Mercedes Lackey Ejected From Nebula Conference For Using Racial Slur

[tomBitonti]

That's a ... problematic ... usage. Using skin color as a way of distinguishing people suggests a categorical difference based on skin color. This is (in my opinion) not a useful way of thinking. I don't think that such a way of distinguishing people is useful except in the very specific circumstance of picking a person out of a group which was immediately present. I would expect that there are more important ways to distinguish the two Mr. Delaney's.

TomB

 

[MGibster]

That's a ... problematic ... usage. Using skin color as a way of distinguishing people suggests a categorical difference based on skin color.

It's no different than distinguishing between someone based on height, hair color, or a myriad of other phenotypes. The only problematic aspect of Lackey's statement was the word she used.

 

[billd91]

That's a ... problematic ... usage. Using skin color as a way of distinguishing people suggests a categorical difference based on skin color. This is (in my opinion) not a useful way of thinking. I don't think that such a way of distinguishing people is useful except in the very specific circumstance of picking a person out of a group which was immediately present. I would expect that there are more important ways to distinguish the two Mr. Delaney's.

TomB

I can see the point, but it's kind of a strange beast - would dancing around the fact that he's black mean you were trying to minimize an aspect of his person that has probably had a major effect on him? If you try to distinguish them by indicating one's from Texas, the other NYC does that come across as dog whistling something about his identity? Is taking an effort to be color blind, in a case like this, a good or bad thing?
I don't think any one of these questions is necessarily obvious or has a completely right answer.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

That's a ... problematic ... usage. Using skin color as a way of distinguishing people suggests a categorical difference based on skin color.

Sometimes it happens.

My circle of friends in college had a LOT of guys named Brian. And one was known as “Black Brian”, because he was the only one who was black. He and I were not the only blacks in the group…but close.

 

[MGibster]

My circle of friends in college had a LOT of guys named Brian. And one was known as “Black Brian”, because he was the only one who was black. He and I were not the only blacks in the group…but close.

In my board game group we had a lot of Mikes and one of them just said, "Call be Brown Mike." Not everyone was cool with that, so he became Spicy Mike instead. Mike did not like spicy food.

 

[Hussar]

That's a ... problematic ... usage. Using skin color as a way of distinguishing people suggests a categorical difference based on skin color. This is (in my opinion) not a useful way of thinking. I don't think that such a way of distinguishing people is useful except in the very specific circumstance of picking a person out of a group which was immediately present. I would expect that there are more important ways to distinguish the two Mr. Delaney's.

TomB

I don't think anyone is defending the use of the word. No one is saying that it's a good thing that she did this or anything like that. I think the larger issue, at least for me, is that this got aired out in public when there seemed to be absolutely no need for it to be and that the SFWA seems to have over reacted.

I think most people would agree that some action being taken would absolutely be appropriate. Having a quiet word, maybe having the two talk to each other and an apology, or any number of other actions could have been taken, LONG before this became a Twitter Fitshorm.

In any case though, I don't think anyone thinks Ms. Lackey's use was a good thing.

 

[Dausuul]

I don't think anyone is defending the use of the word. No one is saying that it's a good thing that she did this or anything like that. I think the larger issue, at least for me, is that this got aired out in public when there seemed to be absolutely no need for it to be and that the SFWA seems to have over reacted.

I think most people would agree that some action being taken would absolutely be appropriate. Having a quiet word, maybe having the two talk to each other and an apology, or any number of other actions could have been taken, LONG before this became a Twitter Fitshorm.

In any case though, I don't think anyone thinks Ms. Lackey's use was a good thing.

Agreed. The proper solution would have been for someone--either the person who raised the issue, or one of the con organizers--to talk to Ms. Lackey in private, explain the situation, and ask for her to address the issue publicly in the way she has now done, with a prompt and obviously heartfelt apology. If she'd refused to do so, then throwing her out would have been on the table.

I still put more blame on the con organizers than I do on the person who originally tweeted about it. That person was herself dealing with an unpleasant shock. Going on social media in a moment of shock is a phenomenally bad idea, but social media companies pour massive amounts of money and ingenuity into training us to do exactly that.

However, being a con organizer means taking on the responsibility to handle these situations with a level head. The initial tweet meant that some amount of fitshorm (as you so aptly put it) was inevitable, but it could have been handled so much better than it was. The con could have de-escalated things and instead chose to escalate wildly.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

However, being a con organizer means taking on the responsibility to handle these situations with a level head. The initial tweet meant that some amount of fitshorm (as you so aptly put it) was inevitable, but it could have been handled so much better than it was. The con could have de-escalated things and instead chose to escalate wildly.

Unless there is some further information I am unaware of, I agree with this 100%.

I don't put any blame on Ms. Lackey- based on what we know (and since the actual video isn't available) it really does appear to be a misstatement by someone who isn't comfortable with public speaking, and was explained and apologized for.

I don't put any blame on the person who raised the issue. While in an ideal world I would have preferred that she raise the issue at the time, or with the con organizers, or ... any medium other that Twitter ... I also understand that there will be times when people need to process, and for twitter, her original message was considerate, and wasn't a "name and shame."

But every single thing the con did made this worse. As far as I can tell based on what has been revealed, they didn't even discuss this with Ms. Lackey before booting her. They also did guilt-by-association and booted her husband (????). And then, most egregiously of all, they made a press release and publicized their actions (which is naming and shaming) ... and by using that verbiage and simultaneously removing the video, they made every single person assume the absolute worst about the person. I, like almost every single person who heard about this, assumed that there was some type of racist rant involving a very different word, based on the release and the severity and swiftness of the response.

Given that the SFWA had their own issue recently (as pointed out in this thread, they tweeted, and then stuffed down the memory hole, a reference to "comfort elf") I have to question how they could be so forgiving of their own verbal miscues and so unforgiving of others.

I wish we could all be a little more generous to each other, I guess. The world might be a little better.

 

[MGibster]

I wish everyone would stop being so reasonable. You're runing my perception of the internet.

 

[Hex08]

To often folks are allowed to use outdated language under the guise of "they are old" and I don't find it to be an acceptable excuse.

I'm going to have to disagree with you here, biology matters. As we age our brains shrink, it starts in your 30s - 40s and the rate increases in your 60s. The area of our brain most affected is the prefrontal cortex which is where executive functions like impulse control, reasoning, problem solving, memory and social interactions are handled. This means that communications problems arise as does a loss of the ability to learn something new and problems with recalling words. When older people slip up and say something that appears racist it doesn't mean they are (or are not) racist nor does it mean that they "just grew up in a different era" (even though they did), it could just mean "they are old" and are falling victim to the biology of the human body.

Everyone has inappropriate thoughts, it's those executive functions that keep people from acting on them or voicing them. Blaming older people for the natural loss of an ability to apply filters is unfair.