If you’ve ready any of the recent discussions on Google+, forums and elsewhere regarding harrassment at conventions, you will notice things have turned very toxic. It’a a bit like those discussion on the ethics of filesharing, in which positions have become so entrenced that nobody is interested in dialogue leading to mutual enlightenment, but in shouting down anyone that disagrees with them. You only have to look at the hostile reactions to this blog by Sarah Pinborough to see how things have spiralled.
Here’s my take on why the debate about harassment policies at gaming conventions has turned so toxic.
(1) Having a policy covering things like stalking and groping is a good thing provided it’s not too clumsily or vaguely-worded or gives a false impression that such harassment is more widespread than it is.
(2) Censorship of the actual content of games sold, displayed or played at the convention under the guise of a harassment policy is not a good thing.
(3) A lot of sensible and reasonable people are supporting John Scalzi’s initiative to make having a policy regarding (1) the expected standard for anyone running a convention.
(4) There is a small but very loud minority advocating (2), and they’re using misrepresentations, lies, ad-hominems and conclusions drawn more from dogma than evidence to justify this.
(5) The behaviour of (4) has created a backlash again harassment policies of any kind.
(6) In any internet debate it’s always the loudest and shrillest voices that get the most attention.
Does this make sense?