About that.

[laceblade]

At the end of this post by Kathryn Cramer, she requests that "con committee members should do a lot more listening and a lot less defending when concerns like these are raised."

While I do not speak for the WisCon Convention Committee, I am a member, and I have yet to hear why Jay Lake, or any other person felt "unsafe," specifically. I also have yet to hear what exactly is meant when they say "unsafe." What the fuck should I be listening to, exactly? References that are so vague that they are useless? The reason you can't name it is because the "lack of safety" to which you refer is better described as "uncomfortable when privilege is challenged." Sorry, but the WisCon ConCom is not the place to turn to if this is your problem.


Also? Word.

Comments

[mystickeeper.livejournal.com]

The debates are developing independently (at least, the religion and this one are - I think that this one is very much linked to race).

Generally, online discussion after the Con is related to a panel in which someone said something effed up (i.e., Cultural Appropriation of Doom panel).

This year, there weren't any fail-y panels, which is why the discussions are all about last year's panels (religion, although I think that discussion was pretty self-contained in the one comment session) or comments made behind the scenes/in people's journals before/during the con (Jay Lake and other similar sentiments).