I can barely make heads or tails of what anybody is talking about. It seems like everyone is upset, all sides disagree on what exactly is happening, and no one trusts anyone. I'm scared to even engage with this thread at all, because I can't tell what's going on or if this is supposed to be public or private.
Public, because seebs is fucking behaving like shit, has been for a while, and people who have said things in what they felt was confidence deserve to be warned that they're potential rhetorical points forevermore. anyway I'm glowing with rage @ previous post still so I'm outie.
HA HA HA WOW LOOKS LIKE I'M NOT FUCKING DONE AFTER ALL here is an absolutely novel idea: DON'T REPLY TO SPECIFIC QUESTIONS AT ALL, THEN. there are many people who have posted in this thread to say 'no really what the fuck where did i say that,' if you were acting in good faith you would have made a general 'reminder that i can't answer questions about where various accusations came from because some of them are based on information i was given in private' or something. replying to a specific post with that shit is inviting people to draw inferences and i'm not going to play your gaslighty fucking game and assume the best. holy fucking shit. don't talk to abuse survivors about their abuse ever, ever again. or rather i should say 'abuse survivors, don't talk to him about your abuse ever, ever again,' because i am aware that no help on god's green earth other than maybe years of therapy will make you understand how fucking horrifying everything you have done about this shit is. it's certainly not the job of vulnerable people who trusted you because you offered them help and weren't up front that you would do this kind of fucking thing. i'm at the 'warn people and move on' stage of given-the-fuck-up here.
Are there? I've seen people ask about where other people said things. That is a good point, and I probably should have thought about that more and made that post more general. It was, in fact, a general thing. I'm not sure why assuming good faith, or at least considering it as a possibility, is a "gaslighty fucking game". I've actually found it to work really well in understanding people about 99% of the time. Especially given that I'm really pretty fucking open about being a total flake. Like, no one should be surprised by this. I'm pretty open about it.
Oh look I’m jumping in cause.... I don’t care anymore. Already don’t wanna engage with this site anymore, the hell can you do to me now? Because then people get panicky or angry that they’re being ignored and they spin off. Let’s just pretend that was a question. Yeah. You mean like You assign people a lot of motivation and effort that I generally find isn’t present in most people. Specially metally ill ones, like the majority of this forum. But also like.... secrets can’t be kept forever. Seeb’s kinda been saying that. Can’t argue that it would be better at keeping a lid on stuff though. Cool, as long as you speak for yourself.
I'm sorry but I don't see how me making a quick jokey "we still disagree with you but okay!" warrants... this. any of this. i said it because part of the reason rowan was so distressed is because you were using his story to push a narrative he doesn't agree with, and i said it because while i appreciate that you changed it in the end without waiting for more of my or anybody else's yelling, you know very well i still dont agree with the narrative you were pushing. how me saying "thanks, still dont agree lol but thanks!!" warrants a novel about how shitty those people who disagree with you are is beyond me, but goddamn does it hurt
Secrets sure can't be kept forever if one of the people who keeps them keeps making references to them in conversations with others. Also if these people were actual abusive threats why has there been nothing been done about it? I know some of them aren't around Kintsugi anymore but fuck, there should have been SOMETHING, if they consistently hurt people. Although considering Alex, maybe that's not realistic to expect
@autopsyblue this isn't 'pick a fight with moogle' time, please do that in ur own fuckin thread, the last thing this one needs is shitty derails to start fights with the people who've been identified in seebs' post
you shouldn't have replied to kel at all. you made a general post, it was already there, making a further specific reply comes off to me very much as targeting. it tends to work with people who don't consistently display gaslighty behavior, which you do in spades and have for most of the time i've known you. would you tell someone talking about no longer taking their abusive parent's gaslighting in good faith to take them at their word anyway because 'assuming the best gets solutions!'? mock you roundly for having left because you couldn't believe that repeatedly saying the n-word had social consequences, and also for being cryptic and incomprehensible? a) that's what the point of the 'general acknowledgment post' i mentioned, friend b) lolwut i do in fact mean that! see above, where that makes the specific reply to the post about void more suspicious. a) funny you should say that because seebs does this literally nonstop, b) mentally ill people can and do gaslight people, they're not ~too mentally ill~ to be shitty and use horrifying tactics, c) from past experience with n-wordgate in particular you seem to have about the ability to divine other people's motivations as a brick, and d) literally what the fuck are you even trying to say, make a contribution that isn't dramatic anime dialogue if you must contribute at all please see previous point: what are you talking about i'm not sure what part of this you're saying i shouldn't assume for anyone else? 'i do not recommend telling this person sensitive information, they have outright admitted they can't keep straight what's private and what isn't' isn't assuming shit. learn to read.
It probably doesn't. Sometimes I react badly to things, sometimes I don't know why. I fucked that up. I honestly have no idea what "narrative" I'm allegedly pushing that's so upsetting. The narrative that abusers sometimes pretend to be strongly anti-abuse as a cover? That's pretty fucking well researched. The claim that Wiwaxia, in particular, was abusive? I have a whole lot of supporting evidence for that one, too. So I don't even know what narrative is being objected to! Yeah. I'm sorry, that was not my intent, but I admit I don't actually think I thought that carefully about what it would communicate or what outcomes would result. Sometimes I just ramble a bit, or I feel like a thing is important to say even though I don't know where I'm going with it. Sorry. You deserve better. And I want to be clear, I'm not saying that people who disagree with me in general are shitty. You're an awesome person, I respect you a lot, and I value that you call me on shit sometimes. And a lot of people I have a lot of respect for have been talking to me about this situation, and the post that apparently started it, and some of them agree with me, and some disagree, and the ones who disagree don't all have the same positions or the same reasoning for those positions.
Even people sworn to state secrets on penalty of treason are allowed to say "I cannot comment on that" to specific questions. :I
Is the bullshit about Void the only stuff based on stuff you shouldn't have been talking about, or is all of it based on stuff you shouldn't have been talking about, by the way? I'm still super curious about what translates to behavior completely at odds with everything I've seen. Well. I don't know much about leechkin, so I can't say much about what I've seen, but the proximity makes me think it's bullshit too
Okay, that's not at all what I was responding to but sure. If you'd like an explanation of that Seebs posted one up thread.
he's gotten how many of these questions in this thread, and chosen to answer just this one in a leading way when he'd already made a general statement? specifically one about the one person who's not around to refute the claim or give permission for it to be discussed; who's blocked himself from the site entirely, and presumably couldn't see the claims without people telling him about it and certainly can't refute them without breaking his own boundaries; whom seebs has had plenty of fresh reason to be pissed off at and discredit and throw doubt on for his own reputation's sake within the last few days? nope, nothing fishy about this, nosirree. (some edits for phrasing and clarity.)
God damn it I am horrible at foruming on my phone. The narrative you seemed to be pushing was "abusive people use anti abuse stances to hide themselves or pervert them for their own ends..." which I can't disagree with, although Void doesn't think is relevant wrt Wax "...so don't bother wrt anti-harassment stuff at cons" which is fucking bananas. Not super what this is about though.
I am... not sure how to respond to this. I don't actually always know where I saw a thing, so I'm being cautious unless I can actually figure out where a thing was from and figure out how private it is or isn't. I also don't even have clear answers as to the privacy status of a lot of things. I have megabytes of chat logs. I don't know how private those were or weren't. Obviously not very. But then, I was also writing with some expectation of privacy. I say a lot of things to people in the Caring Void that I would probably not say in public. When people complain about someone that's upsetting them, I might be willing to privately confirm that they are not the only person experiencing that, while being much more reluctant to talk about the same thing in public. Some of these criticisms were based on stuff that's 100% out in the open, I just didn't think there was any benefit to yelling at people, so I didn't. Most of what I said about Leechkin is based directly on things they've openly stated. If they haven't deleted/edited stuff, it's still there, you can go look. There's certainly some history of people being distressed about their posts and not saying so in public, but I don't think you would need the specifics (which remain a pretty private thing) to spot that.
See, we do agree on a thing. We had at least a half-dozen people being harassed and hurt and abused by some asshole, and he got away with it because he was staunchly Anti Abuse in a very firm and loud manner and people concluded that therefore all the accusations were bullshit. That's exactly the thing. Many people said "hey this is really fucking me up", and it just got glossed over because definitely Wax was loudly anti-abuse, therefore not an abuser. Sounds pretty relevant to me. That's also not even close to the actual position I was arguing. I was, in fact, advocating for the creation of anti-harassment policies -- but for some care to be taken in doing it. The geek world desperately needs better anti-harassment tools, but that means that a lot of communities that haven't had them before are about to start, and that means that they're about to discover that if you naively assume that the people who are loudest about being anti-harassment are all 100% safe and trustworthy, you're gonna be so very fucked. And that means they need to know about that pattern, so that when they start making some decent policies, they also know what some of the pitfalls are to watch out for.
If I'm understanding some of the background stuff correctly (from both sides of the equation), void's biggest issue is his history being used as a tool to win arguments, particularly arguments that refer back to Wiwaxia's behavior. So from the one point of view, the post made a mention of Void, but it supposed to be about Wiwaxia's behavior, and more particularly about that pattern of behavior, which Wiwaxia exhibited (as a concrete example), and where Wiwaxia and Void's history was mentioned as an example to show that this wasn't just all theoretical. And from the other point of view, that was unnecessary, Seebs could have made the point without mentioning Void at all, especially since Void had previously spoken up about not wanting to be used to win arguments. The attempted point is the thing you're describing here, the idea that 'abusive people sometimes put on a big show of being anti-abuse, whether it's so they look safe, or so they can exploit the system for their own means, etc.' And I... think Seebs was trying to say that 'because someone is loud about being anti-abuse, that doesn't mean they're safe, and don't assume the anti-abuse measures those people propose will be the right way to make communities safe.' Which has some exceptions, because someone can be anti-abuse without being a predator, and even a predator can suggest positive changes, because nothing is ever that absolute. But then Seebs brough up with the Void example thing. I didn't see every conversation Seebs had about this, but I believe that their general conclusion was that yes, this is a reasonable request from for a person to make, and they'll make an effort to avoid bringing Void's history up in the future. I believe they acknowledged that the example wasn't totally necessary to make their point, and also that they have other examples at hand that can be discussed without the please-don't-use-my-history-to-win-arguments request being in play.
