I think also, on the labeling someone as a bigot thing... their behaviour doesn't necessarily depend on how other people think of them. I mean, sometimes they say it does - like the people who whine "it's so hard to be PC, you'll always offend someone, so I'm not going to bother", but that's usually just an excuse. Most people think they are basically decent people.
I'm also not sure that deciding not to honour her counts as shutting her down - she's still allowed to go to the con, they're just not going to be all "Elizabeth Moon is so awesome!" She still has a lot of venues for communicating her ideas, including at the con itself, but un-honouring her is a fairly clear rebuke - "people have tried to reason with you, we've given this a great deal of thought, this wasn't our first choice, but we can't let you or anyone else think we endorse what you're saying." I do think that people should always have a platform to say what they want, but I also think that refusing to provide them with a fancy schmancy platform with a podium, adjustable microphone and the latest sound system, organised by someone else with the implicit assumption that that other party thus thinks this is a valid message that should be spread, is an incredibly valid method of disapproval. Also makes me think of "not taking sides" in an argument. Sometimes "not taking sides" is taking a side because condemning an action is the only decent thing to do, and not doing so sends a message to the culprit that whatever they did was a fairly neutral and defensible action.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-10-23 05:02 am (UTC)I'm also not sure that deciding not to honour her counts as shutting her down - she's still allowed to go to the con, they're just not going to be all "Elizabeth Moon is so awesome!" She still has a lot of venues for communicating her ideas, including at the con itself, but un-honouring her is a fairly clear rebuke - "people have tried to reason with you, we've given this a great deal of thought, this wasn't our first choice, but we can't let you or anyone else think we endorse what you're saying." I do think that people should always have a platform to say what they want, but I also think that refusing to provide them with a fancy schmancy platform with a podium, adjustable microphone and the latest sound system, organised by someone else with the implicit assumption that that other party thus thinks this is a valid message that should be spread, is an incredibly valid method of disapproval. Also makes me think of "not taking sides" in an argument. Sometimes "not taking sides" is taking a side because condemning an action is the only decent thing to do, and not doing so sends a message to the culprit that whatever they did was a fairly neutral and defensible action.