Sorry for the confusion; yes, I was talking about Void's history. It's not applicable to the situation because - Well, this. And Seebs was using him as an example of abusers using anti-abuse stances and rules for their own ends, which is not the case with Wax and Void. Any deflection that occurred was not orchestrated by Wax being a mastermind, and is more the realm of the fault belonging to the people who thought that such accusations had to be bullshit. Unintentional abuse is still abuse, sure, but that's not what Seebs was saying.
i know your hands are tied because of where this info is located, but this is directly from void so again, i don't know where the claim that "it was wax's place or homelessness" is incorrect is coming from, because it doesn't seem to be void, and he's the one who'd know best
@Keleviel I apologize, I'm not sure I'm understanding. You didn't mean that Wax's various abuses of half a dozen people, including void, was unintentional, I don't think? I want to understand what you meant and I'm not sure it was that. Unintentional abuse by the people rejecting the claim that he was abusive, maybe? Sorry for being confused.
i mean, noted then? i'll do that just like i'll use 'women' as a stick to beat 'men' who rape women with, thanks. categories of experience do in fact have bearing on the nature of the marginalized-group-targeted thing one person does to another. :V anyway.
That seems reasonable. I've altered the post in question, it now has an acknowledgement that there was "at least one" error, since I still don't actually know how many of the things are or aren't errors, and the paragraph now reads: During pretty much this entire time he was abusing and harassing a significant number of people, which various participants actively denied and covered up for, often citing to his vehement and loud anti-abuse stance as evidence that the accusations were necessarily false. This is more relevant to the point I was actually originally aiming for, and does not make specific allegations about any person's experiences.
Yes. I think we've established that you don't know where it is coming from, and that I can't tell you, and I'm not sure why this is still a topic. We've fully explored the limits of anything I can tell you unless there's someone who said a thing relevant to this and has not granted permission to quote them and explain it, and they change their mind. Without that, this is indeed a thing that can never be explained, no matter how good or bad my reasons for believing the thing might have been.
You know, I'm pretty sure I've mentioned a few times that there were a whole lot of other people that Wax was hurting in various ways. The claim isn't that such people are always consciously and maliciously lying, it's just that sometimes abusers will in fact use anti-abuse stances as cover for their actions. Some doubtless on purpose. Others without knowing what they're doing. I still don't have any way to know which of those Wax was.
Okay. Whatever. I think you continuing to say that void's version of events isn't true because of something someone other than void tell you is at the very least bordering on gaslighting, because we're (or at least, I) talking about void's lived experience. But okay. I still want to know what the point of the post was. I literally don't care that you forgot about the trigger and the trauma and my brief brush with a meltdown in the thread over it last time, shit happens, but even if that hadn't happened, and I didn't have that trigger, I have yet to hear from you a reasonable sounding explanation for what you intended to achieve. You say it's in response to me saying "we disagree with you" but you can just have easily said "i dont like them and think they're not arguing in good faith" instead of going into detailed reasons for why you think they're horrible people and how i'm the good one and how i'm a "good influence" on them or whatever. i dont know. i posted it here because i felt (and still feel) it is pertinent for those interested to know that you think these things about some of your users and you have no qualms against saying this stuff in private about them, and now that you've said as much, that you post that you think these things in response to simply being told a group of people disagree with you on something. I also think it's pertinent that something like this, something I feel is very fucking vile, be made public instead of just kept hush hush among you, me, mod team, and the people who this post is about. edit: basically, i posted it because i felt that was better than you finding out i told the people involved if they happened to allude to it somewhere
I mean that the use of Wax's stance of anti abuse as deflection for claims of abuse was unintentional by Wax.
There is a disconnect happening here where we can't talk about things and you're assuming things because we can't talk, and it's unfortunate. Making assumptions in this kind of situation is really fraught, and I'm sorry it's so complicated.
Um. Having read through? It definitely looks like Seebs is, at the very least, not acknowledging that what they've been told contradicts Void's lived experience. I mean, maybe they thought they'd written something that says that, but I'm not seeing anything that looks at all like "I can't discuss where I got this from, but it doesn't match up with Void's experience. It's weird that it doesn't match up, but I don't have permission to explain any possible reasons why that's a thing." And yeah, the situation is complicated because at least half of the information is hidden behind a locked door and can't be discussed. But that doesn't mean that Seebs couldn't at least acknowledge bluntly that the information they got told doesn't match with Void's actual experience. And it feels weird that they don't seem to have tried to do that.
Charitably, seebs is doing the thing where they forget that they need to acknowledge shit like that again. But I imagine that I and many others are done being charitable, because this pattern has been pointed out repeatedly over the last year and seebs no longer has an excuse to not be aware of it. You wanna whine about people assuming bad faith about you, seebs? Maybe stop acting like you're acting in bad faith. Stop ignoring points that aren't convenient for you. Stop refusing to backtrack and apologize with your own mouth and instead leaving your mods to do damage control for you. Except oh, I forget. You're incapable of apologizing without turning it into a shitshow about how right you actually are. Eight BLOODY months ago you "apologized" to me and implied that I was literally hunting down bpd people to abuse in the same breath. That's gaslighting, and it was the first step on a downward spiral that it took me fucking months to recover from, and yet I'm the bad guy who doesn't care about hurting people. Well, at least I'm fucking honest about it. People know what they're going to get with me. And you have made no effort to change since then. Twice I've asked for literally any time I've lied, in any circumstance, and you haven't even tried to fob me off with a "I can't talk about things said in private." Why? Because the lying doesn't exist. Straight up. If you were someone I cared about the opinion of, having you say that would be straight up triggering, because I DO NOT LIE. I have a massive fucking anxiety about lying, I don't do it. Having someone claim that I'm lying? Is gaslighting. And yet you won't acknowledge that hurt, you persist in making me responsible for any hurt my words could cause but won't take a LICK of responsibility for your own. Fuck the fuck off you piece of garbage. Maya knows what I am a lot better than you do, and has the right to choose her friends without your gaslighty whisper campaign bullshit. I'd tell you to rot eternally, but an honest organic decomposition is more than I think you deserve.
@turtleDove I'm sorry, we can't respond to your concerns coherently due to information being private.
[puts head in hands] Okay. Yes. I know the reasons for Seebs to claim that "void went to live with wax because otherwise void would have had to be homeless" is untrue or contradicts something he knows is private, I'm not trying to get that information. What I'm trying to say is that it's obvious the contradiction didn't come from Void, Moogle, Keleviel, or prismaticvoid, all of which are closer to Void's situations than I am, and as I quoted above, Void himself says that, yes, the reason he went to live with Wax was because otherwise he'd have to be homeless, not because Wax was anti-abuse, like Seebs claimed in the initial tumblr post. That's all I'm saying! All I want is an acknowledgement from Seebs that whatever information he has and from who does not line up with how Void experienced that whole thing, and that continuing to say it's the truth from Void's perspective is factually untrue. That's all. If someone else says, for example "nah, Wax got Void to live with him because [trains roar by]" then that's fine, but as far as Void is aware there is only that "it was Wax or homelessness". Anyway, after this I'm done with this particular derail, and I'm requoting this so that it doesn't get lost.
Dude, we for real can't respond to the things you're saying and the assumptions you're making, even if it frustrates you. It's unfortunate, but there is nothing we can do.
Spock, even that's not particularly helpful. Talking about who might be the source for what still gets into a realm where private info is threatened and I'd rather not.
It's fine, no worries, thank you. Speculation on the identity source of things is a lot like speculating on the identity of anons so far; basically never correct and basically always damaging.
Once upon a time, on a forum that was not this forum, there was forum drama. And the mods talked to a man about what he did, and he said "yes, I intended that." And then he said, in public, "I did not intend that." And because PMs are private, the mods couldn't quote his words to the contrary. And I can promise you that we've had more than one situation here which was exactly like that. Someone who lied to the mods became distressed because we acted on the information they gave us, and demanded that we issue a retraction saying we lied. And definitely, under no circumstances, say that we just reported what they told us. And this is not a unique situation. Someone told me something that led me to hold that belief. Maybe I just misinterpreted what they told me. Maybe they told me a thing that was totally false. Maybe it was one of those people. Maybe it was someone else. But even if it was someone else, I can't confirm or deny that without revealing information I'm not allowed to reveal. Unless, say, it's information I could reveal but don't have. But I couldn't say that, either. That may seem weird. But consider, if you will, the following set of questions and answers: Q: Is person A trans? A: No, person A is cis. Q: Is person B trans? A: No, person B is cis. Q: Is person C trans? A: WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU THAT IS AN INAPPROPRIATE AND PERSONAL QUESTION. Okay, so. Q: Did Bob tell you this thing? A: No. Q: Did Janet tell you this thing? A: No. Q: Did Bill tell you this thing? A: I can't discuss that. See the problem here? There are absolutely people on this forum who are publically directly lying about things they have said or done. Some of them are directly lying about things that they have said or done in the "talk privately to mods" forum. I am not saying that there are people in this thread doing that. I'm also not saying that there aren't. I'm saying that as long as part of the answer to the question relies on things I don't have permission to tell you about, I can't answer the question in any conceivable way. I can't even tell you "yes, I could answer this question usefully if someone specific gave me permission", because that would once again be an information leak. I can go as far as "it is possible for things to happen such that I can answer the question". I can't confirm what the things are without an information leak. Sorry. I have yet to hear reasonable explanations for lots of things people do, because people don't always have carefully considered reasons for their actions. It's been a long-standing issue for me that there's a small group of people who are absolutely and implacably hostile to the forum's ideals, who persistently hurt other users, and who do not give a fuck that they hurt people. And it's also pretty pointless to do anything about it. I have previously considered actually starting shit, but then concluded that they appeared to have mostly lost interest and stopped harassing people and there would be no point. Certainly, at some point, if I've seen someone react with pride rather than contrition often enough when told that they've hurt people, I'm not gonna waste much time suggesting to them that they hurt people. It's not that we don't have other people with a long history of serially hurting people. We have lots of them. But the others acknowledge that this is actually a thing. And I can pitch things to them like "hey, what if we put you on post mod so we could filter that for you a bit". So someone can say, directly, "I posted that because I was mad and wanted to trigger people", and I can say "okay, so, what about post moderation, because I bet you'll feel differently later". And maybe they agree because the rest of the time they don't want to hurt people. Maybe they agree because they'd rather be on post mod than just have everyone ignore them so they can't reach anyone at all. Doesn't matter, they are willing to cooperate in any way at all. So basically, it's not a trauma trigger exactly, but these people are pretty much a recurring trigger. Seeing their names on stuff is a reminder that they're probably hurting someone. And being told about their opinions is just really fucking tiring. And I was tired and I was sick of this shit, and I got a Friendly Reminder That A Bunch Of People Who Have Been Cruel To You And Others For Years Disagree With You, and I took it wrong. It's never been a secret that I dislike some people. And I have qualms about saying stuff like this in private, but sometimes I will. But yes, like, that is the entire fucking point. That is what "radical acceptance" means. For fuck's sake. All those months people spent bitching about me "protecting" Alix because she's my special friend? Alix pisses me off. I respect her, these days, and sometimes I think she's pretty damn funny, but I also tend to block her on chat things for days at a time because she pisses me off. And I've told a few people that, her among them. But everyone assumes that, because I'm treating her like a person, there's some kind of incredible bias in favor of people I "like". So, yes, I personally dislike some people. No shit. I have not pretended that this is not the case. But I usually don't directly tell them, because they tend to find it upsetting. And that is pretty much the upper bound of my ability to even comprehend "tact", but I've been trying really hard to be good about it because otherwise people get hurt. And yes, obviously, many of the people who get hurt would be people I personally can't stand. But. That doesn't make it okay for them to get hurt. Not to me, anyway. And now, thanks to this super important thing about making it clear that I dislike people, on a forum full of people with severe social anxiety and paranoia, what do you think happens next? Hint: It involves a lot of people getting hurt, because there is no possible way to avoid that now. Because they will either decide unilaterally that I hate them, even if I don't, and get hurt by that, or have to ask, and have to deal with an answer that may hurt them. That is exactly why I normally keep comments like that in private channels. Because I don't want those people to get hurt. Even if some of them are people I actually do dislike personally. I am aware that my personal taste in folks to hang out with is not an actual moral justification for hurting people.
okay. i am going to try very hard to back off from this thread as much as i can for awhile, because i am real deep in the depression hole already and would like to have one fucking day that isn't eaten up by helpless nauseating rage and trying to type at a brick wall. i may come back to unpack more things as i notice them, i may not. i'm going to limit myself to responding to three things in this post or else it will go on for a very long time. a) accusing people of being ~cruel~ because they are acerbic, fighty, crass, and emphatically do not take responsibility for other people's healing and emotional states, is hypocritical as shit. you spearheaded multiple threads of following someone around the internet to publicly record and viciously group-mock at great length every aspect of his life that was available to you--not just the receipts for the actually concerning or fucked up things he did--including outright mocking his appearance, his 'soulless eyes,' and saying he looked like a cis woman (someone's mother)--for YEARS. you're besties with luka,* who was in fact a huge inspiration for how i deal with shit because i admire him for being the same way. claim what you want about my other motives, how i'm an evil abuser for where i post shit blah blah blah, it's really fucking obvious that leechkin especially gets your ire because they run with groups who criticize you. come the fuck off it. *i hope he's doing well, by the way, i still like luka in general even though you're a rank victim-blaming turd. b) sometimes people get hurt doing things that they should not be doing. sometimes people get hurt in the process of victimizing people. sometimes people get hurt by their victims trying to enforce boundaries. sometimes people get hurt by learning things happened to people they like without their knowing. sometimes people get hurt by learning about very real safety/security issues that may or do apply to them. people being hurt would be a fucked up end to pursue in and of itself, but sometimes the thing that led to them being hurt is not something to regret, even if you regret the fact that it hurt the person. or are you going to say me and void victimized all of our friends, and other forum-goers, who were devastated to find out about wax, by speaking up? are you prepared to take responsibility for dropping a big, gleeful, dramatic bomb all over several subforums--including ITA!--to let people know about a safety issue, worded in some of the most retroactively paranoia-inducing ways possible? how about the fact that i doubtless hurt wax a lot by telling his entire social circle about it, and don't regret it (except for misplaced guilt which you have seen me express in private and reinforced was misplaced)? how about the fact that i don't regret putting my foot down and refusing to 'set things straight' with my mother about the abuse she put me through on the last day i lived in her house, because i knew it wouldn't help, would end in a traumatic draining screaming match in a tiny car, and because i didn't owe it to her to educate her about what she'd done to me? that hurt her a fuck of a lot, am i an evil abuser for taking a huge amount of pride in having been able to do that? c) this isn't a perfect metaphor, but: jimmy's job is to pick up and chauffer children to and from school. jimmy is well-vetted (to be INCREDIBLY generous in this metaphor). jimmy is trusted with people's children, with information about them, knows their schedules, their addresses, where they live, where they sleep, what the insides of their homes look like. people trust jimmy, because a fundamental part of his contract is privacy. they maintain a social circle around it, in fact, because it's a great way to meet people. one day, someone finds out that jimmy takes pictures of their kids and their homes to use in articles he writes online. 'i don't know why you're getting so worked up about it,' he says, 'it's not like i posted any identifying information. you can't tell me not to show people examples of (something something suburban america).' even better, he collects these pictures to use again and again; some of them are decades old. parent A, who found out about this, flips their fucking shit and tries to tell the entire group of parents who have trusted and still trust jimmy about this as publicly as possible. jimmy has broken their trust utterly, whether he posted images of their specific children and homes or not. it is fucking vital that people know this so that they can make informed decisions about what information they give him access to, and know that the information they've given is not safe. as a fucking incredible bonus, jimmy straight up reveals during the ensuing ruckus that he totally forgets which things are private sometimes, you guys, it happens. the other parents are distressed by this. this is an appropriate fucking reaction. some of their and also jimmy's response is to blame parent A for making the information known, because 'can't you see how you're hurting them all? making them all paranoid? they didn't want to see that today! they stay out of the argument subgroup for a reason, you monster! you don't even have the decency to regret it!' if reading that made your fucking skin crawl, congratulations! you get the picture. tl;dr don't shift the blame for your violating, trust-betraying, unsafe behavior onto the messenger, asshole.
