Mercedes Lackey Ejected From Nebula Conference For Using Racial Slur

[Umbran]

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.

I'm not saying she would or wouldn't have. I'm saying that, in the moment, the organization likely had concerns.

Step back to just after this happened. The twitter thread you reference hasn't happened yet, I expect. The organization has had a complaint about a Major Name. What do they do? This becomes a problem of risk mitigation, for the organization.

They do not know what will satisfy the offended person. And, beyond that, they have public opinion to consider - satisfying the person who lodged the complaint may not be sufficient. Wider fandom will hear about this, and have opinions. This kind of thing has turned into social media PR nightmares before.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Until this thread popped up, I had absolutely no idea this was an offensive term in many places. It turns out that's simply because I happen to live in a country where it has an accepted, non-offensive meaning. Given my country's appalling history on matters of race, and acknowledging my own privilege—I'm a white South African with a multiracial family—I feel strongly that I have a particular duty to pay close attention to these issues. Consequently I'm grateful to have learned from this thread that a word I might innocently use in my country would be considered offensive elsewhere.

Going on from @Echohawk's post the word's use in America is very different to that of South Africa and to reflect how big the divide is - your typical South African coloured would be offended to be called black while your typical South African black would be offended to be referred to as coloured.

The world is wildly diverse in thinking.

 

[Carlsen Chris]

I wonder if the 80 year recepient was offended, or others were befended on their behalf?

I'm from the UK and the C always confuses me? POC is ok but C isn't?

History's a hellava thing.

 

[MGibster]

They do not know what will satisfy the offended person. And, beyond that, they have public opinion to consider - satisfying the person who lodged the complaint may not be sufficient. Wider fandom will hear about this, and have opinions. This kind of thing has turned into social media PR nightmares before.

Yes, and this is at atmosphere we as a whole have cultivated these last couple of years and should probably work to change. It just isn't healthy. But you're right, and I think it's important to recognize that organizations are under a fair amount of pressure to act swiftly at any perceived wrong. And when they're under that kind of pressure to immediately act, they're going to make some mistakes.

 

[Irlo]

Yes, and this is at atmosphere we as a whole have cultivated these last couple of years and should probably work to change. It just isn't healthy. But you're right, and I think it's important to recognize that organizations are under a fair amount of pressure to act swiftly at any perceived wrong. And when they're under that kind of pressure to immediately act, they're going to make some mistakes.

It's important I think to acknoweldge that organizations make mistakes handling issues when there's NO pressure to act at all. Often, the mistake is to not act at all.

 

[payn]

It's important I think to acknoweldge that organizations make mistakes handling issues when there's NO pressure to act at all. Often, the mistake is to not act at all.

There is no standard at the moment. Its the wild west in adjudicating policy. In the past, it was usually just swept under the rug privately. "That's just Offensive Oliver he didnt mean any by it." Now, folks are demanding more accountability and the stakes are up considerably. There is no context and level of severity. No considering the difference between Offensive Oliver is a dink, and Offensive Oliver should be in prison.

 

[Deset Gled]

By the way, according to his twitter Larry Dixon, Mercedes's husband, was also banned from Nebula because of guilt by association.

Regardless of the original incident, I find this response to be very troubling. Has this been verified?

 

[Guest 85555]

I'm not saying she would or wouldn't have. I'm saying that, in the moment, the organization likely had concerns.

Step back to just after this happened. The twitter thread you reference hasn't happened yet, I expect. The organization has had a complaint about a Major Name. What do they do? This becomes a problem of risk mitigation, for the organization.

They do not know what will satisfy the offended person. And, beyond that, they have public opinion to consider - satisfying the person who lodged the complaint may not be sufficient. Wider fandom will hear about this, and have opinions. This kind of thing has turned into social media PR nightmares before.

But I think this gets back to why twitter isn't a very good venue for sorting this stuff out. It is also very hard for people to know what is actually going on if the actual word isn't described by many of the news sites covering it (I actually had to come here to find out what the word was that she used). We should have organizations investigating before issuing a judgment but twitter pushes things in the opposite direction. And it looks like the writer she was talking about when she used the word has said it wasn't an issue. To me, this certainly looks conversation worthy. I don't use that word (and one of my issues with POC is how closely it resembles that word). But my gut reaction is she is an older woman who probably got her wires crossed trying to use POC or something to that extent. I could be wrong however. I think this sort of situation is the kind of thing that an organization should investigate before taking action. I think the twitter issue is it heightens the need for a rush to judgment and I don't think you get good outcomes that way (and I am not saying I am sure what the outcome should be as I am still learning about what happened, but it does seem like something that could more easily have been addressed by her saying she was sorry and meant to use another word). It is certainly a word a lot of people find off putting, and it isn't he preferred terminology, but when I saw a headline reading she had used a racial slur (and the article never said what word she had used) I immediately thought it must have been the N word or something on that level for another group.

 

[Guest 85555]

Yes, and this is at atmosphere we as a whole have cultivated these last couple of years and should probably work to change. It just isn't healthy. But you're right, and I think it's important to recognize that organizations are under a fair amount of pressure to act swiftly at any perceived wrong. And when they're under that kind of pressure to immediately act, they're going to make some mistakes.

I think this is definitely true. At the same time, part of what will bring things to a healthy level is organizations resisting this pressure and being more patient and thoughtful in their actions. Just as a general rule, quick summary judgments are not usually as good as more deliberate ones.

 

[Guest 7034872]

But I think this gets back to why twitter isn't a very good venue for sorting this stuff out.

It is an incompetent venue. The bread and butter of Twitter is outrage, not accuracy.

But Umbran is right that companies today have no choice but to deal with it.