New song: A Pack of LIes

[mneme]

I do try not to write in anger. Mostly.

But since I got blindsided by the most -smug- pro-harassment, pro-puppies song in a while today...wel, this came out.

A Pack of Lies
Joshua Kronengold
may be sung to the tune of Stan Rogers' "Lies"

At last, the con is quiet for a year,
The worldcon held in Finland, too much fun for pain and fear,
The filkers, sharing new and ancient verse,
The concourse filled with sales and games and lots of fan discourse,

Sure was a bitter couple of Worldcons for a while,
Some trolls tried to take over using cheats and hate and guile,
They thought they could pay money for our prize,
And tricking fans by posting wicked lies!

All lies
All those trolls are telling wicked lies,
Lies all lies
They have no shame for their disgrace,
If you disprove their story, they revise,
Their pack of wicked lies!

Are Hugo nominations ruled by TOR?
That was their story; somehow we don't hear it anymore.
Are they just fans just wanting to have fun?
They always seem so angry when the ceremony's done.

Each time the story changes, like Rashamon it sounds,
Like they think they can't lose if they keep giving runarounds,
But every time they give the game a try,
Why can't they post a better class of lies?

Those lies,
All those trolls are telling tired lies,
Lies all lies
They have no shame for their disgrace,
If you disprove their story, they revise,
Their pack of tired lies!

And now the pack have come around again,
This time they say they're being banned for what they think and when,
It's "censorship" that now ignites their fears,
Well we've been hosting everyone for over fifty years!

Your politics don't matter, if you are here for fun,
Your passion for SF should let you blend with everyone,
But if you come in hate, say your goodbyes,
You're banned for breaking rules, and not your lies,

Those lies,
All those trolls are telling themselves lies,
Lies, all lies
They cannot think they've lost their place,
So when they see their losses, they revise,
Their foolish little lies.

Comments

[mneme]

I'm not really interested in recapitulating Truesdale. Who only found out his badge was pulled on his way home, apparently.

I can't see how Helsinki's firing is on topic. It's not even a ban. (you want problematic and censorious, look at the larp that was cancelled at Helsinki, but again, not political)

But the core point of the final verse is that people aren't banned for holding political views -- they're banned for behavior -- and that behavior comes from entering a con (or planning to enter a con) with the intent to upset people, rather than the intent to socialize and engage in fanac.

You don't get kicked out for hostility, per se. But the center of harassment is "creating a hostile environment", and one of the best ways to do so is to actually be hostile.

[madfilkentist]

"Hostile environment" is a very vague term. A lot of cons have created dangerously broad speech restrictions. I've followed filk cons more closely than Worldcons, so I hope it's OK if I cite a couple of examples from them.

FilKONtario at one time defined harassment to mean "any objectionable act, comment, or display that demeans, belittles, or causes personal humiliation or embarrassment." That could cover just about any negative statement about anything. The link I had is broken, and I can't find a policy in a quick glance, so that may no longer be applicable. If so, it could indicate improvement in the works.

The policy for Con2bil8 had this: "If anyone makes you feel uncomfortable, discriminates against you, or exhibits behaviour and/or language which you find offensive towards either yourself or anyone else, we, as a committee, would like you to understand that we will not find it acceptable, and will take immediate action, up to, and including, expulsion from Convention areas."

That defines objectionable behavior purely by personal reaction to it. Effectively, it gives everyone a veto on everything. The accused has no possible defense, since it's the listener's reaction that defines the offense.

Of course, such policies can't be strictly enforced without destroying the convention. They have to be applied selectively. With such broad wording, they create a hostile environment to the extent that people want to express views that differ from the fannish mainstream.

Distinguishing between "intent to upset people" and "intent to socialize and engage in fanac" is impossible to do in any fair way. Some views are upsetting to some people. Does expressing those views, knowing that others will complain, make them unacceptable as such? If so, some viewpoints are banned.

I'm very unhappy with the recent tendency in fandom to turn cons into "safe spaces" where people don't have to hear anything they don't like. It's contrary to the spirit of open discussion that was just recently characteristic of fandom.

[mneme]

I think this is probably a discussion better had somewhere else. But it's not a new sentiment -- note the bans in '39 (which were far -more- politically motivated than any selective enforcement of harassment in the modern day).

[madfilkentist]

Very true about the bans in '39. The political feuding was wild in those days.