Another one for the HUGE GIGANTIC IRONY file: A panel on online harassment, scheduled for the 2016 SXSW conference in Austin, Texas, was cancelled today due to threats of violence.
The panel organizer, Caroline Sinders, got an email from SXSW organizers explaining that the panel wouldn’t be happening because
we have already received numerous threats of violence regarding this panel, so a civil and respectful environment seems unlikely in March in Austin.
The note went on to explain that “[f]or this reason, we have also cancelled other sessions at the 2016 event that focused on the Gamergate controversy.”
By “other sessions” SXSW actually meant only one other session, a putative discussion of “the Gaming Community” featuring a panel of Gamergaters.
The panel on harassment, while featuring Gamergate critics/targets Randi Lee Harper and Katherine Cross, was not intended to be an anti-Gamergate panel as such, but a wider discussion of harassment online.
SXSW’s public statement on the cancellation of both panels, which echoed some of the language of the email sent to Sinders, had a weird, victim-blamey tone to it. Declaring that “SXSW prides itself on being a big tent and a marketplace of diverse people and diverse ideas,” the statement went on to explain why SXSW had tossed both panels out of the tent:
[P]reserving the sanctity of the big tent at SXSW Interactive necessitates that we keep the dialogue civil and respectful. If people can not agree, disagree and embrace new ways of thinking in a safe and secure place that is free of online and offline harassment, then this marketplace of ideas is inevitably compromised.
Of course, the “marketplace of ideas” is also compromised if harassers can shut down discussions they don’t like with threats.
So, women who don’t like being harassed and abused have to agree to disagree with their harassers or they’re not being civil and respectful? And even though they actually agree to do that, they’re silenced anyway because nothing outside of complete submission will fail to anger the harassers?
Seems legit!
I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that the majority of the people who run SXSW are white dudes.
@WWTH
In the previous post someone was just suggesting that Sarkeesian isn’t doing enough to end her own harassing (don’t ask me, I didn’t get their point either). The lovely flip-side of this rusty, smelly old coin is that if you dare to speak about harassing, you’re being a major disrespectful stick in the mud.
I’ve also heard this from a guy who fancies himself extra special aware. “Women should do something about how they’re treated, men aren’t just going to *give* them space.” Thanks for advice. May I return advice? Advice broken.
I really only know of SXSW as a music event. Evidently it’s rather more than that? What is it like?
Got in an argument on ifMUD with a number of people who were obviously determined to believe that the anti-harassment panelists were Just Too Dangerous to allow a panel to and that they were jeopardizing the safety of SXSW by being targets, and that they clearly need to be restricted to an unattended “PowerKegCon” because they’re “unhostable” (read: there’s thugs and monsters who would scream death threats at them if they hosted a panel on pretty much anything.)
Oh, and that somehow SXSW just admitting “we can’t guarantee your safety” to the panelists would be surrendering to terrorists, while this current statement and action somehow isn’t.
It has put me in a grisly, hateful mood. I probably shouldn’t be on the internet at all in my current frame of mind.
Also, David, thanks for the puppies. As a dog person I am warmly comforted by them and their TINY TENT. <4
So “If people can not agree, disagree and embrace new ways of thinking in a safe and secure place that is free of online and offline harassment, then this marketplace of ideas is inevitably compromised” translates to “If you’re the target of harassment you’re not welcome here”?
The irony of inhibiting free speech in the defense of “free speech”. The “marketplace of ideas” is reduced anyway and the effectiveness of threatened violence is further propagated. Are these the same people who believe we should never negotiate with terrorists? The appropriate reaction would have been to cancel ALL game-related events at SXSW, with the “strong community management” message of “clean up your industry before you expect a presence here”.
More doggies in tents.
http://www.spineusart.be/westsiberischelaika/wp-content/uploads/jantar-in-tent-Slowenien192.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3148/2808353513_1bb319bd65.jpg
Like, it went sort of like this:
“Well I don’t see what SXSW could do except get armed guards”
So why don’t they just say something like that instead of this?
“Well if they said we can’t protect you as the reason for pulling the panel, it’d encourage more threats”
How does this route not encourage more threats? They said ‘we got threats and for reasons related to that we’re pulling your panel,’ how is that not communicating ‘make threats, get panel you’re mad about pulled?’
“Both panels would probably turn into shouting matches anyway”
A panel about dealing with harassment would turn into a shouting match? It wasn’t a FUCK GAMERGATE panel, it was a panel about dealing with online harassment in general. And if somebody did try to turn it into shouting match they’d just be escorted out as disruptive.
“The threats were threats of violence not just threats of being disruptive”
I was talking about the shouting match thing? Not the threats. But speaking of that, honestly though it doesn’t matter what panel they host, no matter how tame, they’d probably get threats anyway.
“Sounds like they need PowderKegCon for unhostables *lots of joking about the idea*”
I just gave up and quit.
I really, really hope SXSW gets some backlash for this. But I doubt they’ll even care.
That smug tone of theirs really annoys me. As if somehow Anita was being “disagreeable” because of… what exactly? Just by nature of her being targeted by a bunch of misogynistic jerks?
I was saving these in case we hit a very tight spot but I suppose I can always come back to page one for some comfort.
http://www.vastavalo.fi/albums/userpics/10224/normal_DSC_2049_antje.jpg
http://www.outa.fi/joomla3/images/stories/1-2011/teltta_apsidi_lilli.jpg
And finally, these furry friends are just camping:
http://www.outa.fi/joomla3/images/stories/1-2015/259.jpg
What I want to know is why they were holding a pro-#GG panel in the first place, when every other big-name con booted their arses out a year ago.
Makes me think they care less about civility, respectability and the “Big tent” and more about being Fair And Balanced™.
I saw this too: https://twitter.com/ashleylynch/status/658758037251952640/?
And the edit at the end of this article suggests that the GG panel might still be happening: http://motherboard.vice.com/read/sxsw-cancels-gaming-panels-due-to-threats-of-violence
The rabbit hole is deep and disgusting.
It’s funny how a “consumer revolt”, so-called, which was scared that people critiquing video games were “censoring” (sic) them despite having not even the barest proof of such censorship efforts existing…is now itself trying to shout down any discussion of how to cope with harassment online?
It’s not enough that GooberGrape has defamed gamers like me who just want to play games without being told we’ll accept harassment. Now strangers see gaming as even scarier than before and I’m scared to call myself a gamer around strangers because of the concerted efforts of GooberGrape to tar the name of gamers.
No, now you can’t discuss harassment online, or otherwise out comes the wrath of MRAGamerGate. Because how dare anyone who disagrees with this “consumer revolt” dare to speak in public?
sxsw’s decision has a chilling effect o the very free discourse GooberGrape claimed was what it was trying to protect. I guess it’s different when threats of violence get the same result a government should have in censorship, eh?
But actually it’s about…god it’s not even funny anymore.
I’m not sure I agree with your interpretation of their statement–I think it was directed at harassers who can’t express their opinions civilly and ruin things for everyone.
Most of the SXSW long-timers I know stopped attending years ago because it became too crowded and douche-y. Have never been myself, and this development is not nudging me in that direction.
I’m way too sore after aerials yesterday for proper thought, but am popping by to go AWWWW LOOK AT THE DOGGIES!!!
It’s sad that this fancy-schmancy conference can’t do better than this for women and other people who don’t like being harassed.
The dogs are great. I’m particularly struck by ‘Ol Blue Eyes at the end, who seems to be saying, “That’s my person over there. Impressive, huh?”
SXSW is not just a music festival anymore but a big film and tech festival too. It has a big draw for their tech conference and dozens of sessions. What’s it like? I think it’s fun, not really douche-y, and I’d love to afford to go again. Also, I got to see the amazing Catherine Keener speak after showing her film there and that makes it awesome forever for me.
Over on Salon.com, Mary Elizabeth Williams comes out against the sexual assault of men.
Will the cognitive dissonance of a woman — and a feminist — disapproving of men being sexually brutalized cause MRA heads to explode?
http://www.salon.com/2015/10/26/simulated_rape_with_a_bottle_isnt_a_drunken_jackass_prank_when_will_we_get_real_about_men_and_sexual_assault/#comments
Note that Williams isn’t just any old feminist. She’s the woman whom Paul Elam accused of killing MRA Earl Silverman.
http://www.avoiceformen.com/a-voice-for-men/mary-elizabeth-williams-killed-earl-silverman/
Film at 10.
This reminds me of a comic I saw (I can’t find it now) that addressed harrassment/groping at cons. It went something like
=========
Woman: Bob Smith harrassed and groped me last night.
Assorted chucklefucks: What is wrong with you? Why would you name names? Do you want to wreck Bob’s life? You’re probably lying anyway, Bob is a great person. You were probably asking for it!
==========
Woman: I was harassed and treated inappropriately last night, but I can’t/don’t want to name the person who did it.
Assorted chucklefucks: If you can’t name them, then I bet you’re just making it up! Trying to get some attention! Why else would you be afraid to come forward?!
============
Woman: [stays silent]
Assorted chucklefucks: Man it sure is great that people never ever act inappropriately during cons and we never have to address this issue!
Basically, we can’t win.
@Catalpa
In spite of never seeing that comic, I love whoever did it.
I think it might have been xkcd, but don’t quote me on that.
The request I made for “more dogs please” when David was asking for suggestions on how to make this blog better was 100% fulfilled with the image used with this article, but thanks to WWTH and Leda Atomica, it’s 100% x 8!
Today was a rough one, I needed these dog pics so very much. Thanks! 🙂
SXSW was already on its way to becoming broadly irrelevant, and this little bit of “on the matter of what can be discussed, we defer to the men threatening bombs and guns” seals the deal.