info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Gone too far
8 views
Skip to first unread message
Basil D
Dec 14, 2018, 5:31:29 PM12/14/18
to
I wish more people paid attention to this group.
We have a problem in the CoA: there are right-wing extremists crawling into the College
and using superficially plausible statements aimed to, eventually, impose a white-European
superiority on the registration of names.
Currently, a branch in An Tir is attempting to register the name of an award/order. They
are using the long-established name-structure of "saint's name + object". This structure
for award/order names is historically valid, and has been used in the SCA for nearly ever.
They are also using the "constructed saint name" allowance, which is specifically
mentioned in SENA. The name they're using is a nice, period, English name.
However---there are a few people on OSCAR who are objecting to this name on the basis
(once all their smoke-screen verbiage is removed) that the name the branch want is not the
name of a historical saint. IOW, since the Roman Catholic church, nor the Anglican church,
canonized anyone by that name, at least in period, that the name is not historical, and
should not be registered.
In short, a few right-wingers are trying to make "historicity" more important than freedom
of religion. Believe me, this is the thin edge of the wedge; a wedge to push the CoA away
from treating the people of the SCA decently. It is a start of an attempt to get the SCA
to be a comfortable place for the "alt-right", to get the SCA to be a breeding ground for
fascists.
If the declarations recently made by the BoD promoting diversity and inclusion are to be
more than empty words, it is time to put out the fire NOW, before it grows.
The following is my response to the "history before decency" posts in OSCAR.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am disgusted. The question is simple: is the CoA going to support freedom of religion,
or give a religion/set of related religions a superior position with the feeble excuse "it
was like that in history".
I am proud of the peerage of my home kingdom of An Tir for stepping up to the problem of
the bigotry that is starting to infest the SCA, with the declaration shown in:
https://www.facebook.com/AnTirEventsVirtualFeed/videos/a-statement-on-diversity-and-inclusion-from-the-peerages-in-an-tir/449418072215554/
I am particularly inspired by the line, "We declare, when encountering words and
situations contrary to the support of equity, diversity and inclusion we will confront
these circumstances as best we can" That is what I am doing; I am confronting religious
intolerance, and an attempt to put one small set of religions above all others.
After knocking down your straw men, it is clear you think some religion(s) have more
rights than others, and you are using a white-European view of history to cloak your
religious intolerance with a microscopically thin veneer of plausibility. I hope the CoA
will throw your specious arguments aside.
And I deeply hope the CoA will take this opportunity to remember that we should be serving
the people of the SCA, both as individuals and as a group. I hope we will take into
consideration the effect of our actions on the SCA as a whole, and stop putting
"historicality" above people.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
~~Basil Dragonstrike
We have a problem in the CoA: there are right-wing extremists crawling into the College
and using superficially plausible statements aimed to, eventually, impose a white-European
superiority on the registration of names.
Currently, a branch in An Tir is attempting to register the name of an award/order. They
are using the long-established name-structure of "saint's name + object". This structure
for award/order names is historically valid, and has been used in the SCA for nearly ever.
They are also using the "constructed saint name" allowance, which is specifically
mentioned in SENA. The name they're using is a nice, period, English name.
However---there are a few people on OSCAR who are objecting to this name on the basis
(once all their smoke-screen verbiage is removed) that the name the branch want is not the
name of a historical saint. IOW, since the Roman Catholic church, nor the Anglican church,
canonized anyone by that name, at least in period, that the name is not historical, and
should not be registered.
In short, a few right-wingers are trying to make "historicity" more important than freedom
of religion. Believe me, this is the thin edge of the wedge; a wedge to push the CoA away
from treating the people of the SCA decently. It is a start of an attempt to get the SCA
to be a comfortable place for the "alt-right", to get the SCA to be a breeding ground for
fascists.
If the declarations recently made by the BoD promoting diversity and inclusion are to be
more than empty words, it is time to put out the fire NOW, before it grows.
The following is my response to the "history before decency" posts in OSCAR.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am disgusted. The question is simple: is the CoA going to support freedom of religion,
or give a religion/set of related religions a superior position with the feeble excuse "it
was like that in history".
I am proud of the peerage of my home kingdom of An Tir for stepping up to the problem of
the bigotry that is starting to infest the SCA, with the declaration shown in:
https://www.facebook.com/AnTirEventsVirtualFeed/videos/a-statement-on-diversity-and-inclusion-from-the-peerages-in-an-tir/449418072215554/
I am particularly inspired by the line, "We declare, when encountering words and
situations contrary to the support of equity, diversity and inclusion we will confront
these circumstances as best we can" That is what I am doing; I am confronting religious
intolerance, and an attempt to put one small set of religions above all others.
After knocking down your straw men, it is clear you think some religion(s) have more
rights than others, and you are using a white-European view of history to cloak your
religious intolerance with a microscopically thin veneer of plausibility. I hope the CoA
will throw your specious arguments aside.
And I deeply hope the CoA will take this opportunity to remember that we should be serving
the people of the SCA, both as individuals and as a group. I hope we will take into
consideration the effect of our actions on the SCA as a whole, and stop putting
"historicality" above people.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
~~Basil Dragonstrike
Gunnvor silfraharr
Dec 15, 2018, 10:59:51 AM12/15/18
to
Hardly anyone is subbed here anymore since we mostly use the Facebook chat channels instead, such as https://www.facebook.com/groups/SCAHeraldryChat/
Meanwhile, ranting here is a useless exercise in futility. If you don't like the decision, then you need to be in contact with Laurel and Pelican about your concerns.
Registering a name is not anywhere connected to freedom of religion. How you got to the alt-right from there is ridiculous.
The College of Heralds is one of the places where authenticity is most urged in the whole Society. Despite this, SENA (https://heraldry.sca.org/sena.html) has baked in a lot of wiggle room for people to work around authenticity. SENA NPN.1.C.2.b (https://heraldry.sca.org/sena.html#NPN1C2b) explicitly lays out the rules for constructing a new non-personal name by following medieval patterns:
"Constructed Name Phrases: Name phrases may be constructed from attested period name elements. This requires demonstrating that the combination follows a period pattern. We generally require at least three examples to consider something a pattern. This is because a single name phrase can appear to follow a pattern that it does not actually follow."
I'm guessing you simply have not adequately supported your desired name pattern. I just spent a good while attempting to find whatever submission it was that triggered your post, but I didn't find it. What, exactly, was the proposed name? Which letter in OSCAR?
::GUNNVOR::
Who cannot be accused of being a white christianist alt-right fascist by any remote stretch of the imagination. White radical socialist heathen, perhaps.
Meanwhile, ranting here is a useless exercise in futility. If you don't like the decision, then you need to be in contact with Laurel and Pelican about your concerns.
Registering a name is not anywhere connected to freedom of religion. How you got to the alt-right from there is ridiculous.
The College of Heralds is one of the places where authenticity is most urged in the whole Society. Despite this, SENA (https://heraldry.sca.org/sena.html) has baked in a lot of wiggle room for people to work around authenticity. SENA NPN.1.C.2.b (https://heraldry.sca.org/sena.html#NPN1C2b) explicitly lays out the rules for constructing a new non-personal name by following medieval patterns:
"Constructed Name Phrases: Name phrases may be constructed from attested period name elements. This requires demonstrating that the combination follows a period pattern. We generally require at least three examples to consider something a pattern. This is because a single name phrase can appear to follow a pattern that it does not actually follow."
I'm guessing you simply have not adequately supported your desired name pattern. I just spent a good while attempting to find whatever submission it was that triggered your post, but I didn't find it. What, exactly, was the proposed name? Which letter in OSCAR?
::GUNNVOR::
Who cannot be accused of being a white christianist alt-right fascist by any remote stretch of the imagination. White radical socialist heathen, perhaps.
Basil D
Dec 17, 2018, 5:24:15 PM12/17/18
to
On 12/15/2018 7:59 AM, Gunnvor silfraharr wrote:
> Hardly anyone is subbed here anymore since we mostly use the Facebook chat channels
> instead, such as https://www.facebook.com/groups/SCAHeraldryChat/
I don't support, not even passively, traitor Zuckerberg.
> Hardly anyone is subbed here anymore since we mostly use the Facebook chat channels
> instead, such as https://www.facebook.com/groups/SCAHeraldryChat/
> Meanwhile, ranting here is a useless exercise in futility. If you don't like the
> decision, then you need to be in contact with Laurel and Pelican about your concerns.
> Registering a name is not anywhere connected to freedom of religion. How you got to
> the alt-right from there is ridiculous.
everyone. How is that not a matter of freedom of religion? I understand, but simply cannot
accept, your idea that "oh, it's just a name, it has nothing to do with rights".
> The College of Heralds is one of the places where authenticity is most urged in the
> whole Society.
general. Or didn't you notice my post of less than a month ago?
> Despite this, SENA (https://heraldry.sca.org/sena.html) has baked in a
> lot of wiggle room for people to work around authenticity. SENA NPN.1.C.2.b
> (https://heraldry.sca.org/sena.html#NPN1C2b) explicitly lays out the rules for
> constructing a new non-personal name by following medieval patterns:
>
> "Constructed Name Phrases: Name phrases may be constructed from attested period name
> elements. This requires demonstrating that the combination follows a period pattern. We
> generally require at least three examples to consider something a pattern. This is
> because a single name phrase can appear to follow a pattern that it does not actually
> follow."
>
> I'm guessing you simply have not adequately supported your desired name pattern.
pattern long accepted by the SCA. It is the attempt by a few right-wingers to overturn
precedent by restricting freedom of belief that I object to.
> I
> just spent a good while attempting to find whatever submission it was that triggered
> your post, but I didn't find it. What, exactly, was the proposed name? Which letter in
> OSCAR?
Since using the "Letters of Comment" feature would easily lead to what you were looking
for, I'm confused by your statement you couldn't find it.
> ::GUNNVOR::
>
> Who cannot be accused of being a white christianist alt-right fascist by any remote
> stretch of the imagination. White radical socialist heathen, perhaps.
so defensive. Indeed, I don't see nor remember anything you've said that could be claimed
to be anti-inclusive or fascistic, so I _really_ don't understand your defensiveness.
Gunnvor silfraharr
Dec 18, 2018, 9:04:27 AM12/18/18
to
Wow, look at you hurling ad hominem insults right and left. "Traitor Zuckerberg"? Accusing people of being "right-wingers" and "alt-right". Classy. Not.
I've never met Coteswold, but I do know Pympernell. She's most certainly not a right-winger nor alt-right. You were name calling baselessly, rather than going and digging up evidence to support your argument.
You didn't like the commentary, you had no idea what Pelican would think of it, and you threw a wing-ding tantrum... carefully out of view of the people affected. I might have a shard of respect left for you had you addressed the individuals directly: after all, the Roster in OSCAR has email addresses.
The discussion had absolutely not a freakin' thing to do with freedom of religion. It's all about freedom to tortuously use the late English last-name-as-first-name rules once again to do an end run around a name that is frankly ahistoric.
I understand Adelaide's attitude about this. If I were Queen of the Universe, I'd wave my magic wand and stop people using that rule for stunt documentation. I hate how it's contorted over and over to stunt doc things. And THAT is exactly the root of Adelaide's objections, as you would know if you spent any time following her commentary. Or, you know, if had the strength of character to write her directly and ask her her motivations.
Slithering around and attacking and insulting people behind their backs is Just Not Correct. Do it to their face, or don't do it at all.
The CoH commentary process uses a somewhat academic model of argument. It appears adversarial, but it is not: it's collegial. What you should have done was found precedents or historical evidence to support your viewpoint. That's how you "win" an argument. I put "win" in quotes because there are no losers in the process, we all have a chance to learn something new.
I sincerely hope you learn something from this as well.
::GUNNVOR::
I've never met Coteswold, but I do know Pympernell. She's most certainly not a right-winger nor alt-right. You were name calling baselessly, rather than going and digging up evidence to support your argument.
You didn't like the commentary, you had no idea what Pelican would think of it, and you threw a wing-ding tantrum... carefully out of view of the people affected. I might have a shard of respect left for you had you addressed the individuals directly: after all, the Roster in OSCAR has email addresses.
The discussion had absolutely not a freakin' thing to do with freedom of religion. It's all about freedom to tortuously use the late English last-name-as-first-name rules once again to do an end run around a name that is frankly ahistoric.
I understand Adelaide's attitude about this. If I were Queen of the Universe, I'd wave my magic wand and stop people using that rule for stunt documentation. I hate how it's contorted over and over to stunt doc things. And THAT is exactly the root of Adelaide's objections, as you would know if you spent any time following her commentary. Or, you know, if had the strength of character to write her directly and ask her her motivations.
Slithering around and attacking and insulting people behind their backs is Just Not Correct. Do it to their face, or don't do it at all.
The CoH commentary process uses a somewhat academic model of argument. It appears adversarial, but it is not: it's collegial. What you should have done was found precedents or historical evidence to support your viewpoint. That's how you "win" an argument. I put "win" in quotes because there are no losers in the process, we all have a chance to learn something new.
I sincerely hope you learn something from this as well.
::GUNNVOR::
Basil D
Dec 18, 2018, 9:27:30 PM12/18/18
to
OSCAR? Why do you refuse to acknowledge that I did not sneak around behind anybody's back?
Why to you refuse to acknowledge that I named no names?
Why do you refuse to acknowledge that this *is* a public means of communication, and that
it's not my fault the people *you* named don't use it?
Why do you refuse to acknowledge that this *IS* about freedom of belief? Why do you refuse
to acknowledge that Pympernell and Coteswold clearly want only certain religions to be
able to say what names are and are not those of saints?
Why do you refuse to acknowledge that the self-so-called "alt-right" exists? That it has
made inroads on the SCA? That it is continuing to try to make deeper inroads?
Why do you refuse to acknowledge that the cure for abuse of the first-name-last,
last-name-first precedent is not to insist people only use saints one particular religion
has OK'd? Why do you not do something about modifying the rule?
I'll leave you to contemplate those questions on your own. You clearly have put
"historicity" above serving the people of the SCA. And that is an attitude that has gotten
far too common, and that I have resolved to oppose.
I'm done discussing this with you. I have no interest in being told I'm a bad guy for
standing up to a growing "damn the proles, let's enforce a white-European view of
history!" attitude that the indifference to the effect of the CoA's action on the general
populace aids and supports.
You talk about not confronting people? Well, here's what that *really* is like. I'm
putting you in my bit-bucket, so I don't have to listen to you any more. So, whatever you
say you will knowingly be saying where I won't hear it.
~~Basil
0 new messages