Mercedes Lackey Ejected From Nebula Conference For Using Racial Slur

[Ixal]

I disagree. While it should hold weight that the guy she was talking about did not find offense with her choice of words, it's common to find someone within a demographic who disagrees with the rest on whether something is offensive.

I don't know how to measure offensiveness. I just try to be wary if somebody's found a guy who says it's OK.

As opposed to find one guy who says its offensive like Montenegro or na-ge?

 

[MGibster]

I suspect if Ms. Lackey’s apology is publicly accepted by the person who first took umbrage, that will give the SFWA enough cover to de-escalate.

It's a little too late to disarm a grenade once its blown up in someone's face. It doesn't mean the SFWA can't apologize, but they did the opposite of deescalate, and this overshadows anything else that might have happened this year. "Remember the year the SFWA kicked their own Grand Master, and her husband, out of the event?"

There’s a sizeable portion of the American black community that never cared for efforts to “reclaim” or “repurpose” that word, and still do not care for it to this day. The view articulated then was that it was misguided and ultimately confusing. Personally, while I do LISTEN to and enjoy rap that uses it, I really wish they had made different lyrical choices.

And I don't feel as though I'm in any position to determine for someone else what they should or shouldn't find offensive. The best course of action is to accept that they find it offensive, maybe find out why they find it offensive, and proceed from there.

I would bet money that ain't gonna happen until Lackey sues the crap out of them.

I know we're a litigious people, but I'm not seeing much of a defamation case here as she's a public figure and the bar is rather high. Lackey would have to demonstrate that the defaming words somehow harmed her in some tangible way (economically for example), and I'm not sure it has. And, like it or not, Lackey did refer to someone else as colored. Even if the SFWA overreacted and did not handle the situation at all appropriately, Lackey said what she said.

Also, they will blame you for causing the thing you are offended by in the first place. What role do we know the offended person took in all this? Did they simply raise an objection and the SFWA took it from there? If thats the case, its on SWFA not the person for reporting the objection.

I'm with you on this, I put this squarely on the shoulders of the SFWA and not the person for reporting the objection. I think this might make it less likely for people to report something they find offensive because they see the response is way out of proportion.

 

[This Effin’ GM]

As opposed to find one guy who says its offensive like Montenegro or na-ge?

Its getting ridiculus with people getting offended by a country named Montenegro (actual example, there are tiktok videos about it) or that some languages have words that sound like the N word (and those people were aware that the others speak a different language).

So is Montenegro existing causing harm? Or people speaking chinese?
You can find examples of people getting offended by that for both.

including things they are completely uninformed about like Montenegro existing.

Holy crud you really want to talk about these tiktok videos.

 

[Mallus]

I disagree. While it should hold weight that the guy she was talking about did not find offense with her choice of words, it's common to find someone within a demographic who disagrees with the rest on whether something is offensive.

I don't know how to measure offensiveness. I just try to be wary if somebody's found a guy who says it's OK.

You're right, of course. I was trying a little too hard to be clever and also to give props to a man who writes sentences like no other.

The other members of that panel had every right to have their own reactions. As did everyone in the audience, and everyone else informed of the incident, for that matter.

The real fault here is with the SFWA and their rapid and unequivocal response to a situation (and to people) who deserved more nuance and restraint.

 

[Ixal]

Holy crud you really want to talk about these tiktok videos.

Because they are two very good examples of the current silliness of the offended person alone decides if something is offensive and that public reaction and apology (and consequences) are required. There are certainly more but those two came to mind.

And as much as I want to talk about them others want to sweep them under the rug because, probably, they would find it very hard to defend why the offended person is right.

 

[This Effin’ GM]

Because they are two very good examples of the current silliness of the offended person alone decides if something is offensive and that public reaction and apology (and consequences) are required. There are certainly more but those two came to mind.

And as much as I want to talk about them others want to sweep them under the rug because, probably, they would find it very hard to defend why the offended person is right.

(Looks at posts content. Looks at your desire to conflate this with an anecdotal evidence of something you find ridiculous).

Look bud. No one is stopping you from starting a thread to talk about these tiktok videos. Saying people are sweeping it under the rug in a forum not having anything to do with it sounds a lot like sealioning to me.

 

[Cadence]

Because they are two very good examples of the current silliness of the offended person alone decides if something is offensive and that public reaction and apology (and consequences) are required. There are certainly more but those two came to mind.

And as much as I want to talk about them others want to sweep them under the rug because, probably, they would find it very hard to defend why the offended person is right.

In just about everything there is an example that is beyond the pale, ridiculous, or an extreme outlier that provides no insight - and has essentially nothing to do with the topic at hand.

"This person is offended by pineapple pizza, so we can never talk about pineapple pizza!", for example, is an inane derail.

Is "colored" widely considered as bad as the words we can't type here? No, of course not. But it isn't hard to google up things about it and why it's best avoided and probably wouldn't have just been offending one person in the context we're discussing.

 

[Ixal]

deleted as per Umbrans request.

 

[Umbran]

And as much as I want to talk about them others want to sweep them under the rug because...

Stop right there. At this point you get into mind reading and ascribing intent to others, and that's a problem.

I would suggest all sides of the discussion consider the difference between a generalization, and an absolute statement. Be sure you are making the form of statement you really want to support. And also, be sure you are not responding to generalizations as if they were absolutes.

I would also like everyone to consider that making the point that an absolute isn't, in fact, absolute is not necessarily the win you think it is.

 

[MGibster]

"This person is offended by pineapple pizza, so we can never talk about pineapple pizza!", for example, is an inane derail.

I just opened a Twitter account to complain about you talking about pineapple pizza. But you're right, we can always find examples of people going beyond the pale who are ridiculous outliers.

Is "colored" widely considered as bad as the words we can't type here? No, of course not. But it isn't hard to google up things about it and why it's best avoided and probably wouldn't have just been offending one person here.

I sure as heck wouldn't describe someone that way. Mostly because it's not 1940.