I think you're awesome and I enjoy reading your posts.
I disagree with your premises here, though. You write
I just think a victory that ends in shutting someone down and leaves little or no room for dialogue or remedial action as a matter of first resort is a Pyrrhic one.
But this isn't what happened in the Elizabeth Moon situation. Did you read the screencaps of all the comments she deleted? People tried to engage with her, and she unilaterally dismissed them and deleted their comments. It wasn't an immediate "Let's ban her from the con"--it was "Let's engage with her hateful comments to see if we can get her to reconsider." She wouldn't; her comment responses were even more hateful then her post, and she is the one who cut off discussion by deleting the comments that disagreed (many of which were polite and serious about engaging with what she said, not about attacking her personally, although she seemed to interpret all disagreement as a personal insult).
If we’re not prepared to accept apologies when we demand them, what’s the point?
I don't think this is true. There may be a few people who resolutely won't accept apologies no matter what, but every time I've seen someone who failed respond with a sincere apology that showed that they actually understood what they'd done wrong, the furor has died down and the person who erred was accepted back into the community without much fuss. It's only when people refuse to apologize or give a faux-pology ("I'm sorry you were offended" or "Here's a long story about all that sad things that are happening in my life right now that make what I said not my fault") that the criticism continues.
I've seen occasions again and again where something that could've blown up into a huge fandom-wide "fail" died down quickly because the person who failed apologized sincerely and the people concerned accepted the apology. We just don't hear about these situations as often because they don't get the massive publicity that comes when someone fails and then digs their heels in with a refusal to reconsider or apologize.
I worry that saying THIS PERSON IS A BIGOT in a way that effectively dismisses them entirely and permanently disincentivizes changes of behavior or even engagement on the topic. [...] I think it takes a consistent pattern of behavior before that kind of blanket dismissal is really the right option.
I think you're right in theory, but I also think that's not what's happening if one really looks closely at the patterns in the way most of these things keep playing out. In Elizabeth Moon's case, she had plenty of opportunity to engage with commenters instead of deleting comments, and to apologize sincerely for the bigoted statements she made. She is the one who continued to fail, not the people who responded by continuing to call her on it.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-10-22 06:28 pm (UTC)I disagree with your premises here, though. You write
I just think a victory that ends in shutting someone down and leaves little or no room for dialogue or remedial action as a matter of first resort is a Pyrrhic one.
But this isn't what happened in the Elizabeth Moon situation. Did you read the screencaps of all the comments she deleted? People tried to engage with her, and she unilaterally dismissed them and deleted their comments. It wasn't an immediate "Let's ban her from the con"--it was "Let's engage with her hateful comments to see if we can get her to reconsider." She wouldn't; her comment responses were even more hateful then her post, and she is the one who cut off discussion by deleting the comments that disagreed (many of which were polite and serious about engaging with what she said, not about attacking her personally, although she seemed to interpret all disagreement as a personal insult).
If we’re not prepared to accept apologies when we demand them, what’s the point?
I don't think this is true. There may be a few people who resolutely won't accept apologies no matter what, but every time I've seen someone who failed respond with a sincere apology that showed that they actually understood what they'd done wrong, the furor has died down and the person who erred was accepted back into the community without much fuss. It's only when people refuse to apologize or give a faux-pology ("I'm sorry you were offended" or "Here's a long story about all that sad things that are happening in my life right now that make what I said not my fault") that the criticism continues.
I've seen occasions again and again where something that could've blown up into a huge fandom-wide "fail" died down quickly because the person who failed apologized sincerely and the people concerned accepted the apology. We just don't hear about these situations as often because they don't get the massive publicity that comes when someone fails and then digs their heels in with a refusal to reconsider or apologize.
I worry that saying THIS PERSON IS A BIGOT in a way that effectively dismisses them entirely and permanently disincentivizes changes of behavior or even engagement on the topic. [...] I think it takes a consistent pattern of behavior before that kind of blanket dismissal is really the right option.
I think you're right in theory, but I also think that's not what's happening if one really looks closely at the patterns in the way most of these things keep playing out. In Elizabeth Moon's case, she had plenty of opportunity to engage with commenters instead of deleting comments, and to apologize sincerely for the bigoted statements she made. She is the one who continued to fail, not the people who responded by continuing to call her on it.