I do want to take on your “analysis” of what I said because I think it needs clarificaton.

>>a) the speech was in poor taste because it insults individual people,

I think American’s have a tradition of humour you call a “roast” where a speaker “insults” an individual in what is meant to be a good-natured way. John Meaney’s presentation was trying to do that with people which he knows (at least to some extent). I agree with you that it fails in many ways but I do think that some of the specific comments you single out for complaint (the Charles Stross, Osama bin Laden thing, for example) need to be seen in that context. That being said, I do think John’s presentation was neither funny enough nor sensitive enough to succeed in this approach.

>>b) it was absurd to think of it as insulting groups to which those individual
>> people belong (because had Lauren Beukes been a gorgeous man,
>>Meaney would totally have talked about standing in the golden
>>radiance of her aura! her being a woman is irrelevant!),

I do not say and do not think that it is “absurd” to think that insulting individuals using stereotypical imagery could insult others. Indeed I specifically say that his comments on both Lauren Beukes and Lavie Tidhar were insensitive, I would not have made them and don’t think they should have been made in that way either at a BSFA Awards ceremony or anywhere else. I do not say, and do not believe, that the offence that may have been caused is “irrelevant” (with or without the “!”) – in fact I specifically say John’s speech could have been construed as insulting more widely.

>>c) Meaney (whom McGrath barely knows) surely meant well
>>and his heart is pure, so any responses to him should be made in
>>an appropriate tone.

You’re right, I don’t know John Meaney very well. I don’t claim his “heart is pure” – I specifically say that I can’t offer any specific insights into his frame of mind. However, John’s presentation was following on from a (much more successful) presentation by Paul Cornell last year which (more concisely) introduced the award presentation using humour and gentle mocking. When I say that Meaney’s presentation should be put in context, that is what I mean.

Do I think understanding the context absolves any possible blame? Certainly not and I don’t suggest this.

>>McGrath fights for equality all the time, so when he says that
>>being offended by sexist and racist comments is “hysterical”,
>>you know it’s not worth worrying your pretty little head over.

I have removed the passage with the word “hysterical” from my post – in retrospect it was a poor choice of word – but in the context it was written, I had just been harangued for 30 minutes by people I didn’t know, who don’t know me, for a speech that was not mine and I did not agree with. This involved a fair degree of shouting, some aggressive poking and unpleasant language which I did not think I deserved.

That passage, however, did not say that people shouldn’t worry their “pretty little head over” anything. I accept that people have the right to be offended and to campaign loudly about the items that offend them. But I also think that responses have to be proportionate. John Meaney’s presentation was insensitive, but it is clear he did not set out to be deliberately offensive. John Meaney’s presentation was not a statement of BSFA policy or a manifesto, it was an attempted stand-up routine that went badly wrong.

That doesn’t mean that John Meaney or the BSFA should be immune from criticism. Again all I’m saying that context and intent should matter.

>>He also not only emphasized that he doesn’t represent BSFA but
>>claimed that in fact it is impossible for any individual to do so,
>>explained that it is BSFA policy not to have policies (er…),

I was writing that post in a strictly personal capacity, and made that clear. I’m not sure why it is hard for you to accept that the BSFA, as a non-partisan organisation, does not take policy stances, although we do have a constitution that would rule out the publication of discriminatory material.

The point I was trying, perhaps clumsily, to make was that neither my blog post nor John Meaney’s presentation should be take to represent a (definitive or otherwise) corporate view of the BSFA.

>>invited people to come chat with him at the BSFA booth at Eastercon,
>>and wondered what the point was of continuing to volunteer with
>>BSFA. Reactions to this screed were predictably negative.

Actually, I’ve had a number of positive responses as well as criticism. My invite was specifically to the original blog poster to which I was responding. Alex did come and see me, though to be honest, things had moved on from then. I hope we parted on good terms even if we didn’t full agree. But that doesn’t really matter. You are right, however, that this event has made me reconsider how I spend my “hobby” time.

Let me restate my position. I believe that John Meaney’s presentation was insensitive. I accept that people were offended and personally regret that. I do, however, believe that responses to that presentation should be aware of the context of the event and that intention matters. I concede, however, that doesn’t absolve anyone from blame or offer protection from the anger of others. Responses should, however, be proportionate and that people’s anger should not be indiscriminate.

You clearly don’t agree with me. But I don’t believe your representation of my views is fair.