Mercedes Lackey Ejected From Nebula Conference For Using Racial Slur

I use USAians quite often as it makes it easier to distinguish peoples from other parts of the American continent - like Canadians or Columbians or Native Americans. Many of the terms used for peoples across the globe began as exonyms, used by others to label different national or ethnic groups, so being offended by it is somewhat a privileged position…
Yeah, calling someone a USAian is a political statement more often than not, which is one of the reasons I find it annoying while I don't have any problem with estadounidense. And I really love how privilege continues to be used as a club, implying that it's wrong for me to be offended when someone deliberately refers to me using a term they know is not in common use. But I digress, I simply brought USAian as an example of a label being applied that one might not identify with personally. This is beyond the scope of the board and I'll not discuss this topic further.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Many of the terms used for peoples across the globe began as exonyms, used by others to label different national or ethnic groups, so being offended by it is somewhat a privileged position…

If we are going to compare across history, we WANT folks of today and tomorrow to appear privileged in comparison with yesterday.

Isn't the whole thread about how things done in the past are sometimes now inappropriate? Exonames were commonly used in the past? Okay. That doesn't make it appropriate to continue applying exonames.
 

Organizations today have to contend with social media - if they try to handle the issue in private, and the offended party is not satisfied, the issue will not stay private, and it looks like an attempt to cover it all up.
While I understand that, having read the Twitter thread of the panelist who was offended by the utterance, I think it's a bit of a reach to say that she would've been unsatisfied. She only shares her personal experience hearing the word, doesn't even point to Lackey by name but only warns people who'll listen to the panel that they should look out for the moment - in case they also become uncomfortable with it. I hardly think she'd have wanted Lackey (and her husband, who had nothing to do with the panel where this occurred and was writing glowing tweets about how wonderful the event was the day before) to be humiliated and banned in this way. This to me looks like the organisation overreacting in the worst way possible, even beyond what the person who was initially offended by the statement had in mind.

To be clear, what I meant by handling the issue in private was reaching out to Lackey in private at first, and maybe asking for her to make amends with the offended person and then making a statement with everyone involved (the idea of an impromptu panel on proper language is a decent idea and I don't think anyone would've opposed to that, I think). If Lackey would've doubled down at this stage, then the decision they've taken in its current form would've been justified. Instead they seem to have decided to ban Lackey while she was sleeping (if what her husband said is anything to go by), and then make a public statement that just says that Lackey said a slur with no context (making everyone think she uttered something far worse). This isn't crisis management, it's crisis production.
 

This isn't crisis management, it's crisis production.
As Umbran pointed out, thanks to social media, there is no space for reluctance or half measures. If, in the eyes of the twitter user, Nebula did not act quickly and decisively enough they are complicit, support racism and become a target themselves.
So companies play it safe and react with maximum force whenever there is just a hint of a complain in order to appease the mob.
 

As Umbran pointed out, thanks to social media, there is no space for reluctance or half measures. If, in the eyes of the twitter user, Nebula did not act quickly and decisively enough they are complicit, support racism and become a target themselves.
So companies play it safe and react with maximum force whenever there is just a hint of a complain in order to appease the mob.
I'm well aware of that, but that doesn't make the organisers' decision less morally abhorrent. There is no reasonable way of dealing with The Mob, and giving into their wishes doesn't make the world a better place. Ignoring whatever outrcry they whipped up in the heat of the moment, or better, acting with moral integrity and letting people draw their own conclusions would've been better for everyone involved, especially when it comes to making the world a better place. The world doesn't get any better when we don't allow people to get better, if anything we'll entrench people who could've been swayed to see their errors double down because now they see people claiming moral superiority basically harassing anyone who doesn't toe the line. It basically makes what the extremist idiots think about progressivism seem likely.

Edit: I had a very poor choice of words there especially given the racial context of the situation, so I changed it. Apologies.
 
Last edited:



As Umbran pointed out, thanks to social media, there is no space for reluctance or half measures. If, in the eyes of the twitter user, Nebula did not act quickly and decisively enough they are complicit, support racism and become a target themselves.
So companies play it safe and react with maximum force whenever there is just a hint of a complain in order to appease the mob.
The problem with that is that if they have overreacted to appease the mob, they have become complicit in the bullying of Mercedes Lackey, which is itself no good thing.

Racism is deplorable, but responses must be proportionate. Our world is not improved by forgetting that.
 



Remove ads

Top