And a tab for Saturday in Kansas City…
Discover more from File 770
Subscribe to get the latest posts to your email.
File 770
Mike Glyer's news of science fiction fandom
And a tab for Saturday in Kansas City…
Subscribe to get the latest posts to your email.
@Jonathan K. Stephens
Ha! I’m not that bad, am I?
Intent can and should be a mitigating factor, but I’d be more confident assuming the best of him if I’d seen more effort on his part to understand why people were upset or annoyed with his attempt to hijack the panel to speechify on an only (very) distantly related topic, or the content of that attempt. Generally speaking although not an absolute rule, if someone is apologetic after the fact it points to more innocent motivation, and if they’re not but instead double down it doesn’t look quite as rosy. (See: MRK’s response to her suspension for contrast.)
At the end of the day, though, the result still matters more than the intent, and the result of his actions was that people walked away from a panel about short fiction (not exactly the most predictably controversial topic around!) upset, angry, frustrated and offended, and that’s absolutely not what the convention would have had in mind.
(Also, I realised I spelled your name incorrectly in my first reply to you, which I really should have known better than to do. My apologies.)
It hasn’t stopped you from judging him as a person worthy of expulsion.
I’m listening to the comments by people who were there and accepting the judgment of the convention staff who did the same. You’re the one splitting hairs and trying to explain away the event while sitting in your armchair at home.
Ellen Datlow on Oh Dave Truesdale No, via sharing a post on the incident by Andy Duncan :
https://www.facebook.com/EllenDatlow/posts/10153915101742075
(Lots of great conversation in the comments, including the suggestion of a series of anthologies entitled “Ellen Datlow Ruins Everything.” Hell, I’d read it. Ellen Datlow can ruin my genres any day of the week without even RSVPing as far as I’m concerned.)
@Aaron.
Really.
I have just as much a chance of guessing what’s actually going on in someone’s mind at a distance or in the front row. There is such a thing as an uncertainty factor or even a sense of fair-play (which I think is what rcade is getting at), which leads me to distrust automatic assumptions of the worst in someone, like an accusation of malice would be.
I have just as much a chance of guessing what’s actually going on in someone’s mind at a distance or in the front row.
No, actually you don’t. The fact that you think you do tells me there’s no point in bothering with your opinions on the subject any further.
Me too. Here’s John O’Neill of Black Gate (apologies for length):
There’s also a comment from Jim Hines at that link retracting his claim that Truesdale was lying about not being contacted by the con before the decision to expel him.
PS. Should have added: The post by Andy Duncan (which Ellen Datlow shares in the link above) is him giving greater context to the David Hartwell quote which Dave Truesdale so egregiously twists and abuses. It’s worth a read.
rcade – So, in accordance with your second point, a victim who doesn’t fight back with what you deem to be sufficient intensity and timeliness isn’t really a victim. Interesting.
@Aaron.
Fair enough. You’re a mind-reader. Happy to leave it there.
@ Meredith.
Fair enough and agreed, his subsequent actions (re: doubling down – I’ll take your word for it), don’t portray him in an exactly a favourable light, still, yeah, malice is a strong term.
Me too. Here’s John O’Neill of Black Gate
Yes, the judgment of a middle-aged white guy about the antics of a middle-aged white guy. Guess what group of people really aren’t in a position to judge whether others felt attacked, threatened, or otherwise significantly discomforted?
You’re a mind-reader.
You’re the one claiming to be just as good at assessing someone’s demeanor and intention from an audio recording as someone else is in person.
I don’t think that’s a fair analogy to what we’re talking about, which is a one-to-many situation where a speaker is addressing a crowd of 200.
Jim C. Hines has updated his post of Aug 20th, giving a bullet-point breakdown of the Truesdale audio through about the 25-minute mark.
25 minutes. Halfway through the panel’s allotted time, and panelists are still finding themselves obliged to rein Truesdale in. And how long would he have ground at his pet axe without the panelists’ intervention?
Gah.
@Jonathan K. Stephens his subsequent actions (re: doubling down – I’ll take your word for it)
Go to any of the FB links provided in the comments and you’ll see it.
Since none of us are Dave Truesdale (OR ARE WE), none of us can ever be 100% certain of what he was thinking when he decided to give that speech and given the human capacity for self-delusion even being Dave Truesdale wouldn’t be a surefire method.
We still know he upset, annoyed, frustrated and offended both panelists and attendees.
@rcade
My understanding is that the remarks did bring a rebuke from one of the panelists. Doesn’t it meet your second criteria?
@Jonathan K. Stephens
Well, I consider his assertion that if anyone reacted poorly to his remarks then that proved they were the problem to be doubling down. 🙂 You milage may vary.
@Aaron
John O’Neill later walks it back a little after K Tempest Bradford has a chat with him.
You’re covering a lot of bases to invalidate the viewpoint of other people.
1. My view is invalid because it’s not in the majority.
2. My view is invalid because I wasn’t there.
3. All middle-aged white males’ views are invalid, even if they were there.
I’m sorry about my age, race and gender. It’s how I was born. I didn’t choose it.
I suppose that, ultimately, what I see in that response is that you only consider the opinions of those who would react to offensive comments as you would have them react, which I’m guessing is the manner in which you suppose you would react. People don’t react the same way. Some can’t react immediately, whether it be from shock, fear of retaliation, etc. Those in an audience might not react because of the perceived power dynamics between audience and panel, and more specifically between audience members and moderator, as the moderator runs a panel.
Expecting others to react in accordance to a script while in the moment doesn’t get to the truth of a matter, and, ultimately, only serves to reify preexisting power structures.
I’m sorry about my age, race and gender. It’s how I was born. I didn’t choose it.
It means you aren’t in a position to judge. Look at the collection of people who have pointed out how over the line DT’s actions were – almost all of the women, for example, who have weighed in have weighed in on that side of the issue. The only people who have rallied to defend DT have been middle-aged white guys, which is one group he didn’t attack in his tirade.
All you’ve done in this thread is say, over and over again “well, it didn’t offend me, so what’s the problem?” Your stance entirely misses the points that have been made by people who are in a position to know, that is, women and minorities (and especially those who happened to be there). You are displaying a level of tone-deafness that is, to put it bluntly, truly staggering.
I don’t think my personal reaction is more important than others. I looked for first-hand accounts from people who were there, because I wanted to hear the perspectives of people who thought what he did merited expulsion.
I was asked what I’d consider offensive in a panel speech, so I tried to offer a standard for when a general negative remark about a group would go far enough to be personally abusive. That’s a tough thing to do. I encourage you to try it.
People are acting like this is an easy situation. Some people in a crowd of 200 felt excessive discomfort, so he should be punished.
A year ago David Gerrold displayed asterisks at the Hugo Awards ceremony. That strongly offended some people in the audience, though a lot of us on File 770 regarded it as a joke. (I thought it was a bad idea.)
Gerrold had a prop, just like Truesdale. It was pre-planned, just like Truesdale. Some people were hurt, just like Truesdale.
What’s the standard that makes one acceptable and the other unacceptable?
Sorry I lost the attribution but…
I personally don’t judge him a person worthy of expulsion, I judge his behavior worthy of expulsion.
Look at the comments on this Facebook post. Look at who the people are who were hurt by DT’s actions:
https://www.facebook.com/jimhines/posts/10154457680664283
What’s the standard that makes one acceptable and the other unacceptable?
Did someone report Gerrold’s actions?
@rcade
You know, I’ve been persuaded that the asterisks were a misstep, but I don’t think it’s a fair comparison. The asterisks were an unsuccessful attempt to acknowledge the weirdness of the year but also to turn it around into something really positive. Highest number of voters and so on. I don’t think anyone could convincingly argue that Truesdale’s remarks were an attempt at positivity.
The other reason they’re not the same, of course, is that accusations of special snowflakeyness of the sort that Truesdale was throwing around are almost always directed at women and minorities, which is why women and minorities have been saying they felt targetted by the remarks. The asterisks carry no such implications.
I realize you would have no way of knowing this, but that is something we discuss rather often at my place of work. We work with the public and there is a code of conduct. We have policy related to disruptive behavior. We discuss these issues frequently because it is important for the safety and comfort of the public we serve. So, I’m choosing to ignore my immediate reaction to “That’s a tough thing to do. I encourage you to try it,” because my immediate reaction was to be offended by how dismissive the assumption that I’ve never engaged in such an activity felt.
@Anna Feruglio Dal Dan
Yes! Exactly. That’s why his motivation doesn’t matter except as a mitigating factor (and can only be acknowledged as a mitigating factor if we have good evidence of what the motivation was).
I spent a fair amount of time on Twitter following threads from one person to another who attended the panel – PoC (men & women), queer, women – tweeting during the panel – the tweets were incredulous, shocked, offended, hurt, angry. I easily spent an hour reading their tweets once I found the first one.
I’ve said since day one the asterisks by Gerrold were a bad idea. So for me neither DT nor the asterisks were acceptable. The difference is one ConCom did something and the other didn’t and fewer people agreed with me on the asterisks.
Totally inappropriate given the topic but I’m basically rolling around in this thread with glee that I finally managed to carve out some thinking-time to come back here. Still quite fuzzy but hell, close enough. 🙂
Glad to have you back, Meredith.
@Aaron.
Ok, You don’t want to let it go. Right.
Firstly:
“You’re the one claiming to be just as good at assessing someone’s demeanor and intention from an audio recording as someone else is in person.”
Nope, didn’t say that. Next time read for comprehension. What I said was:
“I have just as much a chance of guessing what’s actually going on in someone’s mind at a distance or in the front row.”
Now unless you’re really going to argue that some Fans are Slans…
Secondly, go read about the word ‘malice’ especially in a legal sense. My understanding is that it’s the hardest thing to prove in a court of law BECAUSE NOBODY CAN READ MINDS.
Thirdly, you want to believe the Worst about someone without conclusive proof. Go for it. Throw any notion of fair-play in an antiquated dustbin. Revel in your factional distaste. Not going to cause me any heartburn. I just think you’re rather juvenile, to be honest. Tone deafness? Methinks you should look at yourself before accusing others of being disingenuous.
And we reach the place in the discussion where the white guy dare not tread. With every word I type I step further into peril.
I’m a lifelong liberal committed to inclusiveness who tries to recognize my own blindspots and listen to the perspectives of marginalized people. You seem to think that unless I agree 100% with them — or with you on their behalf — I’m tone deaf and my opinion is worthless.
I’ve taken care to express that I’m offering my own perspective, not declaring a universal truth.
If your position is that my middle-aged white maleness makes my viewpoint irrelevant and John O’Neill’s irrelevant even though he was there, that’s your prerogative.
But I don’t think you’re going to get a better world in fandom by clamping down so hard on dissent.
Good night, everyone. I hope that I haven’t offended anyone in this discussion. I appreciate your perspectives.
@ rcade:
I suppose that I might have taken DT selling his pearls and donating the proceeds to charity as evidence of a lack of maliciousness on his part, just like I did Gerrold and the other dozen or so people behind the asterisks.
Also, the asterisks weren’t repeating an old, old routine beloved of bullies. There are decades of weight behind the whole snowflake meme.
ETA: Also, your middle-aged white maleness doesn’t make you irrelevant, but it does give you blinders. What we’re saying is that you’ve run into a blind spot.
@Bonnie McDaniel
Glad to be back! (Seriously, so much glee. Gleeeeee.)
@Jonathan K. Stephens
Aaron’s a lawyer.
@everyone
I honestly think discussing motivation is… Not pointless, exactly, but not worth the weight it has been given (either by those assuming malice or those assuming otherwise). We don’t know for sure. We can’t know for sure, short of unearthing an email sent before the event saying exactly what his intentions were. People can still infer from his actions what they believe his intent might have been, but in the end whether assuming the best or the worst all anyone can do is guess.
Putting intent aside, we have someone who used the moderator position to try and read a speech rather than do his job, who lead to a panel being significantly off-topic for the duration, who made one attendee cry (!) and other attendees and panellists feel upset, angry, frustrated and offended. Does it really matter what he meant by it? You can disagree on whether kicking him from the convention was appropriate (I’m still on the fence) but surely it is clear that he was well over the line and some sort of consequence was in order.
@Meredith
*sigh*
Yeah, but a lawyer can also act like a twit. And if a lawyer, he really should know better.
Actually, I don’t disagree that DT’s actions were out of line, and deserving of some sort of censure, but malice? I think not.
Jonathan Stratham after listening to the audio and rereading the CoC comment on Jim C. Hines FB: I’ve now listened to the recording and re-read the Code of Conduct. The convention had no choice but to do what they did. I certainly understand he offended many people a lot more than he did me.
@Jonathan K. Stephens
Well, yes, and Aaron can certainly be abrasive when he wants to be, but I’m still pretty sure he knows what the legal definition of malice is. 🙂 I just doubt he cares since File770 has yet to be declared a court of law. (Just as well. We’d never agree on a verdict. The backlog would be appalling. We’d still be arguing over our first case ten years from now.)
@Meredith
We aren’t a court of law? Thank goodness. We could settle things with a bracket. 😀
@Tasha Turner
Brackets are the solution to everything! *nodnod*
@Meredith.
To win your favour I will even forgo the traditional ketchup-packs at dawn!
I don’t disagree, at all – or ever did, that regardless of motivation DT’s actions were worthy of extreme censure; what I disagree with is pendantically insisting on malice whereas Occam’s Razor would indicate otherwise. Uncharitable, IMHO. Plus swarming rcade. Unsporting, that.
Rcade:
Putting a recording on your webpage is not “for personal archive use”. I can’t honestly understand why you bring that up.
I fear you have temporarily gone into Brian Z-mode.
Is it true that Truesdale was the one who proposed the panel topic, as a comment on that Facebook post said? Because if it is, why did he feel the need to hijack his own panel? Surely he could have proposed a “Do Special Snowflakes Destroy Science Fiction” panel? Or (assuming he was the one who proposed the panel), did he already know that such a panel would be unwelcome?
Seriously, do we know if the panel was his idea?
@Jonathan K. Stephens
Aww, and I’d been saving up ketchup special-like. 🙁
I prefer to weight things towards results rather than motivations without strong evidence as to what those motivations might be (although I’m sure I’ve slipped up a few times, in this discussion even), but I’m also pretty sure that if someone is set on assuming a particular motivation then they’re unlikely to be persuaded to change their mind without some sort of supporting evidence. It is usually worth registering your disagreement for the sake of balance, but rarely worth the energy to go much further than that. Trust me, I’ve poured a lot of energy down that hole before now. 🙂
Accidental dogpiles are unfortunately common when discussing things on the internet, especially in a large group of chatty and opinionated people. It can be nasty sometimes, but I do think for the most part it stayed polite this time.
@rcade
Your opinion isn’t worth less because of your demographic.
@Hampus
rcade already acknowledged that here.
PS. I was sorry to see I missed the bracket. Perhaps its silly, but I feel like I let you down! I’m sure it was wonderful and I look forward to reading back through it and groaning whenever a favourite I would have voted for went out by a small difference in votes. 😀
I note that John O’Neill admitted that his recollection might be wrong, but that rcade skipped that part in his quote.
Meredith:
I have another idea for a Bracket! But it will have to wait until Mike is feeling better.
@Meredith, has anyone mentioned the adorable Meredith-dragon in the File 770 park? It wasn’t as good as having you there, but it was a lovely tribute.
Here’s a quote from the Hines FB thread: John O’Neill Tempest – yeah, that’s a fair statement. It hasn’t escaped me that the folks on this thread who are mostly okay with Dave’s behavior (including me) are men, and the folks who find it deeply problematic are women.
I’m not suggesting that men don’t or can’t have valuable opinions. What I do believe though is that it’s a mistake to act as if that’s the default, as if the rest of us look at the world through a substantially similar lens. We don’t, we can’t. Far too many women, for example, have a lifetime of hearing they’re too sensitive, that it was just a joke, that you’d love it if someone catcalled you and on and on. That’s not an experience set available to men. Racial and ethnic minorities have their own layered experiences of dismissal and those experience sets are not available to white people. Queer and trans people (and god help them if they’re also PoC) have yet other narratives and those are not available to straight people.
So, when white men assess the damage that another white man may or may not have caused, with or without intent, and whether any consequences are fair or not, there’s a giant piece of the puzzle missing. Please take that into account in your assessment and in evaluating the inevitable pushback you’re going to get, particularly from those of us who aren’t white men.
I think Occam’s Razor suggests that someone who frames his remarks by talking about “special snowflakes,” goes on to talk about pearl-clutching, and has brought a package of prop (presumably fake) pearls to hand out, most likely intended to be offensive.
Very, very offensive.
Regardless, though, Truesdale’s behavior was boorish and offensive, and especially inappropriate because of his role as moderator. People in the room were strongly offended. Sheila Williams and other panelists had to work at it to get him to accept that he had to stop; his reaction wasn’t “oh, oops, I didn’t mean to offend.”
“Just a joke” isn’t a get out of jail free card.
People who are not part of the targeted group(s) explaining why something isn’t all that offensive to the targeted group(s) may find their reasoning less persuasive than they think it should be when members of the targeted group(s) are explaining that yes, actually, they were very offended.
Fandom doesn’t have a problem of being insufficiently tolerant of boorish behavior. It has a problem, which it is,finally starting to address, of having for too long not even recognizing boorish behavior as a problem. I’m glad that’s changing. We need to demonstrate clearly that that behavior is no longer acceptable. Dave Truesdale’s expulsion for violating the Code of Conduct and being deeply offensive to fellow panelists and the audience, at the panel he was supposed to be moderating on behalf of the convention, is a good step in that direction.
People not recognizing that may be among those who need the object lesson that unacceptable behavior is unacceptable.
@Hampus
Yay! I’m hoping that nothing else will go horribly wrong and suck up all my energy for Filer things in the mean time, and of course that Mike is much better soon. *crosses fingers* (although the ongoing saga of healing from very minor surgery is still ongoing nearly fifteen weeks later, so that energy-suck has yet to go away. fun times.)
@Cheryl S.
I haven’t seen Meredith-dragon but I’m delighted to hear of it! I can’t think of a better mythical creature to travel to Worldcon in my stead. 😀
@Cheryl S. & Lis Carey
Good comments, both of you. 🙂
Meredith:
Here!
@Hampus
Awwww! Dragon Me is adorable! Also, accurate. I spend a lot of time curled up sleeping, too. 😀 The park looks ace, brilliant job everyone who was involved in putting it together.
::sending extra energy Meredith’s way for just-in-case:: 😉
Nice to see ya ’round here again.