On How Being in the Majority Exacerbates Bias

[rowyn]

It is 1:20AM, and I have insomnia induced by a sore throat and exacerbated by all the tea I drank in an effort to soothe my sore throat. So I am going to write about something that's been on my mind.

This is inspired by the current kerfluffle over the Hugo award's current short-list nominees, described in this post by John Scalzi, and in particular by haikujaguar 's commentary on the Hugos. But millions of more words have been written about this! Google will give you all of them if you like. And now I will add to the heap, because I have something to say that I haven't yet seen elsewhere.

Part of the stated reason why the slate nominations happened was that a significant number of conservatives and libertarians felt that a vocal segment of fandom was unfairly biased against their work because of their personal political ideology.

Some of the frequent responses to this contention have been "There is no liberal conspiracy in fandom" and "I don't see any discrimination against conservative writers in fandom". This is the part I want to talk about.

Political demographics are difficult to generalize; people often overlap in some areas but not others. I have friends who vote Democrat at the same time that they believe feminism is wrong because it represents reverse discrimination. Labels like "Democrat", "liberal", and "Social Justice Warrior[/Cleric/Wizard/Thief]"* have some overlap but they are by no means identical. For myself, I'm a libertarian who votes for Republicans more often than Democrats, and I believe strongly in social justice. Individuals defy easy categorization.

With this caveat in mind, my perception of SF&F fandom has always been that the majority of it -- say, 70-90% -- has a generally liberal bent. This was my perception when I was a proudly liberal teenager, it was my perception as a 30-something convicted libertarian, and it's my perception now as a muddled 40-something libertarianish whatever. My politics changed from ones which were mostly in line with the majority to ones which were frequently at odds with them.

By liberal, I mean things like the following:

• pro-gay marriage
• pro-choice
• favors universal health care
• tendency to dislike Republicans more the Democrats (many fen, like much of the US, are not enamored of either party)
• favors regulation of big business
• favors environmental protection
• favors government assistance programs for the disadvantaged
• opposes tax subsidies for big business

Etc. There's a lot of variation in the specifics, obviously. But when broad principles are in agreement, variation in details can be construed as 'friendly': the people who support Obamacare do not generally accuse the ones who want a single-payer system of malice or stupidity.

I don't know if my assertion that fandom tends liberal is a controversial proposition. If your experience is otherwise, I'd love to hear it!

Also, I want to note that I am talking about the politics held by the people in fandom, which is not the same as the politics espoused by sf&f books. Most authors do not write books to push a particular ideological slate, and if they do, those books mostly flop. Because even members of the choir find preaching kinda dull. One might find hints of an author's politics in their fiction, but if they write about politics in their blog at all, it's much less subtle there.

Anyway, for the sake of demonstrating my point, I am going to grossly oversimplify politics and assume that fandom is 80% liberal and 20% conservative.

Let us further stipulate that liberals are exactly as likely to hold negative stereotypes of conservatives as conservatives are to do so of liberals. That's been my personal experience, as someone who has more-or-less been on both sides. Also, conservatives and liberals both perceive "the other side" as being more intolerant of political diversity than their side. We are all human, we all notice slights made against us more than those directed at others, and humans are all inclined by nature to think at least a little worse of people who disagree with us on important topics.

Furthermore: let's assume that most conservatives and most liberals are of good will, and only a minority of either group believes those in the opposite group are stupid/ignorant/evil. We'll say that just 10% of either group will badmouth the other.

Last, let us stipulate that people who are among those of like mind will speak more freely. That is, in a group of mostly conservatives, the 10% who will badmouth liberals are more likely to speak up than if they were in a group of mostly liberals, and vice versa. Let's say that 50% of the time they'll make a derogatory comment if they're in the majority, and only 20% of the time if they're not.

To sum up my assumptions:

• SF&F fandom is split 80/20 liberal/conservative
• The typical liberal and the typical conservative are both tolerant of political differences
• But a small fraction -- 10% of liberals and conservatives -- will make derogatory remarks about the other side
• That 10% will make derogatory remarks 50% of the time when in a group of mostly their own side, and 20% of the time otherwise

Note: I picked specific percentages because I am going to make a mathematical point and if I use variables instead, this will take forever and be even less comprehensible. The exact numbers aren't important as long as I am right about the direction of the trend.

I actually saw an analysis very similar to this one within the last month or so, but on women in tech rather than on politics in sf&f. I have been searching in vain for if for the last few days, so I am replicating it (badly) instead.

Now, let's take a population of 100 sf&f fans at a con, and break them out into, let's say, 16 different groups of random size, in 15 chunks. The 16 represents different panels/social events/mingling in dealer room/etc. that are all going on at the same time, and the 15 chunks are different blocks of time during which another set of events will happen.

We have 72 liberals, and 18 conservatives. These individuals never say anything bad about conservatives or liberals. Then there's the 10% who may badmouth the other side, designated with an x: 8 liberals and 2 conservatives.

Sample spreadsheet showing how many derogatory comments about their politics the conservatives hear, and how many the liberals hear, over the course of a given convention.

Don't like my numbers? This has all the formulas used to calculate them. I'm not using this one as my example because the random numbers regenerate every time anything's edited on it, and it's laggy because there're so many interdependent formulas. But if you want to check my work, or if you want to copy it and crunch numbers based on different assumptions, be my guest.**

In my sample: at the end of the con, the average conservative has heard his ideology disparaged almost 4 times. The average liberal: 1 time. The conservatives are hearing four times as much politically-related abuse as the liberals.

I want to reiterate a few of the assumptions behind this analysis:

• THERE IS NO LIBERAL CONSPIRACY.
• 90% OF LIBERALS NEVER BASH CONSERVATIVES.
• UNDER GIVEN CIRCUMSTANCES, LIBERALS ARE NO MORE LIKELY TO BASH THAN CONSERVATIVES.

And despite this:

THE CONSERVATIVES HEAR A LOT MORE BASHING ANYWAY.

When conservatives say "I feel like the sf&f fandom is hostile to me", you can believe them even though you do not think that liberals are bad people. You don't have to believe that there is a liberal conspiracy. You don't have to believe that conservatives are being singled out for abuse. You don't have to believe that you, personally, are the one doing the bashing.

All you have to accept is:

• Liberals are in the majority in fandom
• Liberals, like conservatives, are human beings and some of them -- a small FRACTION of them! -- will speak ill of their ideological opponents.

Yes, I crunched a bunch of numbers based on gross oversimplifications and wild guess assumptions. But the trend shown will hold, whether more pronounced or less so, as long as those two things are true. That's all that it takes to have a disparate impact on a minority group.

Human beings, by their nature, are inclined to bond with those perceived as similar, and to dislike those perceived as different. There's a study showing that babies will root against a puppet because the puppet doesn't like the baby's preferred food. Seriously. BABIES. Over FOOD preference. That's how deep this rabbit hole goes.

But that doesn't mean this struggle is hopeless and we'll always be victims of our human tendency to discriminate. After all, very few adults will wish someone ill because they like bacon better than chocolate, or vice versa. My country, America, has been on a long slow path towards eliminating prejudice based on a number of grounds. And it's slow, and painful, and some days it feels like we haven't gotten anywhere. But we have; however bad discrimination against people of color may be today, it's nothing like it was a century ago. In my lifetime I have seen "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" be incorporated because it was an improvement over the way homosexuals had been treated in the US military, and seen it overturned 17 years later because it was still discriminatory and we could do better.

So if you don't like the idea of people being made to feel unwelcome because of their ideology, then here's my advice:

Listen to what the people who share your ideology say. Imagine how you'd feel if someone described your positions the way you hear theirs described. If you hear someone mocking other points of view, or insulting them, or treating them as stupid/evil/ignorant: speak up. Say that you think it's unfair, or unkind, or whatever is appropriate to the situation. Maybe you won't be able to make the original speaker re-think their words, but you will let anyone listening who felt marginalized by the statement know that they aren't alone.

This is especially important when "your side" is the majority voice, but even if you're a minority within a given context, showing some empathy for the other side seldom go amiss.

---

For the curious: I mostly finished this at 5AM, and decided to try to sleeping before posting so I could proofread it. I managed to sleep for perhaps 40 minutes. Insomnia, I have SO MUCH BIAS against you right now. GRRRR.

Anyway, apologies for being long-winded and incoherent. I blame sleep dep, sore throat, fever, and nausea. Corporeal form, you are letting me down today.

---

* I know SJW started life as a slur, but as a Social Justice Cleric, I rather like the label. Plenty of self-identified liberals and Democrats are not deeply concerned with social justice, and it's handy to have a way to differentiate. Also, it sounds great. Adventuring Party on an epic quest for Social Justice! Anyway, I consider myself to be One of These, so if you are offended by it, please understand I do not mean it in a disrespectful way.

** Please bear in mind that I made this spreadsheet at 3:30 in the morning while sick and unable to sleep. If anyone does dig into it and discovers I munged some formulas, please let me know! I will be grateful. Any mistakes are due to sickness and/or sleep deprivation and not because I was intentionally fudging to make my point.

EDIT: ckd found the link to the Ian Gent's blog post about sexism in tech, which is what inspired my post, and which has the original model illustrating "the Petrie Multiplier". Thank you, CKD!

Comments

[elbren]

very nice. I'm here via @mcahogarth's pointer, and have added you as a friend so I can see more of what you write.

[rowyn]

Pleased to meet you! I'm glad you liked the post. :)

[greylistening.livejournal.com]

VERY well written! Thank you.

[rowyn]

You're welcome! I'm so glad it's not fever-addled and incomprehensible, which is pretty much how I feel right now. o_@

[alinsa.livejournal.com]

You should totally... get sick more often? Hmmm. Okay, that would not be ideal, but this is an awesome post! It captures what I kind of intuitively felt, but with like... numbers! Even if the numbers are off by a good bit, you present a conclusion that's awfully hard to argue with.

[rowyn]

I'm gonna vote against getting sick more often. x_x

But I'm glad you like the post. :)

[redmorlock.livejournal.com]

Well said.

And I'd like to stress that many of us who criticize SJWs are great admirers of social justice workers. In the broadest sense of the phrase, "social justice" is a goal for anyone who isn't completely self-obsessed. The important part of SJW is "warrior"—it's the belief that all's fair in war which make SJWs hated, feared, despised, and pitied by people on the left and right.

[rowyn]

Thank you!

In the broadest sense of the phrase, "social justice" is a goal for anyone who isn't completely self-obsessed.

It's good to hear this. I agree that 'war' is a bad metaphor for striving for an equal and just world, even if I don't feel that SJWs deserve the venom directed at them from some quarters. But yeah, declaring "war" on concepts (like the "War on Poverty" and "War on Drugs") has a pretty terrible track record. :/

Also, off-topic:

*fangirlish squee of delight* (eeee Will Shetterly liked my post!) Hiiiii I love your books! *^_^*

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Thank you; this is an excellent resource. Now I understand that complaint *much* better; I appreciate your help.

[rowyn]

You're welcome! I'm glad it was useful. :)

[arielstarshadow.livejournal.com]

A question I don't honestly know the answer to (and with my life right now, don't have the time to research) is whether the hostility is purely due to their political ideology, or whether it's actually due to something else entirely - meaning that at least some of the authors involved in this mess have made very racist, sexist and homophobic/LGBT-unfriendly statements in the past.

In other words: is it really about their politics, or is it about them being unsavory human beings who spew vitriol against women, people of color, LGBT, etc?

I don't have the answer to that. But I've seen some of the horrible stuff these authors have said, and I can safely say for my part that my dislike of them has nothing to do with their politics and everything to do with the hateful stuff that comes out of their mouths and from their keyboards. I see a very marked difference between MCA Hogarth (which is how I came to this post and whom I have nothing but respect and love for) and, for example, Vox Day, who called NK Jemison a "half-savage": http://wehuntedthemammoth.com/2015/04/13/vox-day-says-his-totally-not-racist-comments-have-been-taken-out-of-context-in-context-theyre-even-worse/

[rowyn]

Speaking for myself, I've heard plenty of abuse directed at conservatives-as-a-concept: not specifically "We hate YOU because you're a libertarian", but remarks on the order of "Libertarians are such jerks", with no thought given to the possibility that someone listening might be a libertarian.

One person I knew remarked in a blog post that Republicans who say "I have friends who are gay" must mean "they know gay people who are idiots." Well, I am pansexual and I am friends with Republicans, so this person was essentially telling me that I was an idiot. I doubt he saw it that way; I doubt the implications of his statement ever crossed his mind.

The trend I'm talking about in this post isn't about why a specific individual might attract negative attention. It's about how whenever you have two groups of unequal size that have a degree of animosity between them, the smaller group will inevitably suffer more from that animosity. It's not about whether the bigger group is meaner or the smaller group deserves it: it's just the way the math works.

[cairtirnin.livejournal.com]

I know I have a tendency to recoil, at first, when I hear someone is a Republican. This is undoubtly because where I come from Republican is an excuse to be a bigot and an asshole. I've had to ban almost every single member of my family from my facebook because of absolute filth they post under the guise of Republican pride. Then you go on the internet and everything is dominated my the vocal minority of both sides. It fosters fear. When someone says, "I am a Republican" or "I am a Democrat," you don't really know what that means, but your mind has a clear picture of what the worst case senario is.

Inevitably the people that are best examples of their ideology are the ones that remain silent because they don't want to be abused for their beliefs. I wish more of them would speak up. I want to hear about political ideas from people who aren't raving lunatics. From both sides. I lean left, but it's mostly for social reasons. I register no party, because both scare me.

[rowyn]

The American distrust for our political parties is depressing, really. Someone on Twitter mentioned that presidential politics boils down to "Our candidate is iffy at best, but their candidate will bring about the apocalypse!" And I can't help wishing it was "Their candidate is all right, but ours ROCKS!"

I don't know. I try not to flinch at the labels; I know plenty of great people who vote Republican and equally great people who vote Democrat. And people on both sides who act like total jerks when it comes to politics. Debate doesn't bring out the best in most humans. :/

I'm sorry to hear about your family being so awful on Facebook. I can't imagine what that's like. My family is far more liberal than I am (mostly in the sense of "they believe that government is a good way to solve a lot more problems than I do"), but we manage to be civil to each other.

[tuftears.livejournal.com]

Hope you feel better soon! -_-

[rowyn]

Me too. Oif. -_-

[terrycloth.livejournal.com]

Part of this is that people don't want to offend the other side, but it's frustrating to constantly hold back your opinions because you're worried someone might get offended, when at the same time you're being constantly bombarded by insults and lies in the popular media.

So you go to a convention that 'everyone knows' is for liberals, and you think it's safe to speak your mind there, for the FIRST TIME EVER. This is why people go to conventions -- to meet up with like-minded people and speak without embarrassment.

But no! A few conservatives snuck in to be offended and now they're whining, and trying to steal *this* space as a place to pretend to be the victim too. And it's 'pretend' because their victimhood is 'I heard someone say something I don't like' as opposed to 'the law is against me and people are going to beat me up'.

It reminds me of one of Micah's victim posts where she talked about going into a game shop and described various awkward attempts to make her feel welcome as *attacks*. And then she was offended. And then everyone was uncomfortable with her because she was offended. She *completely ruined* the night for a dozen people, but she was the victim.

[rowyn]

*vaguely remembers the Micah post in question and looks it up* Uhhhhh ... wow you read a lot into that post that I can't see. O_O

Anyway, it sounds like you're happy that conservatives feel unwelcome in fandom and want it that way so they'll stop invading your space, so I guess the status quo is working out for you. I mean, except for the part where they don't always accept that they're not wanted and stay away, and instead complain about it.

[houseboatonstyx.livejournal.com]

(I'm on the Far Left in real politics, but tend toward Quixoticism online. ;-)

Thanks for a very thoughtful post (in both senses), and for confirming that fandom has a considerable majority of liberals; I thought maybe it was just my own Flist, since I'm not interested in MilSf.

As for "no liberal conspiracy" -- who said there was one? The attitude/s the Pups are complaining about don't need a conspiracy, they're very open.

[rowyn]

I've heard a few different people respond to the Puppies with "but there is no liberal conspiracy!" For example, pne of George R. R. Martin's posts on the Hugo nomination process twice says 'there is no secret conspiracy', for instance, and implies that the absence of a conspiracy means there can be no bias in the nominations.* If you look at the comments on that post, there are more people who use the word "conspiracy" by way of dismissing the complaints of bias.

As you say, I don't think the Puppies themselves claim there's a conspiracy against them.

There is, I believe, a human tendency to exaggerate when something makes us feel defensive. So when the Puppies say "fandom is often hostile to conservatives", some of the people who want to refute that assertion do so by exaggerating the claim. They're making a straw man they can rip apart more easily.

I don't feel qualified to talk about bias in the Hugo nominations specifically, but I did want to do this post as a way of showing that negative bias can have an impact even in the absence of conspiracy and, in fact, in the absence of bad behavior by the vast majority of participants. :/

[calcifermagnet.livejournal.com]

In 2014 in the US, according to a Gallup Poll, the population breaks down to:
-Liberals - 24%.
-Conservatives - 38%
-Moderates - 34%

I can't imagine that 80% of Sci-fi/Fantasy writers/readers identify as liberal, when it's so hugely skewed from the general population. Sure, perhaps higher than 24%. But 80%? I think the reason conservative Sci-fi/Fantasy authors sell so many books isn't because they exclude their values from their books, it's because they don't have to hide them.

I also think these are all mainstream American* beliefs:
-Women should have equal rights to men
-Racism (defined as personal hatred of others based on the race) is intolerable
-Homosexuals should be equal to Heterosexuals (10 years ago this was a fringe belief)

In mainstream America, people honestly believe that racism and sexism are mostly "over" and are a relic of the past. They judge racism and sexism as "motivation based". If someone says something that contributes to a system where certain races are valued less, it isn't seen as "racist" unless the person making the statement had hatred in their heart and did it on purpose to hurt someone. That's where the "but my friend is X!" argument comes in. "See, I am not motivated by hate!" But even if someone isn't motivated by hate, they can unknowingly perpetuate inequality simply by not being aware of it, because that is a part of the social system they were raised in.

Take the Lego Movie as an example. Endearing kids movie. Main male character meets main female character for the first time. She's tresspassing. He's going to call the authorities... but he's so struck at her beauty he doesn't do anything and she get's away with it. Later when he's talking to her, he is so struck by her beauty that he ignores her and starts fantasizing about her. Doesn't that convey a message about the value of women being in their beauty? I've talked about this with my friends and none of them really noticed it - because it's so ingrained in our culture that it's normal. And bringing it up is "just ruining the fun". I personally think you can like something while accepting it's flaws.

There is a very small vocal minority who don't agree with those three things. But the truth is they aren't representative of mainstream America.

Honestly - If I see someone in a comment on an article post "conservatives are...!" or "liberals are ...!" or "progressives are ...!" or "insert buzzword are ...!" I immediately discount anything they say, as it's a strong signal that the person is there to fling insults and isn't interested in hearing other viewpoints or having a discussion. They just want to vent. And that venting is usually full of vitriol.

*I know this is a US-centric term that doesn't make sense to the world because America is a continent, not a country. But that's how we self-identify.

[terrycloth.livejournal.com]

Is that last part actually true? We had an exchange program with the USSR when I was in high school, and their word for us was 'Amerikanski'.

[terrana.livejournal.com]

I liked this post. It's always good to examine one's assumptions.

[rowyn]

I made a lot of them! But at least I was explicit about them. :)

[medicmsh.livejournal.com]

Rowyn, your original post is thought-provoking, unto itself, and what further impresses me are your thoughtful and courteous responses to the wide range of comments. Thank you for the analysis, insight, & commitment to making this a space for conversation rather than shouting. (Would Visit Again!)

[rowyn]

You're welcome! And thank you. It's easy to be courteous when so many of the respondents are supportive. I suspect starting off by saying 'I'm assuming almost everyone is well-intentioned and kind' makes people feel less like they're being personally attacked. :)

[dsmoen.livejournal.com]

Will Shetterly pointed me at your piece, and I think it's remarkable.

One of the things I've been thinking (and just said on my blog) about this whole thing: if you step back from tactics and step back from rhetoric, what the puppy slate voters are saying, emphatically, is that they don't feel welcome at science fiction's big table.

Some of that is a solvable problem. And some of it is not. But I think there should be more real dialogue.

[rowyn]

Thank you! Yes, this is how I feel about it too.

A tweet to the numbers

[(Anonymous)]

Firstly, thanks for doing this. Having the concrete numbers helps point out that people mean what they say when they say "Fandom sucks a bit when you're conservative."

(It's still Fandom. It's still greatness - for most people.)
(I also note that while some people will deliberately be more rude if they know a conservative is listening, *most* people are decent and will try to avoid being rude. This doesn't help the unconcious attitudes, but most people aren't trying to be awful.)

Secondly - when I ran the averages for column DE, I found an average of 0.2309 comments per liberal (and 3.95 per conservative.) To put it another way, 2/3 of the liberals heard NO comments against their side, while ALL of the conservatives heard multiple ones. (And unhappily, I think that makes it even worse.)

Again, thanks.

- k ;)

This is an equitable analysis with math to back it up.

[jorrocks-j.livejournal.com]

Excuse me but I'm going to have to ask you to leave the Internet. We have standards to keep down, you know.

No, seriously: to such good sense there's nothing I can add except my own barstool opinions, which are three:

1) If the nominations and voting are this easy to game, it's time to change them.

While they worked well enough in the days of phones and mail, and even UseNet and mailing lists, they're too vulnerable to social hacking in the era of social media. I know, I know, replacing legacy systems is a bitch but it's time to stop partying like it's 1999.

2) The current strife is due to the tyranny of small differences, because a Libertarian is just a hippie who got kicked out of the commune when he wouldn't share his stash.

Both sides have their ideological genesis in the intellectual foment of the 1960's, which foment produced the small beer of political correctness and its reactionary lees. And both sides, having reached the high-water marks of their lives in their 20's, can't stop re-fighting the battles of that age as if they were still relevant--just like the Balkans can't stop fighting over the Massacre of Slbszsd or whatever despite the fact that the rest of the world Does. Not. Give. A. Fuck.

But that really doesn't matter because...

3) These people will all be dead soon.

I don't mean figuratively, I mean literally. But I don't mean by violence: I mean that for whatever reason, nerds don't make old bones.

Last year I went to a filk convention whose attendees were all about my age, plus or minus ten years. Boomers, basically. The demographic that's currently engaged in this and similar Leno-vs-CoCo slapfights. And most of them were more decrepit than my parents who are both eighty and survivors of multiple serious illnesses (ovarian cancer, Guillain-Barré Syndrome, etcetera, ad nauseum). You've probably seen the like at the conventions you've been to, at least the conventions that emphasize old-school long-form dead-tree F&SF (as opposed to media or gaming or anime).

Now ask yourself: how many of these people will still be alive in five years, let alone ten?

Yes, the hands of the twin sisters Dolly Madison and Night incessantly wash, and wash again, this soil'd earth. The generation currently nerdfighting it out over the Hugos will give way soon enough to a generation that doesn't care about their fight because they weren't born when it started.

So ring in the thousand years of peace? No, see, because that generation will have its own idiot bullshit to fight over. But at least it'll be a chance for the shoe to rub in another spot. Keep watching your cholesterol and you may live to see the day.

But, yeah, for now...for now it's like ISIS fighting Al Qaeda, and I don't know who to root for except maybe Death.

THANK YOU, BUT I'M NOT REALLY A PLAYER.

What?

I'M MORE OF A REFEREE.

Who said that?...

RE: This is an equitable analysis with math to back it up.

[rowyn]

*giggles*

Actually, it depends on the segment of fandom. You're right about the WorldCon crowd aging (and I think this is true of many if not all of fan-run cons). But fans of sf&f as a whole skew much younger, as shown by the tens of thousands of people that show up at ComicCons and other big media cons like DragonCon.

.. and y'know, I don't know what the political atmosphere is like at cons like those. They may be so large that people don't feel comfortable getting political. The relatively small size of the book-oriented fan-run cons makes it easier for people to get to know each other well, and that probably contributes to the cliquishness. But I don't know.

[gnibbles.livejournal.com]

This is the same math as for microaggression in the workplace as experienced by women in men-dominated fields. Thanks for the write-up.

[rowyn]

Yep! I mentioned that was where I got the idea from in the post, but I wasn't able to locate the original article regarding women in tech. Do you have a link, by chance?

[roseneko.livejournal.com]

Came here via haikujaguar, and although I don't have a lot to add, I wanted to thank you. My politics are complex and difficult to articulate with brevity, which has made me immediately distrustful of anyone who uses broad generalizations, especially in the perjorative. Not that I haven't done it myself! It's frustrating, how integral to human nature such pigeonholing appears to be, even when we know it's counterproductive. But that's made me excellent at questioning people who make such assertions - I simply ask them the same things I ask myself when I find myself thinking that way. "What is it about {group} that you dislike so much?" "Did you know that some members of {group} think differently?" "Have you given real thought to the full range of {group}'s motivations? Is it possible to understand why they feel this way? What fundamental values do you hold in common?" Et cetera.

Yeah, I'm real popular at parties. :)

In any case. You've done an excellent job articulating why, on a macro level, group-based thinking can so rapidly become so toxic. I suspect I will link to this post in the future.

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

This makes sense to me. What I'm getting is that it only takes a very small number of jerks to make a place hostile.

I'd add another factor, which might make things exponentially worse. Imagine that, after getting a negative comment, you turn to the next person you see and say, "Did you hear what that person just said to me?"

You will get one of four responses: a jerk-like response which confirms the original negative comment, a jerk-like response which supports you, a pleasant-person response which deplores the form in which the message took but confirms the message, or a pleasant-person response which deplores the form and opposes the message.

If you are conservative, you are four times as likely to get a message which confirms the original hostile message than a liberal is. Even if the confirmation is of the form "Oh, they shouldn't have said that to you IN THAT PARTICULAR WAY (but the general message is okay)" that acts as a confirmation of the hostility.

If the next person you talk to, though, opposes the general message, whether or not they do so in a pleasant-person or a jerk-like way, it acts to mitigate the hostility.

So, yeah. You'd have to run the numbers again, but I bet that this actually has an exponential effect.

[nancylebov.livejournal.com]

I've been noticing that people wildly underestimate the effect on the other side of insults produced their own side.

The insults produced by your own side are easy to see as some combination of true and fun.

I came her via a comment by

[wendy delmater thies (from livejournal.com)]

I came her via a comment by Richard A. Lovett on Facebook. All I can say is...sounds about right.

Good work.

Thank you.

[(Anonymous)]

Thank you for your thoughts. It is a challenge to listen to people we disagree with. It can be fun (or soothing) to disparage those who disagree with us. We often don't notice when the people we agree with are making unkind remarks about people we disagree with (whereas the subjects of the unkind remarks notice it very much).

It can also be a challenge to have honest, open debates with people without touching on sensitive issues. I value the people in my life more than I value winning any one argument. It is best to let people make their points, make certain you understand their point, then respond. It helps if you note when you agree with them and note when they have made good points. A response I frequently use goes something like, "That is a good point, but what do you think about X, Y, and Z?" If done in good faith this keeps matters civil.

Sadly, in the Hugos matter, there are a lot of people who are talking past each other. They assume the worst of the people on the other side. And, there is more than a little "I want to win the argument and I want to make the people who disagree with me feel bad."

[browngirl.livejournal.com]

I came across your post while looking for links to embellish my summary of the Hugos debacle for a non-fandom friend. This is a very interesting analysis. I like what you've done with the numbers, and how the principle you've delineated could apply to any two groups of unequal size in a given situation.

That said, I am unconvinced that loss of privilege necessarily equals oppression. For example, when envisioning a derogatory comment a conservative might feel 'bashed' by, I thought of the following example incident:

Person A, a trans woman, finishing relating a story about how a transphobic person disagreed with her gender presentation to the point of physically attacking her, and how though she escaped she was terrified, says, "So I have a hard time trusting cis people."

Person B, politically conservative, on overhearing, turns to Person C and says, "That's so unfair! Besides, of course that poor man was upset after being tricked."

Person C simply blinks and does not respond affirmatively. Person B leaves and later reports how 'uncomfortable' they were made to feel at the convention. And the thing is, Person B really did feel uncomfortable. I can't agree, though, that Person A should not have told her story or was required to end it with "Of course I know most cis people would never do that, etc, etc etc"

More broadly... many times I've been told I'm some variant of horribly cruel and/or unspeakably rude for criticizing something (in plain non-profane language, as here) that tends to be approved of by conservatives. For example, I've said that I think Christian activities are not necessarily suitable for children, drawing on my belief that the Christianity I was raised in did me more harm than good. Also, I've often seen actual slurs towards marginalized groups dismissed as harmless, jokes, and so on. So I find myself wondering what precisely counts as "bashing" and "insults" towards conservatives. If hearing from someone that they find ethical faults in their Christian upbringing is a slur against Christianity, what else can that person have done make Christians comfortable besides never saying a word of criticism of the faith? And so on for any category or dichotomy one could choose: I picked these two examples to help describe a more widely applicable concept.

Often at conventions people have the space to talk about things they can't elsewhere. In a country where, for example, at least two states are about to pass anti-transgender "bathroom laws", I think people can use spaces to talk about being in the minority in the wider society, even if they are in the majority or at least more supported within fandom. People who are in the majority and/or positions of privilege in wider society (as many people who identify as conservative politically are) might balance the discomfort of hearing criticism of things they believe in and groups they belong to against the need of other people to have any safe space at all.

Or, not. Perhaps owning 99 spaces and being asked to share one is as bad or worse as uneasily coexisting in 50 spaces, being denied 49, and finally having one to more freely exist in, if viewed from the correct perspective.

(I haven't even gotten into other ways even liberals can experience insults and microaggreessions within fandom. Not least as a Black woman I could cite some incidents, but the comment box is only so big.)

I wrote this comment, after thinking about it for several days, as a hopefully useful counterpoint to your post. It's intended to stand by itself, not incite a flamewar. I felt a thoughtful post deserved a thoughtful response, even if, or perhaps even more so, one that isn't entirely in agreement.

[rowyn]

Hi! Wow, it's weird to see a reply to this almost a year later.

I think you are absolutely right that most human beings interpret "loss of privilege" as "oppression". Sometimes, when a minority is uncomfortable, the majority wants it that way because they hate the things that make the minority comfortable. That's not always bad! To use a ridiculous extreme: I do not want murderers to feel safe and comfortable in my society!

And, to be honest, if a person takes the view that "conservatives deserve to be uncomfortable and feel unwelcome because they are terrible people", then there's no point in that person denying a bias, is there? That's the system working as intended, isn't it?

But I didn't actually see anyone during the Hugo kerfluffle last year arguing that case. I mean, presumably someone was, and certainly there was a lot of "I don't want misogynist racist transphobes in my fandom anyway". But the broader notion, that conservatives are made to feel unwelcome, was generally decried as untrue.

I was trying to use math to show how it a small fraction of bad actors can have a big impact on a minority, while the majority isn't going to really notice the bad actors.

My big assumption in this piece is:

* A small fraction of liberals will say unjustified, derogatory things about conservatives
* A small fraction of conservatives will say unjustified, derogatory things about liberals

It sounds like you don't accept my assumption. It's certainly debatable. Maybe political conservatives are inherently worse people or political liberals are inherently better. I ... didn't really want to get into that, especially in the USA where our voting system has made it impossible to show the nuances of one's views by the way one votes. My country is pretty evenly split between those two camps. I know a lot of people who are very eager to say that one of those camps is made of better people than the other. When I was a very liberal college student, I was one of those people. Nowadays, when I have lost faith in the ability of centralized government to solve all the world's problems ... I don't really see one camp as having claim to the high ground. :|

I am pretty sure I can't convince you, or anyone else, to change their minds one way or another about my assumption that both sides are about equally good and equally flawed. But I do appreciate your thoughtful response to the post, and I wanted to say something in return. Thank you for stopping by and reading it.

And even if you find the analysis doesn't hold up in this case (because the assumption of "equally flawed camps" doesn't work for you), the concept can be applied to many other "X group vs Y group" (I took it from a post about women as a minority in technology!) situations where maybe it was, so I hope the idea is useful to you in other contexts. :)