DisCon III Declines to Comment on Code of Conduct Issue About Hugo Finalist

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.

Screencap of Malka Older announcing the 2021 Best Related Work Hugo finalists on April 14.

772 thoughts on “DisCon III Declines to Comment on Code of Conduct Issue About Hugo Finalist

  1. Who here would not think it was abusive if they were told to “fuck off into the sun” by somebody at the microphone of a con?

    Any publicity is good publicity!

    Also, probably the same people that didn’t think that the person reading “Fuck Me, Ray Bradbury” at the microphone of a con was asking Ray Bradbury to have sex with them.

    On an irrelevant note, does anyone think that Rachel Bloom actually wanted to fuck Ray Bradbury?

  2. Cliff: Would anyone who thinks it is not likely to cause offence be happy to wander into a bar, stroll up to one of the tougher looking patrons and tell them to fuck off into the sun?

    Before or after listening to them wax poetic about a fascist, the rubbery chicken at a hotel, and a statue’s genitals?

    Either. Both. Any combination. Punching up is still a punch. It doesn’t matter how much sophistic wordwooze you use to obscure it in, there’s a fist in those words.

  3. Arkansawyer: Either. Both. Any combination. Punching up is still a punch. It doesn’t matter how much sophistic wordwooze you use to obscure it in, there’s a fist in those words.

    A few things.

    First, telling them to fuck off into the sun and punching them are not the same thing. Literally or metaphorically.

    Second, if someone in a bar is spouting off transphobic bullshit, I’m going to tell them to stop spouting off transphobic bullshit, regardless of how tough looking they are. Do you consider that “punching up” ?

    Third, it’s pretty amazing that if you remove any and all context, good things can seem bad. “Man shoots dog” seems like that man is an asshole. “Man shoots rabid dog attacking a 2 year old child” gives you a different view of that man. Context.

  4. alexvdl: In response to your “irrelevant note” — there’s a photo of Bradbury watching the video for the first time in V*** for Me, Ray Bradbury!.

    And Rachel Bloom posted another photo of the meeting on her Facebook page in 2010. One of the responses there complimented Bradbury on taking her video in the spirit with which it was intended.

  5. @Mike Glyer, ahh neat!

    Yeah, when I did a lyrics search, Genius had a picture of them meeting shortly after her music video came out on YouTube.

    Chuck Woolery was unavailable to confirm a love match.

  6. alexdvi:

    First, telling them to fuck off into the sun and punching them are not the same thing. Literally or metaphorically.

    Punching up is taken lightly enough to be metaphorical. Punching down is taken seriousy enough to be a code of conduct violation. You figure out if it’s a metaphor or not.

  7. I’d look at someone pretty funny if they heard someone saying bad things at a party, waited the best part of a year, then dragged that person into an entirely different party in order to tell them to fuck off into the sun.

    This metaphor is getting increasingly strained.

  8. @alexvdl – you really do have a problem answering a straight question with a straight answer, don’t you? That one’s rhetorical: no need to wriggle out of it.

    The question was about the expected response of the tough guy, not your motivation for telling them to fuck off. If it makes you feel better, let’s imagine it’s a nazi bar, the tough guy has a swastika tattooed on his forehead, and he’s spouting transphobic bullshit.

    You’re going to tell them to stop? That’s great. My compliments. You’re much braver than I. But are you going to tell them to ‘fuck off into the sun?’

  9. Cliff: You’re going to tell them to stop? That’s great. My compliments. You’re much braver than I. But are you going to tell them to ‘fuck off into the sun?’

    A dude with a swastika tattooed on his forehead?

    Absolutely, I’d tell them to fuck off into the sun. I’m going to use a large number of expletives to get that guy to leave the bar.

    What, you’re just going to sit at the bar drinking with a Nazi?

  10. You ever reply to a conversational thread against your better judgement and then ten minutes later get confirmation that you really, really should have listened to that better judgement? Yeah.

  11. @Meredith – I’m sorry. I’ll stop after this.

    @alexvdl – the thought experiment is about whether you think said tough guy treats the phrase as offensive. Whether you’d stake your well-being on that belief. Nobody said anything about remaining at the bar.

    Now you think that you can get the imaginary tough guy to leave the bar, but you still contend the phrase you’ll use to do so is not offensive. Why then does he leave?

  12. Telling a bar Nazi to “Fuck Off!” is definitely an attack. Most people would just say it was warranted. Like, you know, Richard Spencer getting punched years back. Definitely an attack, but very little interest in finding and punishing the attacker, despite the attacker definitely having broken the law.

    It sounds to me like a couple folks are trying to redefine “attack” to mean “unwarranted attack.” It feels like the discussion being danced around is “Yeah but GRRM deserved it, so it’s not an attack!” or “It’s an artistic expression, so it’s not an attack!” when it can definitely be both art and an attack. (Some of the best art is an attack.) Or even “Aggressively calling out white male power and privilege is not an attack!” …when yes. Yes it is. That’s the point of it.

    Also, with the bar Nazi example — if you just started yelling “Fuck Off!” at someone with a swastika tattoo on his forehead when he was just drinking beer and not bothering anyone, YOU would be in the wrong legally. It’s not legal to assault people (assault doesn’t require touching, remember) just for having a shitty tattoo. It’s why the Nazis were allowed to march in Skokie.

    As for “Fuck Me Ray Bradbury”, a community I moderate had a debate about use of profanity in open channels. We settled on “Fuck is fine as an exclamation, but not as an attack.” “I’m so fucking tired” is fine. “Fuck you Mike!” is not fine. “I’d really like to fuck Tom Hiddleston” is fine. “You muthafucker” is not. “Fuck Me Ray Bradbury” is an expression of sincere appreciation, rudely stated. It’s not an attack.

  13. Cliff:the thought experiment is about whether you think said tough guy treats the phrase as offensive. Whether you’d stake your well-being on that belief. Nobody said anything about remaining at the bar.

    If you’re upset that your thought experiment didn’t return the results you expected, maybe design a better thought experiment?

    It’s hilarious that File770 was called a bunch of civility and decorum worshippers, and the thought experiment that you provided asks ” would it be offensive to tell the swastika tattooed man spouting transphobic nonsense to fuck off into the sun?”

  14. Gods, I hate metaphors where everyone argues through ridiculous wordplays. >:-(

  15. @Maytree

    It sounds to me like a couple folks are trying to redefine “attack” to mean “unwarranted attack.” It feels like the discussion being danced around is “Yeah but GRRM deserved it, so it’s not an attack!” or “It’s an artistic expression, so it’s not an attack!” when it can definitely be both art and an attack. (Some of the best art is an attack.) Or even “Aggressively calling out white male power and privilege is not an attack!” …when yes. Yes it is. That’s the point of it.

    People who want to make that distinction can do so for themselves, but Worldcon doesn’t draw such lines in its CoC, and it shouldn’t declare words whose plain meaning is harassing to be okay after the fact.

  16. @ alexvdl – I’m not asking whether it would be offensive to…. I’m asking whether you believe the recipient would take offence. Go try it and see. And I don’t speak for all of File 770.

    @ everyone else – apologies. The metaphor hasn’t helped, and now I realise why I rarely enjoy reading that debating technique by others.

  17. My favorite metaphor comes courtesy of Pablo Neruda: “the blood of children ran through the streets without fuss, like children’s blood”. It’s a simile, but so what?

  18. cliff: I’m not asking whether it would be offensive to…. I’m asking whether you believe the recipient would take offence.

    Yes. I’m aware you are asking me about what I think the feelings of a Nazi would be.

  19. Pingback: Top 10 Stories for April 2021 | File 770

Comments are closed.