or we get your point and think its either irrelevant to this specific situation or that its ignoring what we are trying to explain which, frankly, does already feel like trying to explain the relationship between rectangles, squares, and rhombi and being told none of us know what we're talking about im thinking this is yet another issue of how reality is perceived and valued compared to social things and one group has them one way and another has them a different way and never the two shall meet (unless someone's rankings of the two change) so yeah, im done trying to explain to people who seemingly don't want to listen in the first place good luck, i wish you well, i hope you can get to a place that is less distressing for you
I'm not sure if you guys are aware of this. But seebs has already admitted that he has different information from what Void has told us. (I can't quote the post because it's apparently been edited to remove what he said [not sure if by seebs, it says by a moderator]. Or just removed entirely. Trying to hit the track button on the quote gives an error, I don't really know. But it was still said, so that's what everyone who has been following this is working off of.) Edit 3: The strikethrough part was wrong, there was actually no editing or post removal to my knowledge, since the error I was getting was due to the fact the quote came from Maya's CV thread (which is obviously unviewable by me). Thought it was originally posted in this thread. Sorry about that. He just hasn't addressed the fact that the person involved has stated shit to the contrary of what he said, making it appear he and the mod team are accusing Void of deceit. The fact of the contradiction being acknowledged cannot reveal anything more than we already know, because we are already aware of the contradiction existing due to what's already been said by both seebs and Void. "Yes, the contradiction exists." This is something everyone who has been reading this entire time already knows. People just want acknowledgement of the fact we all already know, because at the moment the mod team just appear to be steamrolling Void by refusing to acknowledge what is now public information. This isn't going from zero information to a tiny sliver of information, it's going from a tiny sliver of information to the same tiny sliver of information, just less obviously pointing to the idea that Void is lying (but not removing it from the options entirely, depending on the wording). If anything, it reduces the information we have, because like everyone has said, the canned response of 'we can't say anything' appears to, in this case, be acting the third option in all of seebs' examples, revealing information despite seemingly trying to obfuscate it. It appears to be pointing to the mod team accusing Void of bullshitting without actually having to say the words. You guys seem to have come in at the last page without actually realising that people are just looking for acknowledgement, given this: Too late for that. seebs already told us so. Then Void came in and confirmed that what he experienced was different to the shit seebs stated on both his tumblr and in this thread. You can't put the cat back in the bag. It's done. People just want acknowledgement of the things already stated. Edit: Just realised I spent most of my bday debating on Kintsugi. What is my fuckin' life, jfc. Edit 2: Made a change to my sentence about not being able to quote it. I'm actually unsure if the quote was removed due to editing a post, or one of seebs' posts was just straight up removed. But the quote produces an error if you try and track it, so yeah. Edit 3: Above.
If the post hobo has screencapped above has been edited, I have not been made aware of this edit, so, there's that. In revealing this quote, I am not revealing any private info that has not already been leaked to someone it shouldn't have been (myself) and I am not revealing any private info from anyone but Void himself with permission. This does not logically follow in the least. Just because you can ask the questions doesn't mean you're going to get an answer. Mods can shove their current canned response up their asses and save it for those questions, but for now I'm asking for acknowledgement tbat this happened, especially with considering I've forbid mod team from posting in my CV thread for now. The contradiction already exists and is public info. I have already said relevant parts of my CV thread are public. I am not a party bound to secrecy. This continual denial of acknowledgement of a contradiction we all now know exists helps nothing and only leads me to one conclusion: Void or someone close to him is being accused of lying. It does not help that at the time this was posted, Void and Moogle were both extremely angry with Seebs, and Seebs has accused Void of "panic lying" right there in the OP. If you don't want me thinking and defending Void against these things, then maybe someone should acknowledge that the contradiction exists and quit trying to sweep it under the rug or edit it out without telling me. Edit: the initial post in which I quoted this has not been edited
Oh wait. I just realised. Did the seebs quote in my screenshot come from your CV thread? I kept on getting an error when I went to go look at it, thinking it was from this thread, but if it's from your CV, then yeah, of course I can't see it. I'll go edit my post to acknowledge that it was from the CV thread instead if that's the case?
No worries. I probably should've realised given the context, but yeah. Gunna go edit that. Apologies to the mods.
Hey guys, one quick clarification, because I know people are frustrated with the stock response. I think it is now publicly observed that the contradiction exists. But even though that observation is out there, we can't comment on the nature of the contradiction, who the information comes from, where it came from (whose thread, what that thread is about), how it was communicated (first, second, or third-hand, directly or implied), when it was communicated, or... pretty much anything else. Because that additional information would be private information. We can't comment further, because it's a privacy issue.
leaving aside the logic puzzle for the purposes of this post, basically, seebs and co are perfectly able to sling around accusations and whisper campaigns in private or in public without having to provide the slightest bit of evidence or even how reliable the source might be expected to be. if you can't clarify whether it's firsthand, secondhand, thirdhand, from the horse's mouth or from someone who might have ulterior motive for trying to smear the accused, then, well, it's not like they have any way at all of judging for themselves whether to take your information with a grain of salt. you're totally free to say 'can't answer that uwu' while trying to telegraph 'well some hypothetical people might just be posting different things in private and public :)))).' this is straight-up anon whisper campaign bullshit. 'i can't give you any evidence but you should know op is kinda gross uwu.' fuck, it's worse than anon bullshit, the anons at least admit they're too lazy to track the evidence down instead of using 'i can't tell you that sweaty :)' as a bulletproof shield to smear people however they want. 'but we did it in private uwu' just makes it worse. like. bruh. holy shit. if you make ray look less sleazy by comparison, examine yourselves maybe.
You didn't say jack or shit to the tune of "but you dont gotta change them!" until after you spent the better part of an essay telling me why you think my friends are all horrible abusive people. That makes it an afterthought. You are once again holding me responsible for my friends, for OTHER PEOPLE. THATS NOT SOMETHING IM RESPONSIBLE FOR. I am responsible for posting this. If someone is hurt by it, I don't believe I should be held responsible for that, because its your words that have hurt them. All I did was post your words as you did, if anyone is feeling socially anxious or scared or WHATEVER, thats on you for saying these things. I didn't do anything I and others have not been advised to do in the past, I didn't do anything but say "hey, seebs posted this in a hidden part of the forum". Maybe you should quit trying to deflect the damage caused onto me, I didn't fucking do anything wrong.
it's sleazy to go around whispering accusations to people in private about things you state that you cannot provide evidence for. there's literally no fucking point to it except to try and spread the idea that they're Bad in such a way that they can't defend themselves or be defended, by anyone else or by letting the people they're being accused to judge the evidence.
This whole thing around not disclosing private info is around a specific topic that has been done to death. Info on other things Seebs said? Quite a lot of it is public for people to draw their own conclusions from, which they have been doing. Conflating the two to make it seem like there is no evidence for, say, Leech's behavior is some dancey nonsense.
also lol, so if i for example had gone public about my stepdad abusing me and he'd gone to prison and died there it'd be 'my responsibility?' funny you should say 'the healthy ones accept that and move on,' because every therapist i have ever been to has explicitly and at length insisted on, and focused on helping me internalize, that what i am forced to do as a result of being victimized is the responsibility of the person who victimized me, and who put me in that position. like, seriously, they have been EMPHATIC and this sentiment makes up a pretty decent portion of every therapy session i have. seebs has zero fucking idea what PTSD/trauma support actually consist of and should never give advice on the subject ever again, news at 11. so........... because he made horrifying whisper campaign-style accusations......... in the same post......... as accusations based on public info........... it's line-dancey to point at the whisper campaigning and go 'UM.' a point is also no longer legitimate just because you're obtuse about it for long enough. gotcha. :ok_hand:
You won't say when you conflate all survivors, you won't say when you conflate all evidence together, and you categorically refuse to treat anyone in this with the barest amount of decency. Probably because anyone who disagrees with you is conflated to be The Enemy Singularity. This is such nonsense, I'm just going to stop.
Textual order is not chronological order. I wrote the text early on, I moved it to the end because it was more important and people tend to remember opening and closing points more than others. "An afterthought" is a thing you didn't think of until sometime entirely after the rest of the thing, or which wasn't actually true, or wasn't important. This was none of those. Also, a couple of people (including you) have pointed out that you'd specifically asked me not to talk to you about things with your friends. I just plain fucking forgot. I remembered that you didn't like to feel like you were being held responsible for them, but I just forgot the other part, and I fucked that up. Sorry. A lot of this makes a lot more sense to me now that I've been reminded of that. I think maybe we have different expectations here. Lots of people say things to me which would hurt other people if posted publically. In general, if I posted those things publically, would you think that any harm that resulted was entirely on the people who said those things to me, none of it on me? Because I wouldn't expect people to feel that way, and the general responses I see to privacy questions suggest that most people would feel quite strongly otherwise. But Hobo's question up above about whistleblowers suggests a general exception, which is that this default assumption doesn't imply in cases where, say, the reason for posting the thing publically is to highlight or reveal problems or abuse within a system or power structure. And I do think it's absolutely a good thing to bring private abuse to light, and if you understood my message that way, then yes, I think you made a good moral judgment. (And since I crossed a plainly-stated boundary, it's a reasonable way to take it. It wasn't intentional, but most abuse isn't.)
i can't parse this in particular whatsoever except for a vague idea of Something Something Stop Speaking for Me Because Your Experiences are Mine and Require My Agreement to Be Real Because I'm Also a Survivor, for the first bit. seriously, i have zero fucking idea what you're talking about. cool? i also have zero idea what 'categorically' is supposed to mean in this case, or what you define as 'decency,' but funny, i could say that about you and seebs in particular. polite poison is still fucking poison. this is fucking rich of you to say, given the mod team's past and recent history with assuming All Criticism Stems from Wax and that people who were commiserating in each other's vent threads at the time of a blowup were a hivemind. it's still basically impossible to parse what exactly you're talking about as pertains to me in the above, because you don't need coherent criticisms or accusations to try to hastily discredit someone who just called you on total bullshit. which, k, you can 'I'M NOT TALKING TO YOU I'M NOT TALKING TO YOU LALALA' all you want, i'm still going to respond to arguments you make whether you respond to me or not, because i'm not making them for you. i'm making them for the people watching so they can see the gaslighting and weasel-wording and abuse apologism refuted. :ok_hand: edit: also i think it's hilarious that grim liked that post, which noticeably went up after they NO U'd me telling them in the ks discord--after great and painstaking and totally fruitless effort to answer their questions--that it was no longer productive or worth it to continue explaining to them when they were wilfully, disingenuously displaying the level of object permanence of a toddler. the DARVO is spreading, i see.
also, i like the continued pattern of making unnecessarily specific digs at people who've explicitly stated they aren't around to defend themselves. void, now leechkin. HM.
God. Some things are just too astounding to leave alone. My dead mom can't defend herself either but I'm still going to talk about what she did.
No one (but a couple of spammers) is banned. Anyone who wants to post to defend themselves is welcome to. I do find the idea of a general rule against saying negative things about people who can't be present to defend themselves an interesting one. I should ask whether people on the kintsugi-adjacent Discord server feel that way. Oh, wait. I can't, because I'm not there, so the people saying negative things about me there feel safer. And yes, really. That's it. I know people value the venting there, I think it's important for people to be able to vent, so I don't go there. But it does seem like an unusually steep double standard.
