charter peanut gallery

Discussion in 'The Undercity' started by seebs, Feb 22, 2017.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. seebs

    seebs Benevolent Dictator

    I am skeptical, for the simple reason that none of this is new information. Remember back when I got yelled at by several people for pointing out that people had become suicidal because of things Wiwaxia said? You can call it "manipulative" if you want, but Wiwaxia has known for most of a year that people have attempted suicide because of the things they say to try to "protect" people. It has not been ambiguous, it has not been unstated, it has been clearly and repeatedly pointed out that the language used to advocate driving people away causes massive distress and harm to other people.
  2. seebs

    seebs Benevolent Dictator

    Unless you have notarized agreements from all of them saying you represent them, maybe you should not imply that you speak for all of them. (And I can save time by pointing out that, in fact, you don't.)

    ... Okay this is just really confusing.

    Is bullying good? No? Then shunning's role in bullying is not an example of "shunning has a place".

    Okay, the first time you said "not exactly wanting to help", or "not offering to help", I could accept it as a misreading.

    But it's been repeatedly clarified, with actual quotes, that what is on the table here is not "wanting to help", or even "helping", but "refraining from actively trying to harm". Stop shifting goalposts.

    Define "allowed a pass on their actions". If you mean "not being banned", why, then yes, obviously. Past that...

    The usual community standard is that if you do things that seriously fuck people up, you apologize for them. I am not inclined to treat a person who repeatedly does a thing while calm and collected at all the same as I'd treat someone who does a thing while in a blind fury from emotional overload, then spends substantial time and effort on apologies and making amends.
    • Like x 2
  3. leo

    leo Well-Known Member

    Let me get out of this appointment then I'll respond. Nice to see you again Seebs.
  4. seebs

    seebs Benevolent Dictator

    Quoting this with a new edit because the context was partially "loosely related thoughts and previous discussions". I'm not suggesting that you have to have put in this kind of work to be entitled to opinions on things, or anything of the sort. I'm just frustrated with the periodic allegations that the people with the meltdowns aren't working on things, when they've worked harder on those things than anyone else has.
  5. cyborgism

    cyborgism they/them

    wax's suggested criteria for people who it would keep ourselves safer if we were to avoid them were: people who used abusive tactics (such as boundary crossing, suicide baiting, threats, etc) on very many different people.

    and iirc the suggestion of going no-contact on people who've displayed unpredictable & volatile outbursts had no particular connection to whether or not the persons in question were In Control of their outbursts or not.

    as do many of the people who were hurt during and/or watched the rage spirals that went on already feel.

    speaking from my experience as a survivor of a religious cult & having also done research into cults in general; i'm seeing some issues with these statements:
    • non-religious cults/high demand groups are also entirely capable capable of being accepting of shunning
    • the specific thing about shunning in cults is that its enforced by a hierarchy of authoritative power over the people (or enough semblance of such that it seems believable), and tends to have steps towards it happening, for example:
      • the leader(s) of a cult may malign someone publicly for expressing dissent towards the predominant belief system & actions of the members
      • rumors spread in private about a target about the legitimacy of the beliefs of said target, often without having offered proof, so the people would be split on whether to trust the accusations of the leader(s) or the target(s)
      • they may edit reality in order to present the behavior of the target as a malicious danger to members of the in-group.
    secondly, to me your posts do carry the insinuation that those who would be accepting of shunning would be engaging in cultic behavior de facto.

    avoiding someone for any reason is more comparable to plugging one's own ears than placing one's hand over the mouth of the person you don't like in order to prevent them from speaking/silence them.

    avoidance generally implies an unwillingness to work together, which is not someone that anyone's obligated to do anyways, so i'm not seeing the problem. nobody who wants to participate in help efforts is being prevented from doing so.
    • Like x 7
  6. Ipuntya

    Ipuntya your purple friend

    ...can we keep the tone policing out of this thread? it's kind of a dick move to do when you're arguing with very autistic people.
    • Like x 8
  7. Mala

    Mala Well-Known Member

    I think we're starting to repeat an earlier misunderstanding so let me try to clear it up

    The general view expressed by seebs and others is: (my understanding at least, let me know if it's wrong)
    Ignoring someone for your own protection and comfort: A ok and encouraged
    Saying that other people should ignore or exclude someone especially for the purpose of punishment or teaching a lesson or getting them to leave on this forum: ostracizing and not ok
    Last edited: Mar 3, 2017
    • Like x 13
  8. seebs

    seebs Benevolent Dictator

    And conveniently, I have identified examples of abusive behavior by Wiwaxia towards various people. Many? Yes. Very many? Well, I dunno, the term's not defined.

    But again, you're glossing over a huge and important distinction, between "keep ourselves safer if we were to avoid them" and "freeze them out". No one's objecting to people not interacting with someone they don't interact with. It's the formal claim that ostracization is necessary, and that we should freeze people out, that's upsetting.

    But it has to be understood in terms of the previous year of repeatedly asserting that people were absolutely in control and could have just not done the thing.

    Yes. But "let's make even more people unsafe" is not going to help.

    But we're not talking about "avoiding" someone. We're talking about organized effort to ostracize them in the hopes of driving them away. Explicitly stated as such.

    Seriously, I am getting really upset by this, because it feels really sleazy to see multiple people shifting the goalpost over to "but what if I want to not talk to someone". Here's what was said (emphasis added):

    Any time you talk about this and act as though it was ever about individually avoiding people you dislike interacting with? I feel like you're trying to trick me into discussing a different topic. Maybe you don't mean it that way, but this has never, ever, been about that, and any mention of personal interactions as opposed to organized group shunning is simply irrelevant to the claim on the table.

    This thread exists because of the above claims and related claims. It's about the proposal of an organized and systematic shunning, not about the question of whether individual people choose to avoid interacting with someone.

    Except they are if the tactic is successful in "getting them to go away".

    And the tactic is entirely framed in the assumption that the whole process is 100% intentional and premeditated and fully controlled. There has never, ever, been an "i'm all better and a normal part of the community" part of the "cycle". That's completely fictitious. It never happened, it was never even similar to a thing that happened. It is a thing that could have been part of the cycle where a completely dishonest and fully-in-control abuser was trying to get a "honeymoon period" to avoid having to change.

    But it's not a thing we've had here. We've had people who were living in absolute terror that the monster would get out again, and they'd hurt people, and they'd be hated for it, and they'd lose their friends. And the thing that even allowed them to try to work on it was the hope that they might be able to salvage something from the wreckage and get the chance to keep working on the thing so they could get better.
    • Like x 8
  9. seebs

    seebs Benevolent Dictator


    But given how often we've had this same misunderstanding, with some of the same people, it's starting to really feel to me like this is an intentional goalpost shift to try to say "no, look, this wasn't that unreasonable thing, this was a much more reasonable thing".

    No. The proposal made was absolutely for systematic organized shunning with the intent of ostracizing people to drive them away, with hurting them for being bad as a secondary goal if the first can't be achieved. That's what was stated.
    • Like x 4
  10. seebs

    seebs Benevolent Dictator

    Vacation, sorta, spoons, not really. This needs to get resolved before I move on to new things.

    I think this is two separate questions. One is whether I'd seen and acknowledged your suggestion, and I absolutely agree that you made one, and I think it's a good idea, I just don't think it will fully solve things.

    The second question is whether, when people say they want "something" done, it ever ends up meaning anything but "ban that person". Because so far, I've never seen anything else that gets done meet with approval and make the demands that I should do "something" stop.
  11. spockandawe

    spockandawe soft and woolen and writhing with curiosity

    Sorry, not weighing in on the cult thing at all, but this put the parallel at the front of my brain... Wiwaxia's call for a coordinated group effort to punish and shut people out? Way stronger insinuations than Lissa's statement that anyone who was cutting off contact with Alix (or whoever) was doing it AS a de facto part of that group shun. And insinuating that they were also participating in the punishment and trying to force the shunned person to change.

    So like, I really, particularly do not appreciate being cornered into a position where if I back away from Alix to lower my stress levels or take care of myself or whatever. I'm being effectively claimed as part of a group shun. Plenty of people, including me, have said plenty of things about how group shunning is one of the most upsetting social consequences we HAVE, and... if I make my own decision for how to deal with Alix and it involves putting them on ignore, oops, you're helping us with the group shun now, sorry, I don't make the rules.

    I have said a LOT about how anyone Alix has hurt and upset has the right to deal with l that however they want, and I've snapped multiple times at Alix for getting impatient and annoyed with people over how they're dealing with things. I am still not okay with a coordinated group punishment in an effort to force faster change, which is what Wiwaxia's words were about. But I am EXTREMELY not okay with words that pull me into that group doing the punishment, whether I want to be there or not. Wiwaxia's words have had a hell of a lot more effect on how I deal with Alix than Alix's words have had, I was put in a position where *I* wasn't the one determining the implications of how I dealt with Alix, I was put in a position where I was stuck choosing between 'lower your stress levels' and 'participate in this group activity you find deeply upsetting', and I DON'T APPRECIATE THAT.
    Last edited: Mar 3, 2017
    • Like x 9
  12. seebs

    seebs Benevolent Dictator

    There's two separate assertions here:
    • Anyone ignoring Alix is necessarily part of a group shun.
    • Anyone intentionally joining a shun is acting in a cultish manner.
    The latter is not an assertion that Lissa's post made, at all. The claim is not "shunning does not exist outside of religious cults", it's "shunning is a bad thing outside of religious cults". Which is a rhetorical device, because obviously while there's a reason that cults actively practice shunning, it's a bad reason. And shunning is just as valuable to bullying tactics as it is to religious cult tactics, so it's not that shunning is only fit-to-purpose for cults; it's fit-to-purpose for lots of bad things. But there is no assertion there that shunning is inherently cultish, it's just a rhetorical device.

    The former isn't exactly an assertion made, but it's an inference that people would quite reasonably draw given the existence of a specific call for lots of people to engage in coordinated shunning with the explicitly stated goal of ostracizing the Bad People.

    And that does create exactly the problem Spockandawe pointed out: If you would like to avoid a given person for your own mental health, prior to Wiwaxia's post you could pretty much just do that and not worry about it, because there wasn't a cultural norm of shunning going on, lots of people wouldn't, and so on. With that post present, even if you are not personally intending to participate in a group shun, there's the overtones that other people might be, and people who are afraid of being shunned are likely to interpret such behavior that way now. Because they've been told that's a thing.

    I do not see a way to repair that in any short time frame; that is lasting damage to the whole community, and every time people post trying to blur the boundaries between organized shunning and individually deciding to avoid specific people for your own mental health's sake, they increase that harm. There's no way to talk a lot about shunning people without giving any kind of personal boundary a light coating of ostracization-flavored sprinkles.
    • Like x 6
  13. palindromordnilap

    palindromordnilap Well-Known Member

    I have found the PERFECT solution for this.
  14. cyborgism

    cyborgism they/them

    if you haven't yet come to a working definition of abuse then it'd probably be best in general not to dance around and/or outright accuse wiwaxia of engaging in abusive behavior.

    in order to accuse me of missing a distinction, being sleazy, tricky & goalpost-shifting along with other people, and saying that wiwaxia made a "formal claim" you are missing the parts where

    wiwaxia was not making a formal claim or pressuring anyone into organizing in agreement with them. they stated their personal opinion, their personal decision, and encouraged us to take their opinions & methods into consideration, while giving us the option to disagree with either method, opinion or both. we were free to disagree & do our own thing, which is what made it a choice and not a power trip.

    i am as of yet not fully aware of what you're referring to, its been a while since i skimmed over parts of the previous Arguing At Wiwaxia threads.

    i'm not seeing how a group of people deciding to retract offers of help or their presence itself, for the sake of their own mental health and because they recognize they are not obligated to engage with anybody is directly making other people unsafe. and imo it will in fact help these people with their mental health, and other help for the people who need/want it can be procured from people who are willing to help.

    it seeming like "shifting the goalpost (singlular)" shows that you are focusing your emphasis on only one of the potential scenarios wax predicted could be a possible result of the effort.

    and the third effect they wished to have was helping us all be more aware that 1) we are not obligated to interact with others, & 2) there are options we can choose to take with the understanding that it's for our mental health's sake. alix doesn't necessarily have to leave for any of that other stuff to happen, and nobody's chasing them off.

    in oder to make the absolute claim in bold, you seem to have missed the part here:

    here i was speaking of avoidance, more clearly termed as 'going no-contact' and wiwaxia agreed that had been an accurate analysis of their points.

    i firmly disagree with the general idea you seem to have been pushing that all has been done is not abuse if/because it was unintential/uncontrolled/etc. i don't want to engage on that topic with you.

    and again, nobody is depriving of them of that chance. we, as a group of individuals, are disengaging from that process.
    Last edited: Mar 3, 2017
    • Like x 2
  15. seebs

    seebs Benevolent Dictator

    For the record, I've thought about it. With the people who are currently on mod queue, it's usually pretty easy to distinguish meltdown posts from non-meltdown posts, and in practice, that's all we need to do. You don't cheerfully suicide-bait people while also participating in RP threads or whatever, so we can just look at individual posts and make calls, no problem.

    Wiwaxia's behavior isn't as easily categorized into "normal mode" and "freakout mode", and I don't even think the hurtful posts are the same kind of thing -- although on reflection I am probably unjustified in assuming that they're completely calm and controlled, because not all headbugs manifest as completely obvious freakouts. So it would take a lot of much more careful reading to determine which posts counted, and there'd be a lot more dispute. If you got really mad and posted something telling someone to kill themselves, and mods deleted it, you wouldn't be mystified as to why or argue that it was unfair. But I'm pretty sure that Wiwaxia would react really badly to having posts like the ones that spawned this whole line of discussion deleted by moderators, even though they are comparably hurtful.

    So I don't think post moderation solves the thing.
    • Like x 4
  16. michinyo

    michinyo On that Dumb Bitch Juice diet

    Have there been any users that you have forced to put onto post modding? Or (other than circumvented accounts or accounts specifically meaning to cause harm) are they only those that have asked to be?
  17. Beldaran

    Beldaran 70% abuse and 30% ramen

    Everyone who's been put on moderation has agreed that it's for the best, they recognize that their behavior isn't under their control and they would rather not hurt people.

    It's less that they ask and more that a consensus is reached.
  18. michinyo

    michinyo On that Dumb Bitch Juice diet

    So, hypothetically since Alix brought it up, what if Seebs wanted to put Wax on post modding and Wax didn't agree to it? Would that then be a 'tough titties' moment?
    I personally just have an issue with the 'let's just put Wax on post modding' because it reads as a punitive response to the situation, when Seebs has been very against that in the past.
    • Like x 2
  19. cyborgism

    cyborgism they/them

    the point of my post was what wiwaxia had proposed did not carry strong enough of an insinuation of anything to be able to be accurately met by insinuating that their proposal was cultic. i explained why i don't see their method of going about a group ostracization as similar to cults' common punitive and forceful methods, though i'm not ruling out whether or not they are being punitive/forceful, as i have not processed that much myself yet.

    well i mean...anyone who's stated where alix & others can see it that they disagree with the shunning but want to ignore them for other reasons could not be reasonably assumed to be shunning them in agreement with wiwaxia

    i understand your frustration, and i generally don't agree with punitive force either. however, i feel as though wiwaxia's statement that it was up to us to go along or not is sufficient disclaimer for 'not dragging anybody along with them.'
    Last edited: Mar 3, 2017
  20. Beldaran

    Beldaran 70% abuse and 30% ramen

    @michinyo I don't know, we've never had people hurt others and not want to stop before. That's why this is such an issue. :c
    • Like x 3
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice