked about the application of the Code of Conduct, my thoughts moved from “Can’t we do better than this?” to availing of the promises in the CoC.
@JJ:
I would call it a profound institutional failure, which warrants the institution doing a lot of work. As I said earlier, a Code of Conduct is specifically to mediate individual behavior, not institutional behavior. My belief is that by trying to leverage the CoC to deal with this, we are simultaneously weakening the CoC and dodging the systemic issues which led to this current state of affairs.
I appreciate that you are working to make sure that the Worldcon administrators understand the problems that exist, and pressuring them to do better. That’s hard work. But I think there is a vast difference between “this is a violation of the CoC” and “This institution is acting in ways that show they do not actually believe in their CoC.” And it is the latter that is, in this case, the problem.
As I said a while ago, I’m pretty sure we actually want the same things. We want a robust CoC which can help individuals have a good time at Worldcon and not get marginalized, harassed, or alienated. But we also want an institution that doesn’t do those things, either. One of the ways that it does so is by enforcing its CoC. The other way is by living up to its ideals. But the one is not the other, and I don’t think that it’s useful to conflate the two. And I think that by softening Luhrs’ title, the message that gets sent is that “we really don’t like angry women being angry”, not “there is a systemic problem which we need to address”. Even if that’s not the intended message, I think that’s the one that gets sent. And that’s what I really hate. The perception that we are trying to deal with the very real anger by making it look prettier.
I do not think we are going to come to an agreement on this issue. Are we close to at least understanding each other’s positions? I believe that this title is experienced by you and others as a painful aggression. I think you are arguing that there is significant bystander effect. It is pretty terrible to get punched in the face, but it is also terrible to be a witness to that act, and not dealing with the trauma of bystander effect is one of our cultural failings.
@ Mike Glyer: thank you for your answer. I’ll think about it, more. I, too, want the community to be a kinder, juster, more welcoming space, and that is what a robust Code of Conduct is about. But I also don’t think it can the only arrow in our quiver. A Code of Conduct is no better than the institution enforcing it.
Okay, so, getting the impression that there’s a wide, wide gulf between how different people perceive CoC’s and the procedures around them.
@Rose Embolism
Yeah, tone doesn’t necessarily come across on the internet – my aside on “who to censure” was intended to be incredulous at the very idea that it was possible, reasonable or desirable. I was frustrated because it felt rather like you were treating me as some sort of weird Mythical StrawConservativeSMOF, in much the same way as visiting Pups would treat us as MythicalSJWs rather than listening to the actual words we wrote, when I think you know me well enough to know that I’m… not.
That being said, I still have not, so far, seen anyone call for censuring Luhrs, the nominators, or anyone else, and have seen nothing that directly implies a desire for it nor that would make me concerned about a growing movement towards it – I’m thinking maybe the difference in perception of the potential role/aim/procedure of the CoC is coming into play to create this misunderstanding.
I… still don’t have an opinion on the CoC’s role in this (or anything CoC-related, beyond “probably a good thing to have”) in any way shape or form, but I suspect most people don’t work in environments where they formally exist (or work in environments where they’re different), and have perhaps a more nebulous view of how the procedures generally work and whether they need a specific target to function. Probably best not to superimpose the framework you’re familiar with over the top, it won’t match intent for much of what you’re reading.
@Lydy Nickerson
Swearing can be an intensifier, but, well, I haven’t left the house since November 2019 and pretty much the only reason every sentence doesn’t have some sort of swear word included is because when I type, I can edit them out. I’ve got into rather terrible habits with verbal communication, I’m afraid. It’s the sentiment/meaning for me, not the swearing. Again: Only speaking for myself. I’ve certainly seen a couple of comments suggesting that some people are perceiving it as an intensifier even if the main thing they object to is still the sentiment itself rather than the specific wording used.
—
@No-one in particular, re: tone policing
I’m going to admit to some frustration with it. It’s valuable – I’ve seen so many people dismissed as rude and angry when they were at all times delivering their words calmly, clearly, and respectfully, and that’s when I think it’s at its best. I’m also by and large comfortable with it as a defence for someone who was poked, and poked, and poked, and maybe used an irritated fuck and a raised voice in their response.
What I hate – hate hate hate – is when it’s used as a shield for being a bit of a dick, or mean, or, at worst, outright abusive.
Obviously, I consider the particular circumstances of this – not the original blog post or the title by itself, in its original context, but specifically it being embedded in something the intended target is known to love in such a way that it cannot be avoided and must be repeated ad nauseum – to be cruel and excessive. (Not sure I want to commit to abusive yet, still thinking about it.) I think “tone policing” is weakened by using it to defend such a thing.
YMMV.
(I’m absolutely convinced I’ve used the wrong censure/censor at some point and neither of them look like words to me anymore. What even is English.)
Lydy Nickerson:
Honestly, the only reason for that must be that you refuse to read our answers. I have clearly said that my interpretation of “fuck off into the sun” is “go away and die”. I can in no way understand why anyone wouldn’t think telling some one to go away and die would be a personal attack.
I get that you don’t have the same interpretation of the expression, but that is not what you asked for. You wanted to know why others saw it as a personal attack. You have gotten this explanation several times from many people and still refuse to acknowledge it.
@Lydy Nickerson
Urgh cross-post – re: the message that might be heard by using the subtitle instead, the current message a lot of people seem to be hearing is more or less: We abdicate responsibility for living up to the values of our CoC when to try to do so would be difficult and complicated.
They’re both bad messages. I’m not sure if there’s a way forward which won’t send either of them. I’d like there to be.
@Hampus: I have expressed myself less precisely than would be useful. I am gaining an intellectual understanding of the perception of the title as a personal attack, but I don’t have any emotional resonance with these arguments, and that is hampering my understanding on a deeper level than a surface, intellectual understanding. I would pretty much never, ever, append “and die” to the abjuration to “fuck off”. I would also say that based on the text of the blog post and what little I know about Luhrs, my interpretation is probably closer to her intent than yours, but I could be very wrong.
A friend commented to me today that if Tom Disch were still alive, and had penned a blog post with that title, it would mean a very different thing, as he and GRRM knew and detested each other, and so the post would absolutely be a personal attack. Since Luhrs and GRRM, to the best of my knowledge, do not have a personal relationship, the context impacts my understanding of the words.
But I am sorry if I led you to believe that I have not read or understood what you have said. What I meant was that, without the visceral response you have, I have been casting about trying to understand it, and that has led me into several errors, including assuming it was primarily the swear with was causing the issue.
@Meredith:
That is a very important issue, and one I haven’t thought about deeply. Thank you. All in all, its a right mess, and really needed to be cleared up LAST YEAR. But the logistics of an outgoing convention dealing with it, or the incoming convention taking it on, man, what a nightmare! Have I mentioned that I think this is a hard problem? I wasn’t wrong.
Lydy Nickerson: And I think that by softening Luhrs’ title, the message that gets sent is that “we really don’t like angry women being angry”, not “there is a systemic problem which we need to address”.
And by not using the alternate title, the message that gets sent is “we really don’t care how many people feel harmed by continually being punched by us reciting this title which is an abusive personal attack, we are prioritizing another person’s feelings as being much more important than all of theirs,” not “there is a systemic problem which we need to address”.
As I said back on page 4 of what is now 12 pages of comments:
I think DisCon III is faced with an unresolvable situation. No matter what they do at this point, it is not going to be a “right” choice. They can only figure out what they believe is the “less wrong” choice – and whatever they choose is still going to be wrong.
@Lydy Nickerson
Could you spin that out for me a little more – why does the (lack of) personal connection between Luhrs and GRRM make a difference?
At this point I’m not sure what the least worst option is, but I’m pretty sure it isn’t ignoring it and hoping it goes away, which seems to be the current choice – although, to be fair, it could be that they just don’t want to be hasty and are busily figuring out what to do (if anything) and say about it. A lack of visible action isn’t necessarily a lack of action, and I’m trying very hard to keep that in mind.
Lydy Nickerson:
Just once more and then I’m going to see if I still have my copy of that Gordon Dickerson book, which charmed me. Also, that is totally my dream Cinderella.
You’re still mistaking that this is about Luhrs, which I think is leading you into some unforced errors. It’s not the language (for his execrable job as toastmaster, GRRM can indeed fuck all the way off into the sun), it’s not about the blog post (it wasn’t the best thing written about that particular shit show, but it wasn’t the worst, and the title was brilliant), and it’s not about Luhrs’s intent.
This is what Mike wrote right up top here, in the post that all these comments are attached to, and it’s still true:
I think a point was raised earlier, and I think it’s a good one about the meaning of the words fuck off.
for me, it’s rather mild but perhaps that’s because I’m young and am used to hearing it in all kinds of contexts, it’s a slightly harsher version of go away in my view and as such I don’t see it as an abusive personal attack, but rather someone expressing their sentiments towards a person who has engaged in harmful and bad behaviour and has clearly stepped over the line, i’ve seen many times in this comment section the claim that those who find it an abusive personal attack hundreds of them so we are told, outnumber those who would have the title read out in full but haven’t seen any evidence of this, perhaps someone could put up a pole somewhere and we could answer that question once and for all.
Although some may be voting for it in bad faith, and really when is that not the case, that certainly not the reason I will be voting for it, I’m voting for it because to me it expresses in very clear categorical terms that what George R R Martin did last year was not acceptable, the last thing I would want is for a young fan of colour to be introduced to the Hugo awards, see that award ceremony from famous name author, and feel completely alienated, so to see that blog post nominated would in my view counter some of the negativity around that ceremony.
Annie: I’m voting for it because to me it expresses in very clear categorical terms that what George R R Martin did last year was not acceptable, the last thing I would want is for a young fan of colour to be introduced to the Hugo awards, see that award ceremony from famous name author, and feel completely alienated, so to see that blog post nominated would in my view counter some of the negativity around that ceremony.
A lot of people have said that they nominated and voted for it because they think it sends this sort of “message”. But I think that the message a lot of people are getting is not the same one the nominators think they are sending.
@Cheryl: That is only true if one accepts that the phrase is a personal attack. While I believe that many people feel that it is, I don’t feel that way. I do not know what a majority of the membership feel, and I would not want to poll for it. But there are certainly a substantial number of people who don’t think it’s a personal attack. And either way, it’s still not a CoC violation, as best I understand CoCs. It may be a failure of the institution to live up to its principles, but as I have stated, that is a deeply and systemic problem, but it’s still not a CoC problem.