The blasted Vision Statement (being part 4)

[zeborah]

Okay, try this one:

1) We will focus on discussing the process of writing speculative fiction (science-fiction, fantasy, and related genres).

2 a) We know that writers write in various genres, at various lengths, on various topics, in various orders, with various technologies, varyingly planned or unplanned, etc, according to their personal style and needs.
  b) We want to share what works for us, and we want other writers to feel free and safe to share what works for them.
  c) Therefore we will avoid implying either that any particular technique is obligatory, or that any particular technique is wrong - though there might be times when a particular technique is wrong for a particular author or for a particular story.

3 a) We know that society in general and speculative-fiction in specific contain many stereotypes and biases that are racist, sexist, homophobic, ablist, and/or intolerant of people in non-nuclear family structures, people of different religions or of no religion, and others.
  b) We don't want to unwittingly perpetuate such stereotypes and biases in our own fiction. We also don't want to unwittingly perpetuate them in real life and/or hurt a fellow human being.
  c) Therefore we want other members to feel free and safe to point out to us if we've said something that accidentally perpetuates stereotypes or biases or is otherwise hurtful; and we will take it as a favour and learn from it if they do.

4) Therefore, on-topic discussions will include but not be limited to:

  a) dragon biology, alien speech patterns, how horses differ from motorcycles, ways to show/confuse chronology in time travel stories, etc;
  b) outlines, punctuation, use of themes, infodumps, RSI, pen porn, etc;
  c) cultural appropriation, sexist language, homophobic tropes, depictions of religion, etc; and
  d) pun cascades, cats and chocolate, etc; because frivolity is the mortar that binds together a community.

5) The group will be moderated by a panel in order to keep it friendly and safe for all members.

If you're still not happy with it, it would be of great help to me if you could note precisely what you disagree with and/or offer alternative wordings.

But please note that I consider it very important to explicitly include:
a) the groups that have been implicitly sidelined by the sf community in general and rasfc in particular; and
b) the topics which were theoretically allowed on rasfc but which in practise more than one of us was afraid to talk about.

Comments

Rant, read at own peril.

[aquaeri.livejournal.com]

Zeborah: if this is inappropriate in your journal, feel free to delete. But I am angry on your behalf, and I think it's justified anger.

I try not to offend others and I try not to look in every nook and cranny for offence from others. (If it's there I'll notice it withour seeking it out.)

I'm offended by your continuing implication, despite both Z and I trying to explain it to you already, that we "look in every nook and cranny for offence". Exactly like you, if offense is there, I'll notice it without seeking it out. I'm just noticing different offensive things than you are, and the fact that you persist in believing that the things you think are offensive really are offensive and the things I think are offensive aren't really offensive; well, it's offensive by my standards. My instruction manual for dealing with the world does not come with a notice saying "when different subjective impressions of reality clash, consult birdsedge for the objective view of reality".

In other words the purpose of the group is not to discuss writing SF, it seems to be for marginalised people to discuss the writing of SF in a sheltered environment. Where has your inclusivity gone?

Whereas my feeling about rasfc is that it is not a group for discussing the writing of SF, but a place for patriarchial self-centred white middle class university-education heterosexual-yet-misogynist men with no social skills to discuss the writing of SF in a sheltered environment.

you are smacking the majority in the face by firstly assuming that they need telling how to behave (most of us do not)

I take that parenthical to refer (at least partly) to your assessment of yourself, and I strongly disagree based on the attitudes that come through very clearly to me in this comment, your other comments nearby, and the fact that as mentioned, you made an offensive judgement about Z and myself a while ago, we both corrected you, and you persist in making that offensive judgement.

You are repeatedly failing to respect Z's self-reports of her experience and I am very surprised she is as tolerant with you as she is. Me, I like to think that the adults I interact with deserve the label "adult" and should not have to be treated like little children, being repeatly, kindly, patiently told not to hit the other children, because it hurts them.

Re: Rant, read at own peril.

[zeborah]

I don't think it's inappropriate. I wrote a whole lot about why I think that, and about why I didn't respond to those bits myself in the first place, but then I couldn't tell whether it would be helpful to post so it's sitting in a text file instead along with all the other maybe-not-helpful things I've not-posted over the last week.

(Also, a belated thank you for the DW invite, which AYKB I've accepted, and will poke at from time to time.)

Re: Rant, read at own peril.

[birdsedge.livejournal.com]

You see... oh never mind. We're obviously never going to agree about this. I really don't know how to deal with this kind of rant because whatever I do or say I'm in the wrong as far as you're concerned. Well, hello, I'm a working class white woman and I'm guessing that I'm probably a generation older than Z. I'm trying to tell you my experience and you constantly deride it. Well I find that offensive. If Z wants to unfriend me or cut mew out of this discussion at your behest then that's fine. I'm out of here anyway and, like Nicky and Helen, feeling increasingly uncomfortable in this company - more so than I was ever made to feel by the 'patriarchial self-centred white middle class university-education heterosexual-yet-misogynist men with no social skills' in rasfc. I also find it offensive that you take posters to a whole newsgroup and tar them with the same brush as if every single one of the people (yes, they are human beings) is exactly the same in their beliefs and attitudes. If that's not looking for offence then what is?

I'm sorry to lose Zeborah's conversation about writing and SF because I value it tremendously, but some things come with too high a price and being bullied by being told my views have no validity isn't my idea of fun. I try and respect your views and you don't seem to be able to respect mine.

Re: Rant, read at own peril.

[zeborah]

If Z wants to unfriend me or cut mew out of this discussion at your behest then that's fine.

...What the fuck? <goes away, has a nice shower, calms down just enough to ask two questions>

a) Where did Aqua ask me to do that?
b) Do you really think I would do that?

The rest of your comment... but the thing is that I'm actually trying really hard here to retain your friendship despite all the hurt I feel at what you're saying, and am censoring myself tremendously as a result.

Re: Rant, read at own peril.

[zeborah]

I meant to add: though I'm bottling down on my fury, if Aqua wants to reply to the accusations you made, she has every right and is most welcome to do it here.

Re: Rant, read at own peril.

[aquaeri.livejournal.com]

Sorry, I gave up. I don't understand what I'm actually supposed to have said that leads her to believe either that I'm deriding her experience or that I'm trying to get you to stop being friends with her (see icon).

And since I feel I'm trying to respect her views but she doesn't respect mine, and apparently she feels exactly the same way, I have no clue how to proceed.