i appreciate your attempts to detangle, spock; however, the fact that it took extensive arguing from people other than the victim withdrawing their consent, who he has apparently been going out of his way to shittalk and discredit in private before, during, and after, and made zero attempt to convey any kind of apology to (or at least post it somewhere public so that it was clear they fucked up and admit it, whether the person reads it or not) is goddamn horrifying and not a point in his favor.
His history is being used as an example for something that it isn't an example for as support for the aforementioned fucking bananas conclusion, which is more layers on the shit cake beyond just the use of it as ammo in a tumblr fight
Oh, not extensive arguing! The volume of conversation seemed mainly to be from wanting to collect multiple points of view, including from parties who didn't know the people in question at all. None of the conversations I saw seemed to involve much arguing. I do definitely get what you're saying about them not just listening to the victim, but that's why they had those conversations with other people. Ahh, I might be getting threads a bit crossed, because is 'his' talking about Wiwaxia or Void? From Seebs's point of view, the post was about Wiwaxia, and the mention of Void was supposed to be incidental, though I can see why it didn't come across that way. Wiwaxia's behavior (being noisily anti-abuse and making some solid anti-abuse arguments while also being a dangerous person) was relevant to the conversation at hand. Void's behavior isn't an example of that pattern, but Void's behavior also wasn't something Seebs was discussing in that tumblr post. Void came up because of how Wiwaxia's behavior caused some real harm, not as Void being an example of a dangerous person.
I'm unsure if this is what Kel is referring to, but characterizing Wiwaxia's actions as "enticing someone to live with him by preaching anti-abuse behavior" is very inaccurate in a weirdly specific way. There was no enticing, there was "your other option is homelessness." Wiwaxia's behavior was plenty bad enough on its own, and mischaracterizing what happened makes me super uncomfortable because it fits a pattern of Seebs using personal (and questionably-accurate) anecdata to win arguments.
im not feeling well so im just throwing this in here for transparency, but i cant think of what seebs could have possibly been told that contradicts the claim that "void went to live with wax because the only other option was the streets"
the thing is that this kind of thing keeps happening with seebs. they backslide, they find batshit new ways to interpret the basic concepts people painstakingly try to educate them on, they find new and exciting ways to be awful to and trample right over survivors, and they're incredibly fucking arrogant about all of it. they're not a survivor, they are apparently incapable of learning basic things that nonsurvivors can learn, and they will never shut the fuck up for five minutes and listen to us instead of the people they like. void isn't an example of what seebs was trying to use his story as an example of because he very definitely didn't go to live with wax 'because he claimed to be anti-abuse,' he did it because he'd have been homeless otherwise, and the fact that seebs can't comprehend things happening that don't play back into their pet drama shows how incredibly fucking self-centered they are. they don't even have the self-awareness to say 'i am uncomfortable when we are not about me?' because they are incapable of wrapping their mind around the concept that it isn't. edit: ninja'd, still stands.
Obviously, I didn't see the original conversations. The characterization question is unanswerable without information I either don't have access to or can't share. I am also really confused by the characterization of this as "to win arguments". Is presenting anecdata about things that could happen not a valid way to offer claims about things that might happen? I'm not sure whether the complaint here is that I'm trying to persuade people of the truth of my claims based on lived experience or things I've seen, and this is somehow bad, or that the anecdata isn't always fully applicable. But... I mean, of course it isn't? It never is. You are pretty much always stuck with using merely-similar rather than identical things, or doing without prior experience at all. So basically I don't understand the complaint.
@prismaticvoid I think that that dramatic phrasing made the example far enough from the truth as to no longer be a real life example. Not very helpful of Seebs to do, even outside of the distress it caused. I also think that phrasing things as "to win arguments" when Seebs has repeatedly said he was giving advice, not fighting, is also not very helpful. I don't remember the Tumblr thread being all that contentious at that time.
@Beldaran I apologize for my unclear wording. I maintain that Seebs was engaging in some kind of serious reality editing when they made that post.
I think I agree with you? I think that he heard the story differently and extrapolated in a direction that wasn't true to life.
Okay, I can't answer as to what I was told, but I could give examples of things I could in theory have been told, which are not particularly true, but might illustrate categories. I could have been told that: There was an option other than homelessness, but that the situation with Wiwaxia seemed preferable. Void had multiple places to choose from. Wiwaxia in some way applied pressure beyond "alternative is homelessness". Any of these would contradict that claim. So would a lot of other things, I'm not trying to be exhaustive, just illustrate that there do exist things that could have been said to me which would at least substantially contradict that.
Shrug? We were around for the same events, and I am mistrustful just because the version Seebs said fits in very well with their preferred narrative.
i'm not speaking for you when i say that seebs has a long and varied history of steamrolling over survivors, trying to speak for all or most survivors themselves, being dense and arrogant to the point of poe about survivor issues, and refusing point-blank to listen to the things survivors try to tell him about abuse if they're not on his Approved List of the Good People. just because it hasn't happened to you, or you think it doesn't happen, doesn't mean it doesn't happen. this goes for anyone else saying this: stop making other people's experiences about you.
There also genuinely is private info that even I have access to that gives good reason to go the direction Seebs went with his version of the Wax events. I don't think that where he went was true, and I'd not have done it, but I can see the beginning of the path.
Well, tell you what. You get all the people who might conceivably have been involved to give permission to quote things they said that would relate to me drawing that conclusion, and if I can then find the things to quote, I'll explain it. Otherwise, about all I can say is "this was my understanding based on things people may have told me, but I can't tell you who or what specifically they told me", which is not super useful. I will say, my phrasing wasn't very clear, and if I'd wanted to talk about it more, and I'd been actually trying to talk about that topic rather than it being an incidental remark, I would probably have said something clearer and more accurate. This sometimes happens when I'm just chattering on tumblr and not actually trying to write fully-cited essays. EDIT: This probably came across as more confrontational than I intended, one of the mods pointed this out while another was approving it. Not intending confrontational tone, just frustrated because hands tied.
@Carnivorous Moogle if you stop saying sweeping things about "survivors" in general then I'll stop thinking you mean to include me.
if i say a man creeps on and abuses women i don't mean he creeps on or has crept on all women everywhere, and i'm not making a sweeping statement about all women everywhere when i say so. it's entirely possible he's perfectly gentlemanly to plenty of women he doesn't target in misogynistic ways. this hypothetical man still creeps on and abuses women in ways that are specifically targeted toward them. there are survivors he is shitty to in a fairly consistent pattern. he is shitty to them in ways that are especially harmful and despicable to survivors. he does not do this to every survivor. this does not change the first two points or make them untrue. this is not hard to understand. please stop derailing.
Disagreeing is not derailing, but I've asked so, eh. If you want to keep using "survivors" as a stick to beat the "non-survivor" with then you can certainly do that. My objection remains.
@seebs not feeling too confrontational, no, but I do want to point out that several people who were much closer personally to the problem than you were interpreted events differently than you did. I understand you can't quote all the stuff you might want to. Would you settle for retracting and commenting on the post that set this off?
