Carrie Cuinn states on Facebook that Sasquan, which earlier announced it will not ban Lou Antonelli, did inquire if she wanted the committee to address what he wrote about her.
The Sasquan Con Committee has asked if I want Lou Antonelli investigated for his recent statements about me and the ensuing harassment. I have told them no: I don’t believe he specifically asked anyone to attack me. However, I also don’t believe he didn’t have any idea what his statements could cause, and I don’t believe his apology. In short, he shouldn’t be banned from Sasquan because of me, as I don’t think he personally did anything criminal. He’s just a jerk.
Discover more from File 770
Subscribe to get the latest posts to your email.
I like the cut of Carrie Cuinn’s gib. I will check out her magazine-thing.
Gerrold and Cuinn have both shown amazing restraint in this entire debacle. I’d like to think I’d be the same, but I honestly don’t know.
From the code of conduct (kindly excuse any funky-ass formatting, something seems to have pasted in that I can’t see in the editor here):
Other behaviors that constitutes harassment include:
— following someone without a legitimate reason
— making threats of any type against a person
— deliberate intimidation of another person
— unwelcome sexual remarks, jokes, or taunting
— repeated requests for dates or sexual favors, or
— leering, staring, or suggestive gestures.
Some of these are reasonable and obvious; others are exceedingly open to interpretation, and are very likely to backfire. Have you not stared at someone in an interesting or revealing hall costume? (what else is such a costume expected to invoke??)
It will be interesting to see if enforcement is applied fairly. No doubt someone will set themselves to watchdog Mr. LA and follow him around (cuz, “in case he becomes violent”) — will that be deemed harassment?? What will you do when you see someone wearing a Wrongfan (SP) button? stare with automatic hostility?? is that now harassment? Thoughtcrime swings both ways, folks.
Reziac:
It is a social enviroment, of course the rules are a matter of interpretation. It is just about impossible to write rules that are exact to a 100% when dealing with humans and all the nuances of communication and behaviour.
What thoughtcrime are you referring to? I see nothing in the rules you quoted about forbidden thoughts. The rules are about behaviour.
What will you do when you see someone wearing a Wrongfan (SP) button?
It is always funny when you guys insult yourselves by calling yourselves “wrongfans”, a term used exclusively by Puppies to describe themselves.
Thoughtcrime swings both ways, folks.
You should learn what the term “thoughtcrime” means before you try to invoke it.
I do not think it means what you think it means.
Pingback: Carrie Cuinn Straightens Out Sasquan | File 770
– Critique: Review of the Department of State’s Country Reports on Human Rights Practices- Page 330, Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, 1992
The word was used correctly, and ‘behaviour’ is indeed a form of expression. For example: if you slowly strike your closed fist against your open palm, it is more than likely that it will be interpreted as a direct expression of hostility just as the act of intentently staring someone with a frown on your face. And I hope you do not prove yourself so culturally uncouth that you try to deny the expressive power of dance.
Now, in the recent discussions, it has been a very popular demand that the code of conduct needs to be followed to the letter. (Discussions that resulted from Mr. Antonelli not being banned from the Sasquan.) But were this popular demand on File 770 listened, any of the ‘expected expressions’ of ‘anti-Puppy’ sentiment would be in turn nothing but harassment.
Therefore, were the code of conduct followed to the letter and fairly, as in the same rules apply for all, any expression of anti-puppy sentiment would become a thoughtcrime.
Indeed, thoughtcrime swings both ways. Is admitting that crimethink for you folks?
Tuomas Vainio:
How can you say that the word was used correctly when no example of a thoughtcrime was given? And would you actually want to prevent people from frowning? That would really seem like a thoughtcrime.
Goodbye Tuomas