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

    ... What do you mean "haven't yet come to a working definition of abuse"?

    I've stated explicitly that Wiwaxia has engaged in characteristically abusive behavior in the past, and I've posted links and citations. I'm not super interested in repeating it again, but the most unambiguous example would be the "Missing Missing Reasons" (I like Issendai's description of this in the estranged-parent discussions) thing. There's been others.

    I'll concede that "formal" is the wrong word, but that was absolutely a statement about what other people should do, and what forums should be like. But see spockandawe's post; a public call for shunning is absolutely a thing which affects everyone else whether or not they accept it.

    Long story short: Wiwaxia has repeatedly made assertions that people with meltdowns are obviously actually in control and could definitely have not done that if they'd wanted to.

    Gosh, if only we'd had fifty fucking pages of discourse on how organized shunning is devastating to many people, and even the fact that it has been proposed can be terrifying, and how multiple people have fled the community, or chosen not to join it, because a highly visible community member regularly advocates for it.

    Because it turns out that a group of people doing a thing, collaboratively, has impact that is distinct from what happens if a similar number of people happen to do the same thing.

    It might help them with their mental health. It endangers other people.

    Except that I explicitly mentioned two of them. But this particular subthread? Absolutely about the specific goal of getting enough people to shun someone that effects happen to that person.

    And yet, "get them to go away" was listed as the primary and preferred goal. That's the goal of the behavior; it's aimed at having effects on the people targeted. It's there to have "social consequences", or "get them to go away".

    I did not miss it.

    The claim "we're not doing this to Make alix feel a certain way, and we are not responsible for dealing with how they feel as a result of actions we take for our own mental health's sake" is false.

    The explicitly stated goals are to "make them go away", break the part of the cycle where they feel like a normal and integrated part of the community, and impose social consequences on them.

    THE ENTIRE PROPOSAL IS FOCUSED ON THE IMPACT IT WILL HAVE ON THE PEOPLE SHUNNED.

    Because without that impact, there's no reason for it. "You can ignore people if you want to" is not a new claim. It doesn't need to be introduced with thoughts about how ostracization is vital to the health of the community. The goal of this is to "freeze out" people who are unwanted. By organized group action.

    This is absolutely and specifically about how it makes the victims feel.

    I rarely get to use this phrase, but: The "individual action is useless" part gives the lie to that claim. That makes it crystal clear that the goal is entirely about the effects on the bad people, because if it were only about avoidance and personal choices, you would get 100% of the benefit if you personally ignored the person without any regard to what other people do.

    I have never, ever, claimed that things which are uncontrolled cannot be abuse. They can absolutely be abuse.

    Except for the links and citations and science pointing out that organized ostracization is devastating to the victims. And the fact that, by talking about shunning people, you have made it impossible for anyone else to individually decide to not engage with someone without their actions being understood in the context of a call for organized shunning.

    But you know what?

    It was completely explicit that the goals of this action were to have effects on people. You even quoted a thing supposedly showing that it was about something else, only you quoted the part where it was confirmed that the goal was to have "collective action" to accomplish things.

    And I don't know why you're trying to piss on my leg and tell me it's raining, but I have zero interest in this bullshit. The goal is "ostracization", not merely "avoidance". It is shunning. It is "freezing out" people who are unwanted. It is to make them "go away", or have "social consequences". That is what was said, and that is what was being discussed, and your attempts to conceal this are offensive.

    If you were defending that as a valid choice or goal, I would have been happy to argue with you about it, because that is a valid and defensible position that people have advocated for. But you're not. You're trying to convince me that even though you and others have repeatedly used language which focuses exclusively on the impact on the targets of the shunning, actually it was always really about ethics in game journalism personally avoiding abusers. Even though there's no ambiguity, no room for doubt, and hell, even the special cherry-picked quote you used to make it look like maybe there was ambiguity ended up contradicting your claims.

    So, fuck off. Have the fucking courage of your convictions, or don't. If you're gonna call for shunning, just fucking admit that you're doing that, don't try to play silly buggers and confuse the issue and defend it as being something else.

    Wiwaxia's post called for ostracization and bullying, but it was at least fucking honest about it. I felt it was reprehensible, it was contrary to the entire point of the forum existing, but it was a true claim about how someone felt, and could be engaged with or discussed. Your posts are just dodging and lying about what was said and what was on the table. There's no "there" there.
     
    • Like x 5
  2. seebs

    seebs Benevolent Dictator

    None. As Beldaran points out, we have simply never previously had to deal with the problem before of "a user wants to do things which hurt other users, has been told that people are hurt by this, and is totally unwilling to even try to stop".
     
  3. leo

    leo Well-Known Member

    jesus christ, seebs, that break wasn't long enough at all.

    i suppose i can't even be the one to tell you to disengage because it's coming from me, of all people.
     
    • Like x 8
  4. seebs

    seebs Benevolent Dictator

    ... Okay, but actually, seriously: Thanks.

    There is no such thing as a break long enough to make me not get mad about certain things. But I can take more breaks, and I think I will now.

    Thanks. And since we've had our issues before, I'm gonna be super clear: Sincerely, thanks. This message helped me, and I am taking your advice.

    Taking a break again, will be reachable in emergencies, but I'm logging out for a while.
     
    • Like x 9
  5. leo

    leo Well-Known Member

    you should also apologize to jay for that tone and accusatory shit. also, if we're bringing up people leaving:

    i genuinely tried to kill myself because of your range between dismissiveness and hyperfocus. you SERIOUSLY need a break, because i am worried about someone else doing the same.
     
    • Like x 2
  6. spockandawe

    spockandawe soft and woolen and writhing with curiosity

    This is why I said I wasn't weighing in about cults at all. Nothing I said past that first sentence had anything to do with cults, and that first sentence was only to say that 'to be clear, I'm not talking about cults.' I quoted that post because the discussion of implications in someone else's words made things click for me about a different topic.

    ????? There is a lot of surface area to cover in this forum. I don't have a brainbent thread. Most of the threads covering this have moved fast. There is LITERALLY no guarantee anyone would see that post or process it, depending on where and when I made it. Should it be my custom title? 'I'm ignoring alix, but it's TOTALLY separate from WIWAXIA'S call to ignore alix.'

    And for that matter, I have been dancing around even saying that I'd wanted to stop interacting with Alix for ages, specifically because of Wiwaxia's post. Publicly performing that kind of thing... it's not Wrong, but it's not for me. I hate making any kind of public announcement that I'm not going to interact with someone, even if it's literally 'you just sent me almost thirty anon hate messages, so I'm not going to keep replying.'

    And that whole thing? About insinuations? It doesn't matter if I say that 'oh, uh, so hey guys I'm going to uncharacteristically announce that I'm ignoring this person, but it's TOTALLY not because of this other person's call to ignore them, it's, uh, totally my own personal thing. Which is why I'm making this big public announcement.'

    Okay? That's how you read it, I don't see how you made that decision because that's absolutely not how I read it, and We Are At An Impasse.

    I don't know what this was meant to achieve, because the message I got is that 'you're worried about the private implications of wiwaxia's post about your quiet, private decision to quietly, privately ignore a person? the solution is obvious! put on a BIG PUBLIC PERFORMANCE about how you're ignoring this person and your specific reasons for doing it! PROBLEM SOLVED.'

    I saw Leo's brainbent post and I'm not interested in a TCHGB thread. I fail to see where any of it will go considering how many times I've clarified my point of view in these threads. I am tired of repeating myself. This response feels insultingly simplistic and like you're talking down to me, and I don't want to engage with that even semi-privately. I haven't been upset for most of this thread, but I'm upset now. Congrats.
     
    Last edited: Mar 3, 2017
    • Like x 6
  7. leo

    leo Well-Known Member

    that above is one of the reasons i suggested a TCGBG thread, because it seems like it isn't being communicated properly. then you say you're not interested in one because you're tired of repeating your point, so i'm kind of scratching my head a little on how to make you feel better then, but i understand why you don't want a thread.

    if that "insulting simplistic" and so on is directed at me, i apologize for my tone: i didn't want to drag it back here due to, well, what was in my brainbent. if it's at cyborgism, i understand, but they haven't been totally involved in the thread. nonetheless i can see why, and i'm sorry you got upset.

    also, do you want people not to ping you into the conversation?
     
  8. cyborgism

    cyborgism they/them

    @seebs when you get back, can you stop doing all that bold text at me? thanks. i don't appreciate feeling like i'm being yelled at.

    and in general: i wasn't even trying to address you or anyone else personally by coming in here, i was waiting for lissa to respond. tossing all these blocks of text at me is not very much welcome. i'm on mobile and my day's barely even started, for god's sake.

    this seems to imply that these people are in danger because there is nobody (or fewer people) at all for these other people to fall back on for support with their mental health, which is false.

    aight. i was not aware that you had been sourcing things, as i've not fully backread. what i was referring to was
    i took "the term's not defined" as being in reference to the mention of abusive behavior, if you meant to refer to something else then i misread.

    what i meant by "to Make alix feel a certain way" was that we are neither individually or as a group going up to alix to harass them or aggressively show distaste and unwelcoming-ness towards them, i meant that we are not trying to make alix feel like an evil monster or anything like that, not that wiwaxia didn't mean to try to get them to change their behavior. i'm working with the distinction between "making them feel something" and "wanting them to take and/or stop taking certain actions (ie showing improvement)"

    i never said you did claim that. i said that you seem to have been pushing the idea that the specific outburst behaviors that have gone on recently are not abusive, by reasoning that they were not Controlled.

    excuse me? i haven't been talking to you with nearly as much crass disrespect as you're showing for me. i really don't appreciate being painted as a sleazy uncourageous goalpost-shifting cherry picker who's pissing on you, what the fuck.

    i'm trying to engage from my own pov as straightforwardly and consistently as i can.

    would you be interested in some more ""cherry picking"" from my vent thread, where i made pretty much that exact point about them being honest, but stated that i was not fully in agreement with their idea of a shun? (and i am not trying to be calling for a shun, i could be considered one of the people not in full agreement with wax but avoiding alix individually, even.)

     
    Last edited: Mar 3, 2017
    • Like x 2
  9. tired

    tired New Member

    this mostly likely refers to the issue of quantifying what counts as "many" versus "very many," with the referent indicated by the bold text. ie:

     
    • Like x 2
  10. chthonicfatigue

    chthonicfatigue Bitten by a radioactive trickster god

    I'm struggling to parse this as anything other than a statement that people who have have had meltdowns are a) inherently unlikeable; b) that their base state is one of anger and/or cruelty; c) that people who have had meltdowns are capable of covering up or controlling said base state the majority of the time; d) are pretending to make progress towards recovery; e) are not a normal part of the community (and implied should not be considered such).

    In addition what is the end game for "breaking" this alleged cycle; is it to force people into more meltdowns and therefore proving that they are unworthy of being community members, or making them effectively non-participants in conversations out of fear of further ostracism, or is there a goal of integrating them into the community again in some way I can't quite seem to figure out?
     
    • Like x 14
  11. spockandawe

    spockandawe soft and woolen and writhing with curiosity

    (ack, sorry, this was like two thirds typed and then I saw the response in brainbent @_@)

    I'll be fine, I just wasn't braced for it. I find an even keel pretty fast. The 'insultingly simplistic' wasn't directed at you, and I understand that at this point the discussion has been large enough that it's not reasonable to expect any individual to have a complete picture of everything that's been said. I don't really need any external input to get me to feel better, I'll take care of it myself given some time.

    I'm just very frustrated to have responded to a post about implications. Where I talked about the direct implications of Wiwaxia's words, and the way they affected me. And got basically met with a 'nuh uh' and a suggestion that I deal with it by taking action that's... actually significantly more upsetting to me than anything else I described. If I'd ignored Alix and let the implications sit, the fretting would have been only in my head. The idea that I ought to deal with the way I'm affected a public call to shun by... publicly announcing my intention to shun....... I don't understand, and I am still pretty insulted that it was offered as a solution.

    I made a post earlier in the thread that I can dig up if anyone wants, where I quoted the parts of Wiwaxia's that especially spoke to a call for coordinated group action. I'm not sure if you or cyborgism was following along at that point, but there were like seven distinct snippets I quoted that had the feel of a deliberate group effort. In the face of that, a disclaimer that it's an individual decision, doesn't... have much weight to me.

    I think the example I used was that the marches after the election, it was everyone's individual decision to attend. Does that make it any less of a group action? If anyone has no intention of taking part in that particular protest but still goes on the streets to protest, will people assume that they're doing their own thing, or that they're part of the larger group? Even if the person says that oh, no, I'm not with THEM, are people going to remember that oh right, this person is doing JUST their own thing, they're not part of this GROUP doing the same stuff.

    So just... very frustrating. If a tchgb thread materializes over anything, I'm fine with weighing in with hopefully-helpful observations if they're welcome. But I'm not feeling like I need a thread on my own behalf, and the thought of being pulled into one of those threads as a main participant is giving me a big ol' anxiety spike. Hopefully this post is not too shamefully dated by the time I click post.
     
    • Like x 2
  12. prismaticvoid

    prismaticvoid Too Too Abstract

    I can give you an explanation of this if you want, I have talked to them pretty extensively about it.
     
    • Like x 6
  13. evilas

    evilas Sure, I'll put a custom title here

    @Jo, yes please I'd like one as well
     
    • Like x 5
  14. palindromordnilap

    palindromordnilap Well-Known Member

    I actually really like the bolded text in seebs's posts, it catches my attention and makes it easier for me to read their walls of text.
     
    • Like x 6
  15. AbsenteeLandlady123

    AbsenteeLandlady123 Chronically screaming

    Yo hello I am awake now.

    So in Wiwaxia's own words from the discussion I had with them last night: they are advocating for the position before the forum. They said they don't want the power to make that happen unilaterally. However they are still absolutely advocating a position and trying to get others to join in.

    That's what they want to do. They explicitly want to make the 'resident harrassers' feel unwelcome. They said it isn't intended as a punishment, but they understand it has the same effects.

    It was stated that they do not believe HFL and Alix are working on getting better. This was then backtracked upon when I mentioned that was not okay, but then reasserted in a different way later. Frankly that was one of the most difficult and frustrating conversations of my life and I like Wiwaxia. I told them they are hurting people with the position, and rather than engage with that at all they immediately shot back with how there is 'no way not to hurt people', until I eventually talked things around to an acknowledgement that they 'jumped the gun'.

    So we can stop debating as to whether it was being advocated as a position, because it absolutely was.

    I didn't want to post excerpts without asking for permission, but frankly the whole private conversation was deeply upsetting to me and I am posting them also as a sanity check. I removed personal information.

    Restating: I like wiwaxia. I respect wiwaxia. I really really wanted to believe this was all a misunderstanding.
     
    Last edited: Mar 3, 2017
    • Like x 8
  16. Ipuntya

    Ipuntya your purple friend

    @seebs not to say that leo wasn't being a bit of a dick to lissa earlier too, but you're being a huge asshole in your responses.

    including to cyborgism, who isn't really doing anything wrong

    i think i see why this is happening, too:
    riley and jay are doing the thing where they are repeatedly engaging with what they insinuate to be the implications of what people are saying, and are taking very little at face valie. this is behavior that has seriously aggravated you in the past, and it doesn't help your frustration that many of the insinuations they are making are off-base, misinformed, or over something we've been over ages ago. that's not malicious or abusive, that's just bad arguing
     
    • Like x 5
  17. leo

    leo Well-Known Member

    Ipuntya, seebs already left, and if you could stop beating the dead horse that'd be fantastic.
     
  18. Ipuntya

    Ipuntya your purple friend

  19. leo

    leo Well-Known Member

    you know one of the problems is people getting involved in others' arguments, as seen as seebs getting upset.
    so maybe take your own advice.
     
  20. AbsenteeLandlady123

    AbsenteeLandlady123 Chronically screaming

    there was an attempt to debug an interaction for seebs, which might have valuable input that he might see when he comes back from the break. If it will help seebs understand you better leo, that seems like a good thing?
     
    • Like x 8
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