I'm passing on two good response options to the present episode of SJW madness.
The first of these comes from author John Ringo, writing at Facebook. The full post you can find here if you wish to comment.
If invited to a con, especially as a 'special guest', require the following in your contract:
- Pre-paid travel. (Non-refundable, reserved for your use and one guest.)
- Pre-paid room. (Non-refundable, reserved for your use and one guest.)
- A cash guarantee of non-cancellation on their part.
Show them links to what happened to myself and Larry.
If they cave to the SJW mobs, make it cost them.
If they refuse, they're probably setting you up. (This, very much, looked like a set-up to boost visibility. ConCarolinas is slightly different.) Tell them that based upon recent history you have to assume they're setting you up if they have issues with such basic items and ask them not to contact you again.
Any convention that for any reason plays this game of 'we have to rescind your invitation' (Origins, ConCarolinas, ArchCon) refuse to attend and ask other authors to refuse to attend. Not for any reason. Not because it's 'local', not because it's 'convenient'. Not because 'I've always gone to X con!'
Start choking them off of the revenue stream created by our attendance.
Just. Say. No.
As authors, we really don't need conventions anymore. You get more sales through posts online and engaging in social media (for as long as Twitter and Facebook will allows us to do so) than going to all the conventions in the world. The cons are mostly for your fans and if the cons want to play this game, the fans need to make it clear they're not going.
As he goes on to say:
It's time to strike back. We don't need cons. Cons need us. Time for them to figure that out.
Correct, and the few exceptions Ringo notes are also the more professional and apolitical ones (e.g. DragonCon). Ringo lays out a good counterpunch here, and it's good because it forces the convention to feel real (financial) pain for caving to the SJW Death Cult. While I'm far from such a thing being realistic for me to worry about now, I will remember it and insist upon it when that time comes; the kill fee in particular will be one of my Brown M&M Clauses going forward.
This counterpunch relies on the convention falling victim to the Sunk Cost Fallacy for its effectiveness. They are unlikely to bow to the mob if they have skin in the game--they already paid out, and will pay out more for giving in--especially once they see that the mob won't pay the convention more than they would lose by giving in to them. Not just in the money spent on the author, but also the lost revenue his fans won't give to the convention, so this is real pain and real pain works well in persuasion matters.
Which leads to the other good suggestion, coming from author Michael Z. Williamson. He left a link to this post of his on his blog as a comment to my post of two days ago; having read it, I think it merits mention here due to it being simple, legal, and effective.
Here's the scenario. You're running an event, and on TWITter or Fecesbook, someone calls out a guest and states, "I wouldn't feel safe with this person at the con!"
You must immediately ban this person from the convention.
No, not the guest. The person making the public scene.
This person is arrogating a lot of significance to themselves. The statement assumes that the guest in question either knows this person or will seek them out, and has time allotted for the purpose of interacting with them, any desire to do so, and such interaction must be negative. All of which are almost certainly utterly false assumptions.
For myself, it doesn't matter to me one way or the other how the complainant feels. Their statement alone makes it clear that interacting with such a person is of utterly no interest or consequence to me. I can find much better people to interact with. Actually, let me rephrase that: I can find PEOPLE to interact with.
In fact, they're almost certainly well aware they're perfectly safe, and attempting to drive political opposition into the shadows.
There's a lot more to his post than that. I urge you to follow the aforementioned link and read it in its entirety.
What Michael's talking about is the initiation of a Point-and-Swarm attack, the moment when the target-designator REEEEs.
What you do is call out the REEEing SJW initiating the swarm, and then you drop the banhammer on them. Then you ban every other motherfucking SJW that objects to the first ban, as the violation of their expectations will be so painful to them emotionally that they cannot help but to out themselves as fellow travelers in the Death Cult. Their only goal is to disrupt the event so they can either destroy it or converge it, as per Frame Game Radio's commentary on the Diversity Industry (for which SJWs are the vanguard), following their Marxist predecessors.
Why does this counterpunch work? It stops them from pulling shit before it starts, which is good in itself, and it excludes them thereafter from it entirely If you're already getting the convention to invest in your appearance, as above, getting them to do this to protect that investment isn't going to be that hard to persuade the convention to do thereafter. That emotional pain is very real to SJWs, as their behavior shows when it does occur to them. So use it, early and often, and prevent the poz from taking place.
Make them feel pain and they will flee you for softer targets. Let them howl, so long as they fear you.