John Carmack: My comments on BasedCon (tweet)

Re:John Carmack: My comments on BasedCon (tweet) by HDThoreaun on Thursday May 18, 2023 @02:05PM (#35991804)

I think it's fair for the alt-righters that put this convention together to say they were excluded. Probably fair to exclude them too, but imo making their own con in reaction to being excluded seems like a reasonable decision. the rage bait stuff is lame though.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:John Carmack: My comments on BasedCon (tweet) by SketchySeaBeast on Thursday May 18, 2023 @02:12PM (#35991895)

Were they actually excluded, or did they feel excluded because they didn't like the new philosophy? I'm not sure if they were actual rules actually excluding them.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:John Carmack: My comments on BasedCon (tweet) by philipkglass on Thursday May 18, 2023 @03:19PM (#35992765)

There weren't actual rules excluding them.

Compare the "about" page for the more mainstream Worldcon with the one for BasedCon:

https://www.worldcon.org/about-worldcon/

https://www.basedcon.com/?page_id=85

BasedCon's "about" has hot takes on guns, socialism, abortion, etc. Worldcon's "about" doesn't say anything about those topics at all.

Here's the Registration FAQ for next year's Worldcon in Glasgow:

https://glasgow2024.org/get-involved/registration-faq/

There are no hot-button American political topics mentioned either way there.

The last time I was at a SF convention there was a wide variety of political views among attendees, just as there have been among award-winning SF authors. BasedCon seems unusual not in what sort of views it permits but in what it explicitly rejects.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:John Carmack: My comments on BasedCon (tweet) by manuelabeledo on Thursday May 18, 2023 @05:13PM (#35994133)

I would think that they excluded themselves because of what they perceived as too much inclusion, which is ironic in a weird way.

[ Parent | on HN ]