Steve Brust opened last weekend’s Fourth Street Fantasy convention in Minneapolis with a short speech that used the term “safe space” to make an impact – and succeeded, for better or worse. He upset a number of hearers and ignited a controversy that has played out on Facebook and several blogs in the past two days.
Steven Brust posted his text: “My opening remarks at Fourth Street Fantasy Convention”
Fourth Street Fantasy Convention is not a safe space. On the contrary, it is a very unsafe space. Of course, it ought to be safe in the sense of everyone feeling physically safe, and in the sense that there should be no unwanted harassment, and it should be free of personal attacks of any kind. But other than that, it is not safe.
Your beliefs about writing, and my beliefs about writing, and what is good, and how to make it good, should be sufficiently challenged to make us uncomfortable.
The interaction of art and politics is getting more and more in our faces. Whether this is good or bad is beside the point (although I think it’s good); it reflects changing social conditions, intensification of conflicts. Anyone who thinks art is independent of social conditions is as hopelessly muddled as someone who thinks there is a direct, simplistic 1:1 correspondence between them.
The result of this is that political understanding, unexamined assumptions, agendas, are very much present in the art we create and thus in the discussions of that art.
If no one feels unsafe, or unthreatened during these discussions, we’re doing them wrong. The same is true in discussing technique, because technique, content, form, attitude toward the creation and role of art, and understanding of society, are all interconnected, and in challenging one, we are liable to find ourselves challenging another….
Scott Lynch delivered the Fourth Street Fantasy board’s closing statement, which was perceived to be, in part, a response to Brust:
We, the board of the 4th Street Fantasy Convention exist to facilitate energetic and even challenging conversation. We want to provide spaces to do so, in both a moderated and unmoderated fashion. At 4th Street, the conversation is intended to spread from our shared spaces to more private spaces where attendees may consent to discuss, discourse, blather or argue about anything on any terms they desire.
We do not prescribe a mindset or an approach for attending 4th Street. We do not demand that anyone be made to endure anything against their will. We want to provide a space in which everyone feels welcome, and everyone respects the welcome we desire to extend. What we do here can be hard, it can be frightening, it can be exhausting. We want to support you in doing it. We want you to know that we take your needs, your comfort, and your sense of safety very seriously. As a friend of the convention said this weekend, “It is difficult to be bold in front of strangers when you don’t feel fundamentally welcome.” We are here to listen to you, we are here to have your backs, and we are doing our damnedest to kindle that fundamental sense of welcome, to sustain it, and to make it grow, in this year and every year to come.
Lydy Nickerson articulated her negative response to Brust’s opening speech in “The Rules: A Memo for Every Man in My Life”. (Click to see the complete post. There are substantial comments there, too.)
At Fourth Street Fantasy Convention, this year, Steven Brust, from the dais, delivered a speech about safety and free speech that made me so angry I had to leave the room. Since then, various people have talked about the issues of safety, harassment, and free speech, often as a response to that situation, but sometimes as a continuation of other conversations. I have some very specific issues with the things Steven said, but I don’t want to write about them at this moment. Instead, I want to address something that comes up over and over in these conversations, and always from men. “What are the rules?” “How can I know how to behave if you won’t clarify what you want?”
Dear men, please do not ask me to provide to you something that I have never had. I cannot provide you the rules. I do not know what they are, and I never have. I have spent my entire life, my personal, professional, educational, social, and romantic life, navigating the complexities of human interaction without rules. There has never been a point at which my exact decibel level was approved, the exact number of square inches of skin I can expose has been acceptable, a precise hairstyle I could wear that would clearly communicate who and what I was. I have spent my entire life being judged by a set of shifting rules.
I have spent my entire life being lied to about what those rules were. If I talk too softly, no one listens, but if I speak more loudly, I am bitchy and dismissed. If I am clear and logical, I am mocked for inadequately mimicking maleness, but if I am emotional, I am mocked for being too feminine and not worth paying attention to. There is no level of dress that does not open me up to either being a prude or a slut.
The penalties for transgressing these ever-shifting “rules” vary. Sometimes, it’s just being unpersoned. Sometimes it is getting a bad job-performance review. Sometimes, it’s unwanted and uncomfortable conversations. Always, at the back of my mind, has been the knowledge that if I girl wrong at the wrong guy, I might be physically assaulted. And if that were to happen, my entire girl-ness would then be on trial. What was I wearing? What did I say? How did I say it? Was it my fault? Oh, yes, some percentage of the population will assert, it was totally my fault. Because I didn’t follow a rule that, you know, doesn’t actually apply all the time, isn’t written down, is entirely contextual, and nobody every told me in the first place.
Rules are a luxury that I have never had. The only way rules have ever applied to me is as a stick to beat me with. They are a shifting landscape of horror. I don’t know if all-male spaces have clear, comfortable rules that everybody knows and the penalties are clear. I rather doubt it, but I don’t know. What I do know is that to be a woman in this culture is to be constantly moving through a space where expectations are variable, and are rigidly enforced on a whim, and can dramatically affect my life.
When we talk about harassment, safety, and safe spaces, stop asking me for rules. You never gave me any, and so I have none to give you. All I can offer you is this shifting, difficult, dangerous, ambiguous space that I live in. If you want to be an ally, if, indeed, you want to be my friend, you must learn to inhabit this uncomfortable space with me. You must accept that there aren’t clear rules where you can know that you are right….
Will Shetterly defended Brust’s use of language: “Ideology makes you confuse the literal and the metaphorical–a bit about the 4th Street Kerfuffle”.
The people who’re upset by Steve’s talk are unable to see that his opening lines are metaphorical:
Fourth Street Fantasy Convention is not a safe space. On the contrary, it is a very unsafe space.
And they’re unable to see that his third line is literal:
Of course, it ought to be safe in the sense of everyone feeling physically safe, and in the sense that there should be no unwanted harassment, and it should be free of personal attacks of any kind.
If you think about his statement logically, there’s no reason to interpret the first two lines as saying he wants 4th Street to be a place that’s physically unsafe, and there’s every reason to think his third line means exactly what it says. But humans aren’t logical. To people who think of safe spaces as sacred spaces, any questioning of the idea is taboo. At least one of Steve’s critics insists they do understand metaphor. But if that’s true, why are they upset?
Steve Brust wrote a follow-up on his blog, the end of which reads:
Evidently I was wrong. And, while one can always blame the reader for failing to understand, when enough readers get it wrong, one begins to side-eye the writer.
So let me state clearly and for the record I do not support that kind of atmosphere, I do not want that kind of convention, and I deeply apologize for any pain or fear that was caused by anyone thinking I did mean that. My fault, not yours.
ETA: It’s worth pointing out that it isn’t just a matter of reading, but that this was a speech, not presented as text, and a speech that, moreover, I deliberately opened with a shocker. This makes more reasonable the number of people who went past the “physically safe” and “no harassment” parts. Again, my bad.
Discover more from File 770
Subscribe to get the latest posts to your email.
Will Shetterly: they do explain ideologues who attack people for insufficient ideological purity
Like this one?
Will Shetterly: Cheryl S, I was thinking about your racism problem… Now, if you don’t want to become less racist, that’s on you.
JJ, advising people to be friendly and get exposure to other races is not ideology. It’s backed by science: “White people become less racist just by moving to more diverse areas, study finds” http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/white-people-become-less-racist-just-by-moving-to-more-diverse-areas-study-finds-9166506.html
But you can’t force people to try to become less racist. If Cherlyl S doesn’t want to try, there’s nothing I can do.
Do you have a solution for her?
Will Shetterly: But you can’t force people to try to become less racist. If Cherlyl S doesn’t want to try, there’s nothing I can do.
I haven’t seen her ask for your assistance — and, as I happen to know Cheryl, I know that she certainly doesn’t need any from you.
But ideologues often tend to offer unrequested “assistance” to people they deem of insufficient purity, so it does not surprise me that you have taken such a condescending route.
JJ, I asked if you had advice for her in part because I know she may not want to hear it from someone who doesn’t share her ideology. Do you think she’s as hopelessly racist as she seems to believe?
Will Shetterly: Do you think she’s as hopelessly racist as she seems to believe?
She hasn’t said anything of the sort. Once again, Mr. Sealion, you are putting words into other peoples’ mouths.
Cheryl S said, “I also harbor implicit, deeply rooted and societally based racism”
‘JJ, advising people to be friendly and get exposure to other races is not ideology. It’s backed by science’
‘But you can’t force people to try to become less racist. If Cherlyl S doesn’t want to try, there’s nothing I can do.’
Passive-aggressive racesplaining? Justifying your boorishness and gaslighting by invoking science? And you claim you’re ‘politely persistent?’
‘Do you think she’s as hopelessly racist as she seems to believe?’
Tipping into the aggressive, here? Are you trying to neg Cheryl? (Of course you are.) And you don’t think you’re a sea-lioning type?
‘Cheryl S said, “I also harbor implicit, deeply rooted and societally based racism”’
A frank and honest admission that can’t be easy and you’re worrying it at like a sea-lion with a fish-flavoured chew-toy rather than treating Cheryl with any decency or respect, peppering her with unsolicited advice and presumptuous assumptions.
Not everyday you see a galloping sea-lion.
@Will
Don’t be precious. It was pretty clear I was talking about you, not Malcom X, in particular your quotes on your blog. At least, clear if you have the reading comprehension of a ten year old. As rich as it is to see the gamer gate defender get high minded about sexism, I think you settled the “troll or just clueless” question awhile ago.
Typ, do you think white people should not quote Malcolm X? Or do you think they should not follow his advice? What does quoting him have to do with clutching pearls, because if that’s pearl clutching, a great many writers of all races clutch those pearls out of respect for the man.
I’ve admired him since I was very young because my father did. I read the autobiography when I was around fourteen. To the best of my knowledge, my quotes are accurate, and if I’ve used any to imply anything other than what he said, do let me know. How you can dismiss his words so easily, I do not know, but I know pearl-clutching is a misogynistic phrase loved by some communities. Can you explain how it applies here?
@Hampus – Not everyday you see a galloping sea-lion.
And there went the coffee.
Is there anyone other than WS who hasn’t figured out that engaging with him is a pointless exercise in utter pointlessness? He will go on until he’s the last man standing, not because his arguments are good (at best, they’re shallow troughs he fills with a very few preconceived ideas) or because he’s right (I imagine there are a few people who eventually say, yes, fine, you’re right, stop already, but that’s not the same thing as actually being right) or because you learn anything from the links he drops like hammers, some of which turn out to be frogs and others of which are compost bins and none of which display more depth than a slightly above average news article.
Also, typing his name is like sending up the Bat signal, except you don’t get a crime fighter, or, really, anything useful.
And Brust still said something stupid at a con, seems to have learned something but probably not enough to not do it again, and the world goes on.
Oh, WS has figured out that too. He is proud of having Do Not Engage as a middle-name. A great recruitment tool for his cause.
A further comment from Steve Brust on his blog:
I would like to point out that “safe space” is neither a literal nor a metaphorical phrase. It is a term of art, coming out of various complex discussions about how to deal with racism, sexism, and kierarchy. Like the term “positive reinforcement” which, in operant conditioning, doesn’t mean what you think it means, “safe space” has a specific, technical meaning. And the attempt to treat it as either literal or metaphorical completely misses the point. Deliberately so, in most cases.
I have problems with using the term safety to discuss harassment and its attendant issues. However, I am really, really annoyed at the people who use the term “safe space” as a stick to beat people doing real work. And seriously, pretending I don’t know what metaphor is is just not on.
In its most basic sense, “safe space” just means a place where we don’t have to have 101 conversations. A safe space for women means not having to constantly explain why we are fully human, not having to do the work of explaining why harassment is bad. A safe space for people of color means much the same, a space where people of color don’t have to explain their life and experiences and reassure the anxious white people around them. Fourth Street Fantasy Convention is, in point of fact, a “safe space” for fantasists, a place where writers and readers don’t have to explain why this stuff is important, don’t have to justify their passion for fantasy. That conversation is very much off the table.
Term of art, for fuck’s sake. It really chaps my ass to watch people attempt to abuse language in this fashion, especially people who claim to be professional writers. Sententiously insisting that they are speaking metaphorically, while simultaneously insisting that other people are speaking literally.
Language does weird shit, especially when you try to create precise terms. Writers do weird shit to language; it is their stock in trade. Pay some fucking attention. The language is going at right angles again. Like it does. All the fucking time.
Lydy, I completely agree that language does weird shit. For example, it lets people insist something can be neither literal or metaphoric and still have meaning.
I am fascinated with the notion that people deliberately misunderstand what you believe. Why would anyone do that? I assume it’s because you believe what you say is so convincing that those who disagree must by lying, but my assumption may be wrong, of course.
Your implication that Steve doesn’t think women are “fully human” will come as a surprise to many of the women who know him.
This claim of yours literally is no longer true: “Fourth Street Fantasy Convention is, in point of fact, a “safe space” for fantasists, a place where writers and readers don’t have to explain why this stuff is important, don’t have to justify their passion for fantasy. That conversation is very much off the table.” Steve being shut down proves that.
Cheryl
Hampus
When you realize he is just a joke, he can be quite entertaining.
@Will
I said nothing of the sort; I can’t speak for all white people, no matter how desperate you are for me and others to. I think you’ve shown in the last few hundred posts that you live in a fantasy-land where you will mishear or distort what people say until it mets your view of yourself as the best and most gold starrred person.
What I do think is its ironic for a fantasist like you to talk up Malcom X. Doesn’t say much for your knowledge of the man.
@Lydy Nickerson – Fourth Street Fantasy Convention is, in point of fact, a “safe space” for fantasists, a place where writers and readers don’t have to explain why this stuff is important, don’t have to justify their passion for fantasy. That conversation is very much off the table.
I could just quote everything you wrote, because it’s brilliant, but this stood out particularly and not just for the irony.
In contrast, this “Thanks for you thoughts, Justin. I used “safe space” because…” looks even more like the condescending, self-justifying word salad that I think it is.
@Hampus – Oh, WS has figured out that too. He is proud of having Do Not Engage as a middle-name. A great recruitment tool for his cause.
Er, are you certain he doesn’t think it’s because his arguments are irrefutable?
@Chad Saxelid – When you realize he is just a joke, he can be quite entertaining.
Huh. Well, I do think he’s a joke, but his entertainment value usually wears off for me sometime in the middle of the second day, but you do you.
Typ, I’m beginning to think you don’t know much about Malcolm. I disagree with many things he believed while he was with the Nation of Islam, but I admire what he did afterward enormously. Could anyone announce his break with his past more responsibly than “I totally reject Elijah Muhammad’s racist philosophy, which he has labeled ‘Islam’ only to fool and misuse gullible people as he fooled and misused me. But I blame only myself, and no one else for the fool that I was, and the harm that my evangelical foolishness on his behalf has done to others”?
Cheryl, I suspect my comment was insensitive to those that have suffered the brunt of the actual engagement. I apologize.
5 days later, WS is still arguing that SB didn’t stick his foot in his mouth after SB apologized for doing so. This is the thread that keeps on giving.
Lydy, really appreciated your succint explanation of safe space, which i will now steal to explain this term to my dad.
Will, i’m surprised to find a writer unfamiliar with the concept of idiom, a term which describes a word or words with a specific but non-literal and non-metaphorical meaning. The bane of translaters everywhere.
Shetterly = Brian Z = Aristotle.
World Weary, the reason idiom is difficult to translate is because idioms can be literal, but they’re more commonly metaphorical. When they’re literal, they assume knowledge that outsiders don’t have. And that’s often true when they’re metaphorical. Can you offer an example of an idiom that is neither metaphorical or literal?
To take this back to the topic:
A safe space can be a literal space that is safe from physical danger, like a fortress or an isolated chamber such as the safe room that rich people build in their homes.
A safe space can be one of at least three kinds of metaphorical spaces, all based on the consent of the people who meet there:
A space that is free from physical danger, like sacred grounds or a place where a flag of truce is flying.
A space where no ideas are taboo.
A space where certain ideas are taboo.
… = WINNING
Hmm. On second thought, I can’t think of any idioms that are literal but obscure. Looking for one, I found http://www.myenglishpages.com/site_php_files/vocabulary-lesson-idioms.php: “An idiom (also called idiomatic expression) is an expression, word, or phrase that has a figurative meaning conventionally understood by native speakers. This meaning is different from the literal meaning of the idiom’s individual elements. In other words, idioms don’t mean exactly what the words say. They have, however, hidden meaning.”
Which is to say they’re metaphors.
It is now we will have to take another round to discuss EPH.
Excellent idea. I have some concerns I’d like you to address, and some ideas that would be interesting to see someone else work on and implement.
@Chad Saxelid – Cheryl, I suspect my comment was insensitive to those that have suffered the brunt of the actual engagement. I apologize.
On the off chance you’re sincere, I doubt anyone here has suffered anything more acute than a sprain from eyerolling. It’s not that sealioning isn’t toxic, but unless you’re part of a vulnerable population, it’s more like breathing lint than insecticide.
O.K., fine, but when can we get around to discussing who sawed Courtney’s boat?
I was.
In all of the responses to Steve Brust’s speech, positive and negative, I haven’t seen one that objects to the idea he was trying to express: That Fourth Street Fantasy Convention should be a place where people should expect to have to articulate and defend their ideas and assumptions.
That tells me that his critics object, not to what he said, but the words he used to say it. What in heaven’s name is a literary convention doing when it declares that certain words are unsafe to hear?
WS,
Since you’re fond of links, here’s one discussing the differences between idioms, metaphors and similes.
http://learnersdictionary.com/qa/Idioms-metaphors-similes-and-hyperbole
But keep on redefining the meaning of words. It makes it easier for you to move those goalposts.
You do realize that you are defending something that your friend apologized for? Have you gone back to his blog to tell him how wrong he is? Because you are arguing against his position…
Sonya Winter,
It’s not the words per se that are the problem, but continuing the debate. The subject of cultural appropriation is one that 4th Street has, somewhat officially, now taken sides on and recognizes as being a legitimate grievance. I think Steven Brust would be welcome to discuss what is and what is not grounds for cultural appropriation there, but not so welcome to dismiss it altogether, certainly not officially. But given what Brust has said about the concept of cultural appropriation being reactionary and pro-capitalist, he’s clearly not o.k. with that.
So while Brust has apologized for his action at 4th Street, he’s not conceded his position on cultural appropriation, and that’s the real sticking point.
Sonya Winter on June 27, 2017 at 1:50 pm said:
Where better than a literary convention for people to break down how a message was deliver to criticize if the words used detracted from his message rather than communicated the ideas well? And that arguing over how those ideas were articulated and asking the writer to defend their ideas as presented fits perfectly within the same point he was making?
Though that’s been said already. Multiple times. That tells me that either reading comprehension might be a concern or your issue isn’t with the responses but how they’re being presented.
Sonya Winter:
You are confusing Brust with the convention. It was Brust that said that people should feel unsafe because of words.
World Weary, your link agrees that idioms and figures of speech are not literal, and I’m sure we can find links that say terms of art are also not necessarily literal. That’s because they are specific forms of metaphors.
Literally—not metaphorically—the first definition that came up when I typed “metaphor” into Google: “a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable.”.
So I’ll repeat my request: Can anyone offer any examples of idiom or figures of speech or terms of art that are neither literal or metaphorical?
I appreciated the discussion earlier on this thread, I think by Nigel and JJ, about the lack of dangerous ideas. SB has a large platform and, if he felt silenced at that one con, he has had plenty of opportunity to share his ideas, and even with a larger group. But all I have seen is him reiterate concerns about possible censorship. The only example provided was an incident from years ago with no details.
Sonya Winter, it is perfectly appropriate for people to complain about how something is put. All of the following statements mean the same thing:
1. Wow, you’re in a bad mood today.
2. Someone sure got up on the wrong side of the bed today.
3. Whoa, are you on the rag today?
Since I am old, I have had all three of these statements directed to me by people I love and who love me, so nothing malicious was meant. Yet I still found the wording of #3 objectionable. These days, #3 is much ruder than it used to be. In the same way, I find it perfectly fair that people whose occupation is to use words clearly be held accountable for how they say things, not just what they meant to say.
Also, when the average person is told that they said something that hurt someone else, a normal person says something like “I didn’t mean it that way. I’m sorry.” If they do anything else, we write them off as an a**hole and avoid them in future. SB apologized. Only WS is keeping this kerfuffle alive here.
But i’ve been enjoying this thread so I hope he continues to beat that dead horse as long as he can.
World Weary, the ACLU disagrees with you about other venues. When Clark University invited Norman Finkelstein to speak, then canceled the speech in response to protesters, Sarah Wunsch of the ACLU wrote:
“…the cancellation of his speech violates the basic principles of freedom of speech and academic freedom which are so fundamental to an institute of higher learning. The existence of an opportunity to speak at another time or in another location does not remedy the wrong of censorship.
…Nor may complaints from those disturbed by Finkelstein’s writings about the post-Holocaust “industry” justify a decision to prevent the lecture from taking place. Indeed, even if demonstrators came to protest against Finkelstein’s views, the obligation of a university is to protect the speaker’s right to be heard and prevent disruption of the speech by others. By censoring speech because of complaints about offensiveness or the controversial nature of the speaker, the university has essentially allowed what the courts call a “heckler’s veto” over what speech can be heard.”
I made a post here: http://shetterly.blogspot.com/2017/06/four-kinds-of-safe-spaces-and-question.html
JM Number 6 had a nice response which I’ll quote in full for its Zelazny reference:
“Aside from interjections, I don’t think ANY language can avoid being literal and/or metaphorical. If it means something, it has to be one or the other, even if the original literal or metaphorical meaning has been lost. Language is an imperfect means of communication but it’s all we have.
Coming up with short expressions to stand in for long explanations only works if everyone who is expected to understand it has been given the meaning.
“Safe space” can indeed mean different things to different people. Until recently, I took it to mean only “a space where harassment of any kind is forbidden and will be punished by expulsion”. In the last year or so, the meaning has crept to include SAYING anything which might trigger others or which others might find offensive (or possibly even just disagree with vehemently), with less and less instruction being given on how to interpret what is included or not. Also, spaces that used to be set aside for the challenging of ideas seem to have been taken over as so-called safe spaces. Most people seem to find out the specific meaning of the term only and whether or not they’re IN a safe space AFTER they’ve broken the often unwritten code.
In “This Immortal”, Roger Zelazny’s main character asks the kallikantzaros riddle, “Feathers or lead?” You can’t know the answer because the questioner gets to decide what the answer is after you’ve already chosen.
If folks say a space is a “safe space” then by all means, they can call it that, as long as they define the term ahead of time so that there are no misunderstandings. If they say “well, people should just KNOW what it means,” they’re imitating Zelazny’s Greek goblin and setting people up to fail rather than creating a welcoming place for all. Which is SUPPOSED to be the purpose of a safe space, I thought.?”
Gish gish gish GALLOP! Aristotle!
David W., your continuing concern may be on the subject of cultural appropriation. But that subject wasn’t mentioned anywhere in Brust’s speech or his posts after the convention, or the posts from the convention committee members on their own platforms or the convention’s Facebook page, or by Brust or the committee at the con itself. If the con is secretly blackballing Brust for holding an opinion, that would be interesting in itself. But I believe this particular objection to Steven Brust as a convention participant is all yours. That you seem to think there’s only one correct position to hold on the subject, and that holding a different one should be grounds for booting someone from the stage of a convention he founded, even if he’s not talking about it, tells me that Brust was right to be concerned about the free exchange of ideas at the convention.
Hampus Eckerman: Shetterly = Brian Z = Aristotle.
Yeah, it’s just like old times, isn’t it? So much so, that f I didn’t know Brian Z’s real identity, I’d think he was one of Shetterly’s sock puppets.
WS – http://www.4thstreetfantasy.com/2017/policies/code-of-conduct.ghtml
It seems to me the code of conduct, despite not using the term “safe space,” provides a decent guide for those concerned they may not know what it means. Maybe that could be clarified in the future?
Hampus,
LOL galloping sea lions!
Brust mentioned it in a comment on one of his posts about the kerfuffle here.
The biggest objection to Steven’s statement at Opening Ceremonies was not about content, but about context. As WW has pointed out, context controls meaning. Opening Ceremonies is a time for the staff of the convention to welcome people, thank people, provide some administrivia, and set the tone. It is not a time for conversations. Those happen later in the convention. It is supposed to be a feel-good half hour to ease people into the space that Fourth Street wants to create. What Steven did was an abuse of power in several different ways. In the first place, possibly inadvertently, he made it sound like his particular issue was, in fact, Fourth Street policy. I’m not sure what it says about Steven that he didn’t understand before it was pointed out to him. I can think of both charitable and uncharitable explanations, but it really doesn’t matter. What matters is what he did.
Although Steven claimed to be trying to start a conversation, everything about his action was designed to shut down conversation, rather than open it up. He spoke from the dias, at an event which is designed as a presentation, from a written speech. It should also be noted that Fourth Street has a single track of programming, most of the convention was at Opening Ceremonies, and probably 20% of the attendees were new to the convention. The fact that several people questioned Steven and pushed back at his behavior is not to his credit. Instead, it underscores how completely outside accepted norms his behavior was. It was sufficiently upsetting that numerous people broke the semiotic frame to challenge him. Alex, also sitting on the dias, could see people being visibly upset, some in tears. Her decision to shut Steven down was probably based, in part, on watching the damage he was doing happen in front of her eyes. If she did it less than gracefully, again, think about the frame. And think about the fact that this was completely unexpected. It is rare for the Safety Coordinator to have to operate in crisis mode. Usually, we are notified of harassment well after the fact, well after the actual crisis is past. This, this was happening right in front of her eyes.
The specific language that Steven chose, most especially “safe space”, appeared to be carefully designed to undermine an entire department of the convention. Fourth Street uses the safety model, they have a Safety Coordinator, and they are doing a pretty good job of addressing issues of harassment and bias in the convention. To have someone, from the dias, in a presentation, essentially say, “These are not really Fourth Street’s values,” was shocking and unacceptable. If, as I gather elsewhere, this was the result of Steven losing an internal political battle, my god was this not the appropriate response.
I prefer to use consent as a model for dealing with crappy behavior in conventions. Using this model, what Steven did was completely beyond the pale. He foisted on an unsuspecting and unconsenting audience and incredibly complicated and uncomfortable topic, and did it in such a way that objecting was very hard, and conversation nearly impossible. Let’s say you want to, for example, have a conversation about whether old white guys should be allowed to bang on about cultural appropriation. If it is on the schedule, clearly marked, and the panelists identified, a body could make an intelligent choice about whether or not one wanted to have that conversation. Or a body could decide that they don’t have enough spoons for that particular conversation, and not go. It is not ok to try to force other people to talk about the things you want to talk about.
It should also be noted that there are conversations that are not valuable. No one needs to have another conversation about whether or not the Nazis were right about the danger of Jewry destroying Western Europe. No one needs to have another conversation about whether Jim Crow was maybe a good thing for colored people. These conversations give oxygen to toxic concepts, and yield no light. Fourth Street may well decide that some conversations are not likely to yield much enlightenment, but likely to cause actual hurt to attendees. This is not avoiding difficult concepts, this is properly budgeting time. There’s a limited amount of Fourth street, an infinity of really cool things to talk about, and I get down on my knees in gratitude to editors who are good at their jobs.
On a personal note, as someone who was romantically involved with Steven for two years and who is fond of him, anyone who thinks that Steven is incapable of saying something sexist either doesn’t know Steven, or doesn’t know sexism.
Had to try that online test.
Knew it was going to be idiotic when it asked for my “assigned at birth sex”
and when asked for my birth year the pull-down tab listed “options”.
Who knew that I could choose a much later year than reality? All this time I’ve been wishing I was 25 again and all I had to do was click.
@Will Shetterly
I’m a linguist, and we have a slightly different definition of idiom than the popular one, but one that gets used in a lot of examples is “He kicked the bucket” to mean “He died.” This is certainly not literal, but I’d argue it isn’t metaphorical either.
Greg, how is it not metaphorical? Kicking the bucket is not meant literally—it’s a metaphor for dying. There are several theories for its origin, but whether it was originally a bucket or a beam or something else, that idiom seems perfectly metaphorical. I’d love to hear your argument that it isn’t.
What’s the land speed record for a sea lion?