(Post a new comment)

	cyan_aura 2010-10-23 05:33 am UTC (link)
	well Moon's not entirely silent. Since she's not being honored anymore, she's just not going footstamp (Reply to this)(Thread)

	bienegold 2010-10-23 06:21 am UTC (link)
	That'll show 'em! (Reply to this)(Parent)

	come_love_sleep 2010-10-23 06:27 am UTC (link)
	Oh! Link? I looked but did not find. And that does seem in character. What a pity--I loved her books when I was twelve. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	juliansinger 2010-10-23 06:47 am UTC (link)
	Here. She's also been interviewed by a paper in Texas. Be out Sunday. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	come_love_sleep 2010-10-23 06:53 am UTC (link)
	Thanks! ETA posted. :) (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	cyan_aura 2010-10-23 07:36 am UTC (link)
	oh good, someone else posted the link. I kind of walked away from the internets for awhile... silly me (Reply to this)(Parent)

	goblin 2010-10-24 08:40 am UTC (link)
	The interview is here. Contains such hilarious tidbits as, "Moon decried the polarized tone of public discourse in America today." (Reply to this)(Parent)

lady_jafaria
2010-10-23 06:31 am UTC (link)

Okay, I have anecdata here, but it's kind of relevant. A while back, the UMass Republican Club invited Don Feder to give a speech. Some people protested, and Feder cut his speech off early and left. The Republican Club proceeded to act like their freedom of speech had been infringed, when they were the ones who decided to stop speaking in the first place.

Moon's snit fit and her supporters' hyperbole rather reminds me of that. She could still have gone to the convention; removal of GoH status is not banning. She threw away what could have still been an opportunity to talk about her ideas (reprehensible as they are) in favor of pretending to be a victim of the PC Police.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

	come_love_sleep 2010-10-23 06:56 am UTC (link)
	It's so easy to win when you don't put yourself in a position to lose. Like, you know, facing other human beings. :( (Reply to this)(Parent)

agent_hyatt
2010-10-23 08:48 pm UTC (link)

the UMass Republican Club invited Don Feder to give a speech. Some people protested, and Feder cut his speech off early and left

Huh? *googles* ...between that and the Tea Party appearances, why did they think it would work out? Oh, right, they didn't, they just wanted to make a "Free Speech martyr" out of the asswipe. And fuck the comments calling hypocrisy on Amherst; freedom of speech doesn't mean having a right to a podium and audience of one's choice.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	lady_jafaria 2010-10-23 09:26 pm UTC (link)
	Yeah, I don't even know how there would be any hypocrisy involved on the school's part; the school LET them host him, it was his decision to cut the speech off early. Freedom of speech does, of course, cover the right to not speak, but if you're going to wimp out you really shouldn't play it as persecution the next day. (Reply to this)(Parent)

lady_jafaria
2010-10-23 09:37 pm UTC (link)

Also, I can't edit comments, but I forgot to say I actually think they planned all along to cut the speech off once the protesters showed up, as a way of calling out campus liberals for "hypocrisy" or "intolerance." My cynicism and their previous horridness leads me to no other conclusion.

(The best part was, of course, the sign saying No Signs at the speech about free speech. Free speech for Republicans only!)

(Reply to this)(Parent)

	xero_sky 2010-10-23 07:06 am UTC (link)
	I dunno. If I'd been Guest of Honor and then had the invitation rescinded, I probably wouldn't go either. That seems pretty normal human behavior. (Reply to this)(Thread)

	silrana 2010-10-23 08:27 am UTC (link)
	I was thinking the same thing. I would take that as a pretty clear "we don't want you here" and give it a miss. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	come_love_sleep 2010-10-23 08:30 am UTC (link)
	I think I must be a stubborn creature. :P I'd be up there, sleeves rolled, ready to have really fierce discussions. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	catmoran 2010-10-23 10:50 pm UTC (link)
	Yeah, but that means paying money to the people you've presumably had a falling-out with. My reaction would be to say "If you don't want me, then you don't want my money! So there!" (Yes, I do revert to the age of 12 when I think I'm being snubbed.) (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	silrana 2010-10-24 04:38 pm UTC (link)
	This. The idea of actually spending money to go someplace to be insulted (deserved or not) is something that I could never see myself doing. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	chikane 2010-10-23 09:17 am UTC (link)
	Not going, sure. That still doesn't mean she actually was silenced or censored, however. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	greenling 2010-10-23 10:52 am UTC (link)
	Yeah. Not going would tend to be the more reasonable way of handling things, in my opinion; but that's in the sense of acknowledging that the situation may not be worth resolving and getting on with your life, not in the sense of retreating into your little castle and whining about how terrible it is that people are willing to disagree with you loudly. (Reply to this)(Parent)

mmanurere
2010-10-23 11:53 am UTC (link)

But having her poor, sensitive whiteperson feelings challenged is totally the same as suppression of ideas "by force" (and the depressing thing is that the "by force" schtick has been promoted non-sarcastically by Moon's supporters). All she was doing was criticizing all those radical extremist types of Muslim -- why, any suggestion by WisCon (or, y'know, her own posts) that she was bashing all Muslims and all non-white immigrants is just fascist,y'hear?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	lady_jafaria 2010-10-23 03:43 pm UTC (link)
	Yeah, the "she's just giving a feminist critique of extremist Muslims" defense doesn't work so well. I've SEEN feminist critiques of Islamic extremism. Moon's post was just bigoted fearmongering. Apparently the defenders who want to paint themselves as so concerned for Muslim women are less concerned when it's a white woman hurting them. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	phosfate 2010-10-23 04:47 pm UTC (link)
	Apparently the defenders who want to paint themselves as so concerned for Muslim women are less concerned when it's a white woman hurting them. I'm amazed when some of my fellow whities rant about banning the veil for Muslim women's good. Because no one woman would voluntarily wear one, or if she does, she's just brainwashed. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	rosehiptea 2010-10-23 10:54 pm UTC (link)
	And it never occurs to Muslim women to not veil unless helpful white women get involved! (Reply to this)(Parent)

	catmoran 2010-10-23 10:59 pm UTC (link)
	I hate that, I really do. It's infantalizing to assume that no women (especially women living under secular law) would choose to wear something that has cultural or religious importance to them. I wonder what those same whities think of nuns who still wear veils? (Reply to this)(Parent)

	ekaterinv 2010-10-23 10:59 pm UTC (link)
	But female sexuality is supposed to be PUBLIC property (of men)! It's just horrific that those mean Muslims want it to be PRIVATE property (of one man)! (And the idea it could be the woman's own property is of course completely alien and dangerous.) (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	phosfate 2010-10-24 02:56 am UTC (link)
	I do not think I would like it much if the ultra-wealthy women of the French Riviera decided that I should go topless because my swimsuit is oppressive. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	purple_smurf 2010-10-24 05:36 am UTC (link)
	I really like that analogy. I may borrow it, if that's okay. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	phosfate 2010-10-25 04:25 pm UTC (link)
	Groovy. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	rosehiptea 2010-10-23 10:03 pm UTC (link)
	This. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	snarkhunter 2010-10-23 03:25 pm UTC (link)
	Way to go Wiscon! (Reply to this)

komorebi
2010-10-23 06:16 pm UTC (link)

Oooh, a sane anon amongst a throng of highly unfunny commenters.

Can I just say, as a libertarian, that I hope the people railing against WisCon's decision to not invite someone to their own damn con, and claiming that they do so on the grounds of some weird idea of "free speech", will greet the spontaneous appearence of whatever Wahhabist boogey-man they are currently freaking out about at their own conventions with open arms?

This is the *definition* of freedom, people. You can invite people, and then you can disinvite them if they say dumb, rude, nonsense (or you think so).

Confusing this with book-burning and theocracy demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of the very values you people feebly imagine you're defending.

... I'm posting this because everything else in the comments spewing gynophobic/Islamophobic sentiments makes me feel ashamed to be an SF fan.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

	cyndra_falin 2010-10-23 07:07 pm UTC (link)
	I love that anon! (Reply to this)(Parent)

	trialia 2010-10-24 01:37 am UTC (link)
	Semi-OT, but "nojojojo" is a fantasy author in her own right: N. K. Jemisin. (Reply to this)(Thread)

	come_love_sleep 2010-10-24 01:40 am UTC (link)
	Thank you! I was unaware of her. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	trialia 2010-10-24 02:07 am UTC (link)
	Her début, The Hundred Thousand Kingdoms was just published this year. Excellent story; I can't wait for the second in the trilogy, that's due out next week. ♥ (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	finchbird 2010-10-24 02:13 am UTC (link)
	I read a couple of her LJ entries about The Hundred Thousand Kingdoms a while back and was going to check it out. RL got in the way, so I forgot about it. Thank you for reminding me! :D (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	trialia 2010-10-24 07:48 pm UTC (link)
	Anytime! :D (Reply to this)(Parent)

	undomielregina 2010-10-24 09:28 am UTC (link)
	Ooh, she wrote that? Naomi Novik recommended it at the Fantasy Writers panel at New York Comic Con and I wrote the title down as something to check out. Clearly I need to bump it up my reading queue a couple notches. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	trialia 2010-10-24 07:48 pm UTC (link)
	I would! It's a lovely book; it's also been nominated as a Yuletide fandom this year. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	aliaras 2010-11-19 07:47 am UTC (link)
	So I realize this was posted a billion years ago, but this story: http://clarkesworldmagazine.com/jemisin_09_09/ is a really great short story she did. (Reply to this)(Parent)

goblin
2010-10-24 09:09 am UTC (link)

There have been a series of posts about this on the wiscon lj community, as well. The more reasoned ones are under lock; the ones that are about how Hurt and Silenced congoers feel by Moon's disinvite are all (at least thus far) open to the public. My personal fave? This one, where magentamn declaims, We've got to stick by Moon, cuz she's a woman! And it's rude to rescind invitations! Also, Muslims are evil! "I feel threatened"!

Also, W1ll Sh3tt*rly is being an ass about this all over the internet, but what else is new. Apparently Moon is being mobbed and censored and silenced and bullied. Possibly also someone kicked her puppy, I dunno.

(Reply to this)

zellieh
2010-10-24 10:00 am UTC (link)

I was reading the comments to the Officially Rescinded post, and Will Shetterly -- after he called Moon out on her original fail, in an unexpected moment of surprise decency -- turned up in the comments, protesting about it being some sort of conspiracy: "WisCon [delete "encourages"] [insert "suppresses"] discussion and debate of ideas relating to feminism, gender, race and class. Fixed that for you." and "pst314, those are also the tactics of good conservative witch-hunters and crusaders. Suppressing speech is not limited to any political ideology." Clearly it was a very isolated moment of perspicacity on his part, and regular service has now resumed.

I LOVE lydiabell, though: "Elizabeth Moon only "exactly fits the group's mission" if you believe that feminism doesn't include Muslim women. Because her bigotry insulted and hurt Muslim women, and her mindset encourages discrimination against them."

And, oh, lanning, I adore you too: "Let me try to say this in small words. Refusing to honor hate speech does not suppress hate speech. Ms. Moon is free to be hateful wherever she goes."

(Reply to this)

	notjo 2010-10-24 07:11 pm UTC (link)
	My understanding is both official WisCon blogs (the momentary taste of wiscon blogspot one and the SF3 one) were linked by right-wing bloggers as soon as the announcement was made. Ithiliana's made several posts about it - there are more on either side of the linked one. (Reply to this)(Thread)

	notjo 2010-10-24 07:11 pm UTC (link)
	(Not that I don't think there are regular attendees who aren't acting terribly. It's obvious in the comments that there are.) (Reply to this)(Parent)

funwithrage
2010-10-28 03:29 pm UTC (link)

Jim C. Hines has made his usual awesome blog post on the subject. Which immediately got mobbed by trolls all "OMG CENSORSHIP" and "what about her FEEEELINGS"?

On there, Sh*tt*rly actually appears to be the least WTF-inducing of the idiots: he's arguing his personal Thing--"rescinding a speaker invitation because of politics is wrong"--independent of context or clue, but he pales in comparison to S.F. Murphy, who just needs to go away.

(Reply to this)

(Reply from suspended user)