Loose thought: "Attractive Nuisance"

Discussion in 'The Undercity' started by seebs, Feb 12, 2017.

  1. Beldaran

    Beldaran 70% abuse and 30% ramen

    There isn't going to be an analogy that anyone can make that will make it someone's own fault for reading shit written about themselves and feeling hurt.

    Everyone is on the hook for the things that they post. That's all. What being "on the hook" looks like will depend on the context. But if someone posts about you, and you read it, and you get upset, that's not something you can be blamed for.
     
    • Like x 4
  2. AbsenteeLandlady123

    AbsenteeLandlady123 Chronically screaming

    Not the same place, and also different concerns.
    I'm not gonna stay quiet when I notice the signs of a developing bad thing, because I think planning for a hypothetical situation in this case in particular is preferable to just hoping it never happens.
    I'd rather say I've noticed a thing, and then discuss ideas for what to do if the ultimate manifestation of the thing occurs; then wait for the thing to actually happen and then do cleanup.
    If the thing doesn't happen, well that's actually great and exactly what I hope for.
     
    • Like x 1
  3. Beldaran

    Beldaran 70% abuse and 30% ramen

    This thread doesn't super have a purpose, so yeah, Kathy can talk out hypotheticals and fis)( can get her previous encounters trouble shot and whatever else the conversation leads to. I don't see the problem with just having the conversation. If people are distressed or think hypotheticals are useless they can change the topic or post elsewhere. Yelling people down from talking is also cool, I guess, but less fun than it could be.
     
    • Like x 1
  4. Mendacity

    Mendacity I’m meaner than my demons

    This is why I think it's stupid for vent threads to be in brainbent since holler closet isn't indexed by search engines from what I've been told. I know you just underwent a character assassination campaign but I seriously doubt anyone on this particular forum has the ability to do anything like that. None of us really do the hive mind shit in large enough groups to be a viable 'problem' like KF. If the thread in question doesn't get indexed that means that searching for it won't pull up anyone saying "Moony's a giant poopy doofus".

    And hey guess what, every time someone off-topics in a thread it has a chance to trigger me. Reason? That doesn't GO there put it where it GOES. I deal with it and don't throw it at other people, and from what I understand people want arguments to be moved to TCHGB because that forum specifically has likes turned off so that peanut gallery can't anonymously support shit. Organization + prevention of like-spam 'support'.

    Gun range = Do not cross line when gun is firing.
    Your choices: Cross line when gun is firing or wait until things have stopped to approach the problem.

    You can be mad about what you read, but if you try to jump in it while someone's hair-trigger ready to attack someone you're being stupid and putting yourself in a bad spot. If you're willing to accept that jumping someone (even politely) while they are possibly triggered will put you in danger of being attacked feel free and such but you know as well as I do that talking to someone while they're angry won't do anything but cause circles.

    The gun range analogy implies that if you're upset that they're shooting at a you shaped target, wait until they stop shooting to try and ask question about the target. Don't imply that I think people deserve to be harassed just because you don't understand the metaphor. No one deserves to be shot if they accidentally cross the line in a gun range, it's terrible when it happens, but they did make a mistake to ignore the sign.

    Mistakes =/= fault and never will, I'll thank all of you to remember that. You can admit that "Hey I shouldn't have looked in that thread when that person had already seemed mad at me, I fucked up" AND say that you didn't deserve the abuse. Both work in the same world. Same as the gun range, you want them to stop using that target then fucking wait for them to say 'CLEAR' or stop firing then talk to them about it.
     
    • Like x 14
  5. Lissa Lysik'an

    Lissa Lysik'an Dragon-loving Faerie

    victim blaming again
    (I know I said I was going to sleep - I will now. Really.)
     
  6. Mendacity

    Mendacity I’m meaner than my demons

    Really?

    Good job, A+, nice not reading my post at all.
     
    • Like x 2
  7. Beldaran

    Beldaran 70% abuse and 30% ramen

    @Mendacity I understand your metaphor, I just disagree, which is fine! I do see where you're coming from.
     
  8. IvyLB

    IvyLB Hardcore Vigilante Gay Chicken Facilitator

    How the fuck is "This is a space where people prone to misbehavior, uncomfortable emotional expressions and faulty coping mechanisms are, so don't be surprised if some people fling shit, we're dealing with it when it happens" victim blaming?
     
    • Like x 8
  9. Mendacity

    Mendacity I’m meaner than my demons

    ok
     
  10. Mendacity

    Mendacity I’m meaner than my demons

    now I have better words: What's the point in going at someone when they're mad, you won't be talking to them you'll be talking to their anger.
     
    • Like x 8
  11. Mendacity

    Mendacity I’m meaner than my demons

    anyway since we've devolved into 'let's just claim tumblr catch phrases at people' I'm tapping out. Too sick to have been doing this in the first place. Please do not ping me.
     
  12. local troublemaker

    local troublemaker professional tumblrina

    So, since I'm still pretty sure that my thread is what set this whole thing off to begin with:

    -I would really appreciate it if Seebs would quit phrasing this as if she came into my thread and said "Wow, you hurt my feelings" and I said "Go eat shit." She came into my thread and started debating forum policy with me, which is not something I'm interested in discussing with her. She didn't engage with any of my posts about her.
    -As I've expressed multiple times, Seebs is free to start a TCHGB thread about my personal feelings about her. I don't think there would be much point, but she's free to do it and I'd be willing to engage with her there.
    -I would appreciate if she'd quit trying to make it look like I think that anyone can say anything about anyone with no repercussions because I refused to engage with her, specifically, in one thread on one issue.

    Edit: Would also like it if Seebs quit trying to imply I got mad at her for being autistic when 1) I am also autistic, 2) she consistently refuses to take others' disabilities/neurodivergencies into account when arguing with them.
     
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2017
    • Like x 9
  13. Wiwaxia

    Wiwaxia problematic taxon

    I am extremely suspicious of the "people want to be able to attack other people in their vent threads without consequence and tell other people it's their fault for being hurt" argument, because that is not something I have actually seen anyone say, especially not the people accused of saying it, who have mostly been trying to engage with this issue with nuance. Even if you don't agree with what they are saying, they're still not saying that.
     
    • Like x 17
  14. Secret Squirrel

    Secret Squirrel certainly something

    fakeedit: oh god this is so long I am sorry fakeedit2: apologies to everyone having to scroll past this later orz

    I am thinking about @Lissa Lysik'an 's concern about being able to respond where something is being said about you. My understanding is that this concerns things like "I can't believe Shingleback said [something I haven't said]" or "I am going to sabotage Shingleback however I can" rather than "I think Shingleback is a huge jerk and I never want to see them again"? Because the second kind isn't a statement of "fact" or intent, it's an opinion and a desire.

    We want a community where you are allowed to go "this thing said about me is a lie" or "I am being threatened", yes? And I think Lissa's concern with that (if I have understood it correctly) involves an element that has not been addressed directly in this thread: the involvement of others in one user's vent thread, either concurrently or through backreading.

    Here's where we get into my related concerns: If someone says a something about me in their vent thread, and I think it is a lie* and I object to it, I want people reading (present and future) to be able to know - without having to fact check and cross reference every vent thread with TCHGB constantly OR know my personal history with the user to make a judgement call - that I object to that statement. Otherwise, there may be no reason to doubt the statement, and thus what I think is a lie about me gets propagated. Which means, practically, I want to make a then and there statement saying I object, and I also want to do that every time it gets repeated (because not everyone backreads entire threads, and also the possibility of it getting into other threads).

    *I mean this as "user x is saying I threatened them with violence when I didn't" and not "user x doesn't like me and is Wrong On The Internet".

    The first part of the underlined sentence is something that, to my understanding, is workable under current custom. If this happened, I could make one post in their vent thread saying I object to their statement, and if they wished to discuss it with me further then we can do it in the vent thread or move to a TCHGB thread.

    The second part of the underlined sentence becomes trickier, because then it becomes an issue of whether I actually think there is a lie or if I am just saying that because I want everyone to think it is a lie. This is particularly hairy because of the proportion of this site that are abuse survivors and have dealt with that exact thing from abusers. However, I do not think that anyone should be allowed to say whatever they want about someone without that person being allowed to respond, so long as the responder is not doing it to harass the speaker.

    Which brings me to the what I think may be an actionable idea! Please rip this apart (and maybe put it back together better if you can?).

    If someone says something about you you think is false, you do what is current protocol: tell them you think so, invite them to discuss it if they wish in a designated area.

    Desired Result 1: Reasonable expectation that any readers are aware of your objection.

    Desired Result 2: Statement not repeated as truth.

    Possible Outcomes:
    1. Invitation declined/ignored, statement not repeated.
    2. Invitation accepted, statement not repeated.
    3. Invitation declined/ignored, statement repeated.
    4. Invitation accepted, statement repeated.
    Outcomes 1 and 2 achieve both desired results. My proposals for dealing with outcomes 3 and 4:

    Outcome 3: Upon repeated statement, you would be allowed to again make your objection and invite the user to discuss it. If declined or ignored again, state your case to mod. In the mean time, you would be allowed to object still.
    • If it can be demonstrated that the statement is not true and/or the mods agree it is a serious enough accusation to warrant it (see the *'d paragraph above), mod action/intervention could be taken at their discretion. Ftr I'm not thinking of deleting posts or whatever, maybe just a message from the mods or a mod edit with a note at the bottom saying "The reader should be aware So-and-So objects to [objectable portion] and User X has not responded to this objection."
    • If it cannot be demonstrated or is not agreed to be serious enough by the mods, you either drop it or start a thread for community discussion/use an already existing TCHGB for the topic.

    Outcome 4: Upon repeated statement, you would be allowed to repeat your objection and link to the discussion about it wherein both sides state their cases. And that's it, no taunting, insulting, baiting, or whatever. A post for a post, and that's all. If the user feels this is unwarranted and/or being used for harassment, then they can report the response post for mod consideration.

    Both of these proposals achieve DR1, assuming that in the first scenario that mods agree with you. I am not concerned about mod bias because most of the statements I can imagine being sufficiently serious are unambiguous (accusations of threats, instigation of harassment, or of being a real life criminal/predator, mostly?). Also, now that we have more mods, I am not greatly concerned about mod backlog for this. I also actually don't think the mod intervention step would be reached much? But statements like that tend to get me proven wrong pretty fast. XD

    So, yes, there's some ideas for what do when you think someone is continually lying about you or threatening you in a vent thread. Please pick any nits you find.
     
    • Like x 10
  15. seebs

    seebs Benevolent Dictator

    Saying things about people is not "firing at a wall". The words are, by their nature, targeted at the people discussed. It is, at best, firing at a wall that the people in question are known to be behind, and you don't know how thick the wall is.

    Are we really "aware" of that? Is it even reliably true? I don't think so. And does "firing at paper targets shaped like you" not really constitute any kind of harm or threat?

    The point of this thread is that we have had a lot of problems (like, way over a dozen different instances) in which people said really hostile things about another user, the another user got hurt, and the person who said the stuff said "you shouldn't have read the thing where I was talking about you". And I have realized that the problem here is that the idea that you should be allowed to say horrible things about people and then just say "oh, well, you shouldn't have read that" is not consistent with the general premises and goals of the forum.

    It is simply unrealistic to expect people to carefully avoid reading anything that might be about them. And it's not reasonable at all to assert that, since someone was mad when they said a thing, it therefore doesn't count at all and no one can blame them for any emotional damage caused by saying the thing.

    This is a thing which has been a problem I've been aware of but unable to figure out how to approach for at least a year, probably longer. But it keeps happening. And people keep saying "well don't go in there", but that is simply not how any of the various social anxiety type things or other personality things work, and honestly, it's not even really viable for most completely mentally healthy people. Not caring what people are saying about you is very unusual, and it's not a reasonable expectation.

    Options that address the problem include:
    1. If you have to vent about people, do it somewhere that they can't encounter it.
    2. Be prepared to apologize and confirm that you do not actually feel those things once you've calmed down.
    3. Go ahead and say "yes, that is how I feel, deal with it".
    My concern is just that I really don't like this thing where I regularly see people being hurt by stuff people say, which would reasonably be expected to hurt them, and then getting told it's their fault for reading a thing they shouldn't have read.

    I think this is an orthogonal question.

    There's a question of timing, there's also a question of venue. These are two separate questions. The question of "why bring this up in that thread vs another thread" is separate from the question of "should you bring this up while they're still really mad or wait for them to calm down".
     
    • Like x 2
  16. seebs

    seebs Benevolent Dictator

    FWIW, I agree with this.

    You'll note that the sum total of proposed action taken here is precisely no action taken, just a clarifying statement that, if you say a thing about a person, you said that thing about them, and you can't reasonably expect them to pretend otherwise.
     
  17. seebs

    seebs Benevolent Dictator

    Just to explicitly clarify: Sounds fine to me. I think in most of the cases, a thing like that would indeed resolve the thing. And most of the people here, I think, would accept it as pretty reasonable. We all know about being upset and angry.
     
    • Like x 2
  18. Beldaran

    Beldaran 70% abuse and 30% ramen

    (There has also been a problem of people getting worn out, or triggered, but only after engaging with the topic of a thread, and saying "Don't ping me" but leaving thoughts on the topic behind.

    It's reasonable that they need space/a break. That's important self care.

    People often engage with a thread as they read, though, and might not see the request for no pings until later. In a topic thread people also need to be free to continue conversing on the topic without the person who left. So how do we hold these two things together? Sorceless quotes? Quoting but not @ing? The out person blocking the thread for a bit? I dunno.)
     
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2017
    • Like x 4
  19. Mala

    Mala Well-Known Member

    Its possible to quote a post and remove the part that pings the person. I think i did it with this post
     
    • Like x 3
  20. Beldaran

    Beldaran 70% abuse and 30% ramen

    Oh hey you did it.

    I guess in the case of people just not seeing the "I'm out" message in time there's not a lot to be done on the other person's end though. Does blocking the thread prevent pings?
     
    • Like x 3
  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