Declare yourselves openly

[Gordian Knot]

I don't agree with your sentiments NotVery. At the same time, political correctness is getting really, really, really, really old. It has gotten to the point that it is almost impossible to make a witty comment without some group or other being insulted.

Makes it very hard to have a vibrant discussion when one is constantly trying to think if what they are about to say might offend someone.

And this at a time in world history where we NEED, desperately, potent discussions. It would be my wish that people would lighten up on the perceived insults and focus more on the subject matter being discussed.

 

[Nerds_feather]

I generally go for civility, because I do think it's generally the more constructive approach. But I also recognize that it's not always that way. As Teresa says, sometimes people just need to be publicly angry for anyone to notice.

As I understand it, these two guys have been writing sexist stuff in the SFWA bulletin for a while now, and no one has done anything about it. As I pointed out earlier, that would probably still be the case if they hadn't ditched the civility and started calling their critics "fascists" who want "censorship" and "hate free speech."

 

[notveryalice]

political correctness is getting really, really, really, really old

oh phew i was getting really tired of avoiding the word n***er it's not like there are black people still alive who took part in the race riots or anything it was like five hundred years ago or whatever, right?

 

[HareBrain]

My issue is with how she communicated this (interesting)point. She had an observation that, if communicated with a bit of civility instead of scorn, might have actually got through to folks who, for whatever reason, hadn't come round to that way of thinking. Instead, most of those old white men she's talking about would have either quit reading by then, or been all incredulous and miss the point.

Others have addressed the thing about "tone argument" (a term I'd never heard before either), but I wanted to add that I used to think like this (being a quiet, polite kind of chap myself) but no longer do. If people instinctively want to resist an argument, they will find ways to do so. Bad language might give them an easy way out of listening, but most people who would use that excuse would find another one if it didn't exist. If an argument is phrased with wit and passion, it will get through to exactly the same number of people, in my opinion, as it would have had it been made with no swearing (and perhaps more).

 

[Brian G Turner]

Makes it very hard to have a vibrant discussion when one is constantly trying to think if what they are about to say might offend someone.

The two men wanted to intentionally cause offence.

Interesting that SFWA has set up a committee to ensure the episode isn't repeated. Does this mean there's no editor on their newsletter?

 

[alchemist]

I disagree on that, HB. There are so many links about these threads that I've forgotten which is where, but two stood out. Ann Aguirre's was polite and heartfelt; it made me equally angry and sad. There's another (apologies. On phone so can't link), possibly the link after the one in the OP, by a shouty, sweary person from Australia, and I gave up a quarter of the way through.
Getting bolshie might raise an issue but it won't win an argument, especially if you want to appeal to the majority.

 

[Verse]

It isn't a joke, and it shouldn't be. "Ableism" is the assumption that people who have developmental or learning difficulties, handicaps, mental illnesses, or facial disfigurements are lesser people.

Using the word "lunacy" or "idiocy" in that post could have been interpreted as an ableist action because those words are only insulting if you assume that being mentally ill or possessing a learning difficulty is something that merits insult.

In normal contexts "lunacy" and "idiocy" are probably more okay than in this particular context, because the entire post is about privilege and sexism.

Your comments gave me an uncomfortable shiver up the spine, for context.

You're more of a cat person aren't you?

 

[Nerds_feather]

The two men wanted to intentionally cause offence.

Interesting that SFWA has set up a committee to ensure the episode isn't repeated. Does this mean there's no editor on their newsletter?

There is. Mary Robinette Kowal has explained how that editor failed to deal with the issue on her blog.

 

[notveryalice]

You're more of a cat person aren't you?

Yep.

Also a person with a mental illness.

 

[HareBrain]

I disagree on that, HB.

A year ago, I would have politely defended your right to do so, but now, **** ** ******* ***** ********************-*****.

 

[alchemist]

A year ago, I would have politely defended your right to do so, but now, **** ** ******* ***** ********************-*****.

Hell, you've won me over, ya big ******!

 

[Toby Frost]

Right, I'm off before I unintentionally cause offence to anyone. It was interesting while it lasted. Byeee!

 

[AnyaKimlin]

I didn't think it was scorn - I read anger and deep frustration. Something I understand and something I've encountered online already and I'm not published nor do I write sci-fi.

 

[Glisterspeck]

My issue with the tone is based on an assumption that the author's reply is offered in the hope that Resnick and company might read, reflect upon, and perhaps, learn from it.

I know this is a bad assumption on my part. From the tone of the piece, it seems clear she doesn't intend this. It's not really a reply at all, but an exegesis, written not for the two old white guys who espouse these outmoded and sexist views, but for her own piers. I agree with her that the beliefs and behaviors discussed, being still held at large, are both damaging and unwelcome, yet, they are, like so many social ills, being worked on by each new generation, and hopefully, progress is being made (this is not meant as an excuse for such a worldview, just a recognition that changes of this sort take time).

This progress isn't often readily taken up by the Statler and Waldorf's of the world, but there is hope: look at how the changing attitudes toward gay marriage have swept backwards, from a younger generation to the older, and just since 2004. But that wasn't done by writing berating blog posts about the old codgers; it was done through conversing with them.

I wouldn't have brought any of this up at all, except, she makes an explicit point of how Resnick is talking about her and her piers, but not TO her and her piers, which made me think she'd prefer for it to be a dialogue, but then, she turns right around and does the same thing. Which is fine, I suppose, but not at all a good way to start a conversation.

On the matter of presentation style, if I am disinterested in the topic (which I am not in this case), or I hope that the argument has some lasting effect on the other side or those undecided, I'd rather hear a witty and clever argument than a sardonic and clever one. For instance, in a debate on the existence of god, I'd rather hear Steven Fry than Chris Hitchens represent the minority opinion, and either instead of Sam Harris, because Harris tends to be too vitriol, turning off those who are not already with him (and some times, those of us who are with him).

EDIT: I've not yet read the other articles, but look forward to doing so this evening.

A last edit: this came to mind in terms of tone and writing to actually educate. Amazing stuff, this: http://jezebel.com/5946643/reddit-users-attempt-to-shame-sikh-woman-get-righteously-schooled

 

[HareBrain]

It's not really a reply at all, but an exegesis, written not for the two old white guys who espouse these outmoded and sexist views, but for her own piers.

I'm not sure. There was one bit where she expressed her frustration that they were bemoaning women's apparent desire for censorship, when what she wanted them to do was make an imaginative leap and put themselves in women's shoes for a moment. That, I think, was directed at them, and, if they took it on board and were able to make that leap (and as fiction writers, one would hope they would be), it would make any future arguments of this kind unnecessary.

 

[Nerds_feather]

That's fair, Glisterspeck, and I think one generally catches more flies with honey than vinegar, so to speak. But I think, based on Reznick and Malzberg's broadside, that was already off the table.

 

[Moonbat]

and I think one generally catches more flies with honey than vinegar,

Funny, I think that using a turd is better for catching flies than either honey or vinegar

Having read the orginal links (not the actual articles that caused offence) I was quite shocked and appalled at the level of sexism in the examples given. I would have thought (wrongly as it turns out) that sexism was not something that such forward looking people as sff writers would fall into, I thought that they/we were more open minded.

Slightly Off Topic but it relates to prejudice, I was reading in the paper today about how young black people in the UK are not expected to be clever, at first I thought it was a bold statement and wrong, but reading further people gave examples of situations were racism is still rife in our society, I think the same goes for sexism. We may all act politically correct but some statistics cannot be ignored about the divisions in our world, some based upon gender.

The two book examples were pretty terrible, but, and I'm not supporting them, I expect that those are the books titles that fared best in market research. They say that a person is intelligent but people are stupid, maybe a person isn't prejudiced but people are. The mob mentality, the market research, the lowest common denominator are all exploited by business trying to make money.

Change comes slowly, but it does come, nothing stays the same.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

Also a person with a mental illness.

I have struggled with mental illness, too. Which may mean nothing, because everyone has their own sensitivities -- which they have a right to -- and may react to the same words in completely different ways.

But, I don't find references to lunacy offensive, because I don't think anyone actually applies that word to people who are actually mentally ill, any more. (This may be my ignorance, and I just don't know people who do.) I think the meaning of the word has evolved in a way that n----- hasn't, and possibly never will.

I also think that people go too far with their sensitivities a lot of the time -- but at the same time I think that too many people use the words "politically correct" too easily and too glibly to dismiss issues they don't want to talk about. I don't direct this specifically to anyone posting in this thread, but I do see it happen, and sometimes I do see it on these forums.

And I think people should think very carefully before they ever use that phrase, because it can be very disrespectful to the people they are talking to. I don't say they shouldn't use it, because there may be times when it describes exactly what they are angry about, but I would hope that no one here would use it because they are lazy and don't want to think about something from another person's viewpoint. Even if we don't end up agreeing with that viewpoint, the exercise might be illuminating.

 

[Nerds_feather]

Funny, I think that using a turd is better for catching flies than either honey or vinegar

Having read the orginal links (not the actual articles that caused offence) I was quite shocked and appalled at the level of sexism in the examples given. I would have thought (wrongly as it turns out) that sexism was not something that such forward looking people as sff writers would fall into, I thought that they/we were more open minded.

You're probably right on the fly thing, but we're getting into dangerous metaphorical territory here!

I agree about the sexism, and I think that their response to critiques of said sexism basically asked for people to respond with: "no, actually it's **** YOU."

 

[Ursa major]

At the same time, political correctness is getting really, really, really, really old.

oh phew i was getting really tired of avoiding the word n***er it's not like there are black people still alive who took part in the race riots or anything it was like five hundred years ago or whatever, right?

My problem, when I have one**, with PC is where it's used, as with the 'tone' business, to deride (and try to drive an opposing view away), rather than engage in discussing/arguing about the actual topic at hand. (Which is not to say that one shouldn't pull people up on their iffy use of words as well as arguing one's corner.)

I'm not sure. There was one bit where she expressed her frustration that they were bemoaning women's apparent desire for censorship, when what she wanted them to do was make an imaginative leap and put themselves in women's shoes for a moment. That, I think, was directed at them, and, if they took it on board and were able to make that leap (and as fiction writers, one would hope they would be), it would make any future arguments of this kind unnecessary.

It seems that pointing out the lack of any desire to even want to put him- or herself in others' shoes is as damning a criticism of an author's ability as a writer as there can be. Isn't this what writers are meant to do (or what they're meant to aim for)? (I mean to say, inability to empathise is one thing, but refusing to....)

But, I don't find references to lunacy offensive, because I don't think anyone actually applies that word to people who are actually mentally ill, any more.

What I did find odd is that idiot and lunacy were seen as more (or less) acceptable synonyms, whereas I think idiot was a term used to describe a range of (low) IQ (as was moron***), whereas lunacy was something entirely different (in that someone could demonstrate it while having, say, high intelligence).

I also think that people go too far with their sensitivities a lot of the time -- but at the same time I think that too many people use the words "politically correct" too easily and too glibly to dismiss issues they don't want to talk about.

I agree.


** - As with many things (e.g. the knives mentioned in one of the linked blogs), it's the use to which PC comments are put that makes them "acceptable" or not to me.

*** - This Wiki article gives the IQ ranges.