Mercedes Lackey Ejected From Nebula Conference For Using Racial Slur

[Ibrandul]

One even hears that … understanding why something has happened amounts to condoning, excusing, or even repeating the offending act.

Would it be appropriate for a neuro-divergent person to use the N word? Also, dyspraxia does not affect your intelligence and word choice. I find it far more likely in the moment she used the word for lack of a better term. I dont believe she intended any offense, I honestly believe that. Though, I dont accept these excuses for it being ok either.

Verbal dyspraxia absolutely can affect word choice. There are several kinds of dyspraxia, ranging from stuttering to the inability to “retrieve” a word to the substitution of one word for another, as in the example I gave from an interview with Lackey. It’s primarily the “error: file not found” and “wrong word” kinds that correlate with dyslexia.

It’s not the only explanation for her word choice. But it’s a very plausible one given what we know of Lackey: dyslexic; has exhibited semantic substitution dyspraxia in previous interviews; and has for decades been widely regarded as one of the most progressive and inclusive white writers in SF.

As for whether it was “OK” or “appropriate”—see above.

 

[payn]

So, at the moment, you are taking advantage of services and community provided by an organization with moderation polices, so take a thought to what you say in terms of what the analogous action here would be.

What happened at the Nebulas seems to me, as a person charged with supporting and enforcing such policies, to have been ham-handed and extreme*. There are times for decisive and direct action, and there are times for dialogue. This, to me, should have been the latter, rather than the former.

And yes, context does matter. Who said it, on what occasion, and who had a problem with it are all relevant to determining right action in dealing with the situation.



*Have I, on occasion, made bad calls that were ham-handed or extreme? Sure. Nobody is perfect.

Agreed. I do think the moderation went too far, but that some moderation was also appropriate. Ultimately, its for the SFWA to decide.

In the past, they have received a lot of criticism for failing to moderate other guest speakers. That might be part of the overaction here. Who knows?

 

[Ixal]

Its just silly that that people of colour is ok and respectful but coloured (people) is inherently a slur no matter the context when they mean the exact same thing.

 

[J.Quondam]

Its just silly that that people of colour is ok and respectful but coloured (people) is inherently a slur no matter the context when they mean the exact same thing.

It's not really for someone not on the receiving end to decide what is "silly" or not.

 

[Mannahnin]

Its just silly that that people of colour is ok and respectful but coloured (people) is inherently a slur no matter the context when they mean the exact same thing.

You might be surprised how much such linguistic constructions can matter.

People-first language - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Person of color - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"The term "colored" was originally equivalent in use to the term "person of color" in American English, but usage of the appellation "colored" in the Southern United States gradually came to be restricted to "Negroes",[12] and is now considered a racial pejorative.[13] Elsewhere in the world, and in other dialects of English, the term may have entirely different connotations, however; for example, in South Africa, "Coloureds" refers to multiple multiracial ethnic groups and is sometimes applied to other groups in Southern Africa, such as the Basters of Namibia."

 

[Ixal]

You might be surprised how much such linguistic constructions can matter.

People-first language - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Person of color - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"The term "colored" was originally equivalent in use to the term "person of color" in American English, but usage of the appellation "colored" in the Southern United States gradually came to be restricted to "Negroes",[12] and is now considered a racial pejorative.[13] Elsewhere in the world, and in other dialects of English, the term may have entirely different connotations, however; for example, in South Africa, "Coloureds" refers to multiple multiracial ethnic groups and is sometimes applied to other groups in Southern Africa, such as the Basters of Namibia."

It obviously does not matter enough for the NAACP to rename itself NAAPOC because C is so offensive.

 

[Morrus]

Its just silly that that people of colour is ok and respectful but coloured (people) is inherently a slur no matter the context when they mean the exact same thing.

Not really. Language isn't about logic. It never has been. To expect it to suddenly start being now is unrealistic.

Language is an organic thing which grows and changes through use. In this case, the two terms you cite, while seeming superficially similar to you, were historically used in different ways and have different baggage. So one is OK and the other is not.

 

[Mannahnin]

It obviously does not matter enough for the NAACP to rename itself NAAPOC because C is so offensive.

Do you know whether they've considered a change, and do you think you're in an informed position to judge the various factors that go into such a decision for them? That "obviously" seems a bit dubious, to me.

 

[Cadence]

It obviously does not matter enough for the NAACP to rename itself NAAPOC because C is so offensive.

If you check their web-page, they seem to just use the "NAACP" throughout, without saying what the words are. The full name seems to appear only on the logo (which I'm guessing dates to the first decade or two of the 20th century).

It's history, including the Springfield race riot of 1908, fighting Jim Crow, fighting segregation, etc... is at NAACP - Wikipedia

 

[Ixal]

Do you know whether they've considered a change, and do you think you're in an informed position to judge the various factors that go into such a decision for them? That "obviously" seems a bit dubious, to me.

Not really. Either they considered it and so far deemed it acceptable or did not even feel the need to consider it at all. Because otherwise they would have changed it.