so morgandawn is way more succinct than i am

morgandawn has posted the following with the invitation to link and/or post, and I like invitations, linking, and posting. I love these things best when the subject is something I agree with without reservation:

The following statement can apply to almost any political or policy discussion

I personally don't think we need absolutists to be setting convention policy or dictating convention culture. There should be room for a little bit of both points of view and I believe we can create a public space that balances these multiple points of view. I am not angry at the convention organizers for soliciting feedback and then seeking to negotiate a compromise. What they need right now is support and encouragement to find that balance - because they're not getting much from the absolutists.

Feel free to copy and paste or link if you agree. -- morgandawn, link

The rest of this is just from me.

She's kinda smarter than most of fandom combined, I'll be honest. I went back to read everywhere I saw her post comments, support, compromise, and she's pretty goddamn subtle about it, but I'm not sure any of the discussions wouldn't be explosive without her input, as well as the input of several others who felt silenced and sometimes were silenced and who came back and brought their thoughts to the table again, and again, even when they felt no one was listening, even when sometimes maybe no one really was.

Compromise is created on the backs of those who can stand to be the enemies of both sides. They pretty much get screwed, let's not pretend they don't; they do it anyway, God knows why. They're considered traitors to both sides, they're erased from the rhetoric, their feelings and opinions are reviled or patronized or both. They are soundbited, their statements taken from context and used by both sides as proof of x, y, z. They're told to sit down, shut up, they're holding up progress. They're forced to disclose personal information to prove their right to have the conversation. And then they're ignored.

( compromise is not a dirty word )

so the history of warnings 101, i could go for this

Picking up a thought from about three different conversations:

I wonder if it would be worthwhile to have a panel on warnings, not just common triggers, but the historical perspective on them as vehicles of exclusion in fandom and how they've changed in meaning and reason for existence. A lot of perspective on them during the debates the last time and now is still shaped by when they were used against slash or against certain types of fic, vids, etc. And I didn't know until some discussion enlightened me on this that VVC was at least partially founded on a period of time when warnings themselves were used to exclude, not to facilitate inclusion.

Now, we use warnings to make things more inclusive to other fans, but there was a time they were a form of social control, and it could be institutionalized in ways that marginalized.

In all the debates, I really didn't know that as more than an abstract thing, and when I was in Smallville, there were still slash websites under password and some authors requiring direct contact via email for their fic because that was the only way they felt safe. I mean, I feel as if I should have guessed that one.

Anyone have more information on that? I get the impression this was also an issue before regular 'net access as well and that it might have come from cons originally, but a complete perspective would be interesting to know about and read. A lot of discussion during these two debates makes a lot more sense if the original purpose of warnings was to restrict access and exclude certain groups of fans entirely.

And when I say, "I wonder if it would be worthwhile", I mean, "Please yes one day let's do that?" Any con; just someone take good notes and post them so I can read about it.