On VVC, criticism, and warnings

[laurashapiro]

Note: This post is addressed to friends of mine in the vidding community who have expressed anger and frustration that the current discussions around Vividcon's policies, accessibility, and trigger warnings are taking place.

Vidding is my fandom. For me, Vividcon is its nexus, the highlight of my year, my favorite place to be, where almost all of my very best friends are. It's where I see great vids and have great conversations, where I dance my ass off and have my mind blown. All of it is made possible by a fastidiously-organized concom and the vidders and vid fans who volunteer and participate. I love it.

Vidding is my fandom. Vividcon is my con. I am part of it. I feel responsible for it. That's why I'm making this statement.

The VVC concom asked people to offer concerns and suggestions about their Background and Policies document. The fact that many people have done so does not mean they are "bashing the con", just as giving critique in vid review does not make a person "mean". I have complete confidence that when the concom says "VividCon welcomes comments and feedback on the VividCon Background and Policies statement. We would like to express our gratitude to those who have taken the time to make a comment or write to us about their concerns" they mean exactly that. I respect the people on that concom, some of my best friends in fandom, and I know that they are sincere in wanting to hear criticism so they can learn and improve -- the same way many vidders who come to the con sincerely want criticism on our vids so we can learn and improve.

This is not about being "politically correct", a phrase that I have a lot of problems with. This is about trying to make Vividcon accessible and fun for everyone.

Regarding the trigger warnings debate specifically, I'm going to quote thuviaptarth here because she says just what I would have:

Last year's discussions about warnings in fanfiction changed my mind about warnings. I am firmly opposed to censorship. I don't have triggers myself. Generally I prefer to avoid vid warnings. I am almost certain that my position on my premiering vid will be "Choose not to warn." And I am in favor of implementing warnings for common PTSD and physical triggers, preferably as a separate list rather than included on the vid or in the vidshow itself.

...

The thing is, I am opposed to requiring warnings for "offensive content." That's something I consider a free expression issue. I am in favor of warnings for "triggers," which is more of a disability and accessibility issue. I don't feel that my artistic freedom of expression is best served by my incapicitating people with flashbacks or inducing a migraine.

Her entire post is worth reading.

A person who requests trigger warnings is not a crybaby. They are a survivor of trauma or a person with disabilities trying to protect themselves from serious harm. They are not asking other people to take responsibility for them. They are taking responsibility for themselves.

To return to the subject of the con itself: in order for to make Vividcon accessible and fun for everyone, some things will have to change. Change is upsetting, and it takes work. It's particularly hard for people who have loved VVC for years just the way it is. We feel protective of VVC and of the people who make it happen.

But I want to work for the change, because I believe that my pleasure is not worth more than other people's pain, and because as much as I love Vividcon, I believe that it's possible for it to be better. I want to be sure that everyone who is interested in coming to Vividcon can come, can feel welcome and safe there the way I do, can return home with the same cherished memories of fannish delight and deep thinkiness and social hilarity that I do. I want everyone to love it the way I do.

I want everyone to say, the way I do, "Is it August yet?"

ETA July 1, 2010 4:35 pm: I am reading every comment but I may not be able to reply to them all. At this time I am also not moderating comments, but will do so should it become necessary. I am working full-time, busy tonight, and going away for the weekend, where Internet access will be limited. But I am taking it all in. Please do continue to discuss among yourselves.

Comments

[bradcpu]

More and more, I feel like we're headed toward a schism in the con that will end in a second, splinter convention of some sort. Looking at the different attitudes and approaches and expectations, it seems increasingly unavoidable. The divide is already there.

[laurashapiro]

I hope you're wrong about a schism. I would encourage people to consider how to hold differences of opinion within the same space.

However, I don't actually think that having more vidding cons to choose from would be a bad thing. (:

[bradcpu]

However, I don't actually think that having more vidding cons to choose from would be a bad thing

I agree!

[milly]

The problem as I currently see it is that we're trying to make VVC something it is not and doesn't have to be. It's a vidding con and not the Single Most Acessible and PC Place on Earth(TM). The most sensible solution to many of the policy issues is that you make a general guideline that fits the most people, and then as the actual problems (and not hypothetical 'maybe someone will etc etc' problems) arise, try to find the best solution for them. Right now, we're actually trying to build a model around the exceptions and as important as it is for everyone to feel included, that's the equivalent of trying to build a house with a bunch of chopsticks instead of using the bigger chunks of woods and then trying to fit the chopsticks in. The chopsticks matter, they're important, but the needs of one individual shouldn't have more importance than the needs of many.

I personally have 'triggers'. Strong triggers. I have developped a coping mechanism that involves reading the con book, and mentally preparing myself for being challenged. Apparently, some people have chosen to interpret the policy as 'you can't put warning signs', which is never what it said. It said you don't *have* to. What if putting a warning sign actually makes the vid upsetting? One of my premiering vids would become vastly triggery and upsetting if it had a warning sign, so I chose not to put one. If the policy had forced me to, then I'd have a triggery vid, which I currently don't have.

We can't make any space acessible and perfect for all. We can only be open to helping it be more fun for people who have specific issues, and that is what the current policy is doing: it's open to warnings, but it doesn't enforce them. It's open to people notifying the concom about any issues they might have. It's a good policy and I never thought in a million years that people would create wank around it, but apparently I should know better about anything VVC related by now.

[vom_marlowe]

Thanks for letting me know I'm not welcome! I am now firmly in my place.

[milly]

Thanks for putting words I never said in my mouth. You've just confirmed that my opinion is not welcomed and I should just shut up. I'll consider this a valuable lesson for the rest of my life.

[vom_marlowe]

the needs of one individual shouldn't have more importance than the needs of many.

And: We can't make any space acessible and perfect for all.

And It's impossible to make everyone feel as welcomed as the next person. That's just how life works.

You're talking about me, the indvidual chopstick.

[milly]

I'm an individual chopstick too. Way to judge without knowing about me.

And I stand by the line we quoted. I don't know what kind of utopia you've been living in, please do get me plane tickets there, because in the real world, not everything can be perfect all the time and not everyone can be as welcomed as the next, it's the sad, unfortunate, harsh truth and we can only try to make people as comfortable as possible.

[klia]

Thank you. And ditto.

[dharma_slut]

I don't know what kind of utopia you've been living in,

Shame on you.

[milly]

And by chopsticks, I didn't mean that people with disability were chopsticks and the bigger chunk of wood were people without disabilities. I meant that individual= chopstick, group= big chunk. Which is obvious if you read the entire paragraph.

[amireal]

Wow. I don't read that as being unwelcome at all. I have a reasonable expectation that I will not always have my disability completely catered to. It's life. It sucks. But that doesn't mean I'm unwelcome, it means that there are limitations on everything. VVC is a small con with only so much time, space, ability and money. While some of the policy might have been worded badly, I don't think you could find many people with disabilities that haven't had a completely welcoming attitude from the concomm when addressing their concerns.

[milly]

Actually, I was gonna leave it at that, but please do enlighten me. Where did I say 'these people are no welcome'. Please, do quote me?

We can't make everyone feel equally as comfortable and make the con as accessible to everyone. It's unrealistic. It DOESN'T WORK. You can't please everyone, it's a fact. You can only be open about ATTEMPTING to please them, which is exactly my point. I'm not sure how you went from that to 'I am not welcome'.

I'm one of the person whom a warning policy would directly concern, because I have trauma, triggers and a physical condition directly related to vidwatching, especially on a big screen. It's nice to know that my opinion, because it doesn't fit with your own, is being dismissed as ignorant. Kind of ironic, actually.

[deepad]

the needs of one individual shouldn't have more importance than the needs of many

For my own clarification, could you please explain which needs of the many (or perhaps just you in particular) are being compromised or not met by the provisions being discussed that meet some of the needs of some of the disabled and trigger-able individuals?

[milly]

Yes, because when I talk to 'needs of the many', I absolutely mean myself. Why yes, that is exactly what I said. Are you *serious*?

There have been people talking about displacing all men from the men common bathroom in the hotel to accomodate one or two people. That is not common sense and that is the kind of comments I was referring to. In no way was I saying that accomodating people with disabilities as best as possible is in anyway unreasonable - quite the opposite. Speaking of which I'm sure the people with disabilities who do attend the con would love to offer their opinion on it and what their actual needs are, not some hypothetical person, if they weren't being ignored or dismissed at every turn.


Don't try to read my comment to be what it's not, and don't try to shame me, because you're fighting a lost battle there. *I* am a person with triggers, PTSD and an actual physical condition that affects my vid viewing experience and causes strong nausea and migraines. Apparently, I have to show my victim card for my opinion to be taken seriously - if it differs from the rest, I must absolutely be a priveledge, pristine, unaffected person, right? Wow. You're being judgmental while not knowing the slightest thing about me and that's incredibly offensive.

[jonquil]

"There have been people talking about displacing all men from the men common bathroom in the hotel to accomodate one or two people."

The only place I saw anything like that suggested was in an original Concom policy. The concom policy suggested that at some times the two available bathrooms might be labeled "Women" and "Everyone".

Are the Concom part of the extreme faction you're objecting to?

[milly]

You might have seen it only there, but I've seen it mentionned in many other places through chats and convos. The concom takes the suggestions people offer them, it's their responsability to share it with the rest and test the water. Also, 'everyone' =/= no men, so we're obviously talking about two different things.

[deepad]

If I understand what you wrote correctly here and in your reply to jonquil below, you are saying that the decision to label the 'men's' bathroom 'everyone' in order to meet the needs of the one or two genderqueer people whom you think it would serve, would displace and therefore thwart the needs of the several self-identified males who attend vividcon.

I accept this example as a case where there are perhaps conflicting and mutually exclusive needs, and one where the concom would need to be careful in arbitrating a decision.

As for the rest of your comment, it contains a level of hostility that disinclines me from further engagement with you.

[milly]

Just as well, I feel similarly about your own comments, and I'm really out of spoons now.

[fan_eunice]

And what I am reading here is that when a disabled person is angry and hurt and frustrated in the way they express their criticism of Vividcon and expresses that anger and hurt forcefully, that their hurt should be taken seriously and their concerns addressed. (I agree)

But

When a disabled person is angry and hurt and frustrated because they feel their voice isn't being heard, that the reality of their life and concerns are being dismissed and unwelcome in the discussion, and expresses that forcefully they should...be told to watch their tone?

This, this is why despite actually being a disabled Vividcon attendee who is *directly affected* by what is happening here I have essentially disengaged from the whole thing. Because what I'm seeing is a whole lot of people claiming to speak for me, who don't seem to have the slightest interest in listening to me.

I do feel erased in this conversation. Just not by Vividcon. And that's...you know what, I still don't have the energy to have this conversation. Take this comment as you will, do with it as you will. I don't actually have any faith it will make any difference anyway.

[laurashapiro]

I appreciate your point of view, and I'm glad you've found a strategy for dealing with your triggers that works for you. But I think it's pretty clear that what works for you will not necessarily work for other people with triggers -- as some have said.

You and lim are right that making the con accessible to everyone isn't feasible. But I think it is possible to make it more accessible to more people without harming anyone, and that's what I'd like to see happen.

[klia]

I would encourage people to consider how to hold differences of opinion within the same space.

That would be nice. But what I've seen and experienced is that opinions differing from the predominant ones being expressed are not only not respected, they're unwelcome, and often met with anger and hostility.

[milly]

Exactly. Thank you.

[laurashapiro]

There's altogether too much hostility on every side, as far as I'm concerned. But I have faith that there can still be good outcomes.

Channeling My Inner Emma Goldman

[morgandawn]

I agree. Last year may have been a tipping point. No idea if the shift is one that will keep building or will find a more balanced state...but I keep watching everyone's feet...and they're not dancing.