tf_talk | Gloves Off

AYRT

I also don't agree that comments such as, "I may unfollow person x" are policing. That is a personal statement that demands absolutely nothing of the person who is unfollowed.

I find such reasoning disingenuous. All we ever do on the internet is make personal statements that demand absolutely nothing of the people reading them. By that logic, nothing anyone says on the internet constitutes policing, or support, or abuse, because it's all words and personal opinions.

Truth is: words have power and we use them as such. They have the power to hurt, to heal, to police. When Meg is told, "We can't take your word on anything because we know Andy's victims can lie about everything," it hurts her even though people meant it as a comment on Andy. When people express in written words sympathy and support to an abuse survivor sharing their story, they mean for the survivor to feel supported and sympathized with. And when someone says "I disagree with something X said to the point that I may unfollow them," they mean it as policing. All of those are just words and personal opinions, but they are said/written with intentions. They are meant to say something to/about the recipient/topic of the comment.

It's also disingenuous to insist that I'm talking only about those anons who said they might unfollow TB, when I corrected myself in response to another comment and clarified that I mean all the comments which have been made about TB in response to their post, and which included much stronger criticisms than just "I might unfollow".

But we deal with very sensitive and controversial issues. Discussions have to be had about how to approach them, and that will sometimes lead to disagreement.

I'll be honest: this is a highly unreasonable expectation. Discussions of such matters will ALWAYS lead to heated disagreements, which is why there is no POINT to them. People on every side of any argument on such sensitive and controversial issues will always have a point or two, so that you'll never reach consensus on anything without people getting unjustly and needlessly hurt.

Take for example the matter of whether people like Meg should participate here or not. There are very good points for and against it, both as regards her personally, and as regards other people in the comm. You will never get a consensus on it.

Take for another example this comm's treatment of Meg. Most people on the comm feel that Meg was treated fine, but Abbey and TB disagree, and have said so in their own public spaces. So now what? Are you going to spend endless days or weeks trying to reach an unreachable consensus?

As you said: people are going to disagree. This should be one of the fundamental principles of this comm. Embrace the disagreements, instead of trying to erase them. Accept that different people will have different opinions about everything, including about Andy himself, and make that acceptance one of the rare rules of the comm. Turn a liability into your biggest strength!

I find such reasoning disingenuous. All we ever do on the internet is make personal statements that demand absolutely nothing of the people reading them. By that logic, nothing anyone says on the internet constitutes policing, or support, or abuse, because it's all words and personal opinions.

No, that doesn't follow. Consider the following comments:

Shut up.

Fuck off.

Just stop.

You have no right to talk about this. Stop commenting.

Those comments clearly demand something.

"Policing", to me, implies you are trying to get someone to behave in a certain way. In this case, it probably means you are trying to get someone to stop talking about something or only talk about about it in a certain way.

And when someone says "I disagree with something X said to the point that I may unfollow them," they mean it as policing.

You don't know that. That's an assumption, and I suspect an incorrect one. If a person chooses to alter their behavior to prevent people from unfollowing them, then that's a choice they have made. No one is forced to do anything by virtue of being unfollowed, and it's unreasonable to silence all disagreement lest people's feeling be hurt or they get unfollowed or what have you. That's how you end up with an unproductive echo box.

I'll be honest: this is a highly unreasonable expectation. Discussions of such matters will ALWAYS lead to heated disagreements, which is why there is no POINT to them.

So controversial issues should never be discussed because people will get hurt?

It's not an expectation. It's a statement of fact. If you can't imagine people discussing such matters civilly, your imagination has failed you or you've been on tumblr too long.

People on every side of any argument on such sensitive and controversial issues will always have a point or two, so that you'll never reach consensus on anything without people getting unjustly and needlessly hurt.

You don't need an absolute consensus to resolve an issue. This is how we got both the archive and the gloves off post. How long have you been on this comm?

And "unjustly hurt"? What is that even supposed to mean? That there's necessarily some kind of fundamental injustice at work if people disagree and have hurt feelings? Just think about the nature of this comm for a moment. Hell, think about the real world. Progress is impossible without discussion. As long as people engage in good faith, "hurt feelings" are unfortunate but they are not some sort of injustice.

Take for another example this comm's treatment of Meg. Most people on the comm feel that Meg was treated fine, but Abbey and TB disagree, and have said so in their own public spaces. So now what? Are you going to spend endless days or weeks trying to reach an unreachable consensus?

This is such a leap of logic I'm starting to wonder if you're a troll.

No. People can talk, exchange ideas, find they still disagree, and end the conversation on good terms. Or they can get heated, take a step back and agree to disagree. Both of these things are really possible. What's not reasonable if refusing to engage in conversation at all out of fear someone's feelings may get hurt.

As you said: people are going to disagree. This should be one of the fundamental principles of this comm. Embrace the disagreements, instead of trying to erase them. Accept that different people will have different opinions about everything, including about Andy himself, and make that acceptance one of the rare rules of the comm. Turn a liability into your biggest strength!

You seem to think to the point of dialogue is getting every single person to agree. It isn't. No one is trying to "erase" disagreements.

In any case, what your describing largely already exists here.

AYRT

""Take for another example this comm's treatment of Meg. Most people on the comm feel that Meg was treated fine, but Abbey and TB disagree, and have said so in their own public spaces. So now what? Are you going to spend endless days or weeks trying to reach an unreachable consensus?"

This is such a leap of logic I'm starting to wonder if you're a troll."

I notice you're avoiding the question. So far, what's happening is that TB will not be participating in the Andy Awareness movement for who knows how long, while some anons here are wasting time being angry at Abbey too. How does any of this benefit the goal of this comm, and how does it *not* benefit Andy?

What's not reasonable if refusing to engage in conversation at all out of fear someone's feelings may get hurt.

What's not reasonable is engaging in conversations that don't have to do with the topic of the comm, will not benefit the goal of the comm, and have a high potential of hurting the very people the comm proclaims to want to help (like it has already happened with Meg).

Though I'm starting to think that maybe we don't have the same idea of what this comm is about?

I notice you're avoiding the question.

I'm not avoiding it. I didn't answer it because the answer is so obvious I shouldn't have to. No, obviously weeks will not be spent hashing this out until every single person agrees on every matter.

So far, what's happening is that TB will not be participating in the Andy Awareness movement for who knows how long, while some anons here are wasting time being angry at Abbey too. How does any of this benefit the goal of this comm, and how does it *not* benefit Andy?

I never claimed that wouldn't benefit Andy. It's unfortunate that this happened. However, as you yourself said, this sort of thing is bound to happen when people are talking about sensitive subjects and disagree about them. That does not justify banning discussion any sensitive matter.

Actually, if you think disagreement should just occur without further comment, why on earth are you still replying?

What's not reasonable is engaging in conversations that don't have to do with the topic of the comm, will not benefit the goal of the comm, and have a high potential of hurting the very people the comm proclaims to want to help (like it has already happened with Meg).

Though I'm starting to think that maybe we don't have the same idea of what this comm is about?

In my opinion, this comm is about exposing Andy, his lies and his abuse of others. Meg frequently comes up in conversation for obvious reasons.

As Carlanime pointed out, when Meg showed up and shared her perspective, people essentially had two options. Well, actually, they had three:

1. To accept her version of events, and to say so.

2. To not accept her interpretation of events and to say so, either to her directly on indirectly on a comm she reads.

3. To say nothing either way.

The comm now has a dilemma, because in the past it has leaned towards accepting Winnjennster's characterization of Meg and Andy's friendship as unhealthy and codependent. It's also a comm that's designed to pick apart Andy's lies and analyze his behavior.

So, Meg's here and says she's never been abused or mistreated by Andy. Do we accept this at face value? Has the issue has been resolved? If not, do we wait until Meg hasn't commented for a few weeks before speculating about Andy's treatment of her again? What if she comes back and repeats her claims? What if another event occurs that suggests her friendship with Andy is deeply unhealthy or abusive? What if "that thing we're not talking about" is revealed? What if she requests that never speak about her and her friendship with Andy again?

What I'm getting from your post is that you think Meg should not have been directly disagreed with after sharing her opinion. That's actually the choice I made, too. Clearly not everyone approached these situations the same way. Some people had a problem with other people's approach and said so, because no consensus existed on how to approach such a situation like that. That's not surprising, because it had never occurred before.

So, you say you want to accept "differing opinions". Fine. Presumably that means you will allow those who disagree with Meg to do so, and will not "police" (your word) their conversations with her. Or is it only certain kinds of variations in opinion you will accept?

See what I mean that this sort of thing necessitates discussion?

AYRT

So, Meg's here and says she's never been abused or mistreated by Andy. Do we accept this at face value? Has the issue has been resolved? If not, do we wait until Meg hasn't commented for a few weeks before speculating about Andy's treatment of her again? What if she comes back and repeats her claims? What if another event occurs that suggests her friendship with Andy is deeply unhealthy or abusive? What if "that thing we're not talking about" is revealed? What if she requests that never speak about her and her friendship with Andy again?

Why did I have to drag these questions out of you? Why did you not already ask them to the comm? Why are you letting the comm derail itself in needless criticism of Abbey and TB, instead of pointing out that these are pressing questions which should be addressed ASAP?

If you want discussion on such topics, why aren't you doing just that? What are you waiting for?

By the way: I didn't suggest "banning" discussion on sensitive matters. Please don't put words in my mouth.

DA

Why is it that anon's responsibility to ask those questions? Why are you derailing into a discussion that is pointless? Even if we managed to get all anons to agree on one course of action, including the ones who haven't even joined yet but may turn up the same time Meg does, wouldn't us all ignoring her posts also count as silencing? Telling her without words that we don't want to hear what she wants to say? So we're left with responding, and that ain't gonna work.

AYRT

Why is it that anon's responsibility to ask those questions?

Because they are the one who thinks that those matters need to be discussed.

Why are you derailing into a discussion that is pointless?

I'm "derailing" because I think that complaining about TB because of a single post they made (which was the topic of the thread if you remember) is a really bad idea that can only benefit Andy in the end.

So we're left with responding, and that ain't gonna work.

Which is my point exactly: there's no use discussing those things, because there's no solution to them.

DA

I'm "derailing" because I think that complaining about TB because of a single post they made (which was the topic of the thread if you remember) is a really bad idea that can only benefit Andy in the end.

Disclaimer: I really like TeaBlogger. I'm sad she's going to be gone for a while, and while I didn't agree with her post, she's hardly guilty of all the things on her latest list.

That said, why the double standard? TeaBlogger can criticize the comm, but the comm can't respond to what she says, even if it's directed at us? By your logic, isn't her post just as pointless and inflammatory? Or does she get carte blanche because she's a well-known AA blogger?

The double standard is because TB is an individual, while this comm is a group. TB cannot destroy herself; this comm can very easily destroy itself, especially with Andy's ample help. Flirting with wank on a comm that's barely born and that's being targeted by an experienced manipulator, is not a good idea, that's all I'm saying.

If this was about something trivial or stupid, I'd call it wank. This disagreement is about a serious issue: how we deal with people who appear to be (but do not claim to be) Andy's victims.

I don't think the comm will be destroyed by this. And more to the point, I think it's unreasonable to demand that people not respond to post explicitly directed at them.

My two cents.

+1000

Oh, for pity's sake. Those questions have been exactly what is being dealt with. They are the very source of the TB/KQ/TTF discord and our conversation here, right now. I don't have to ask them because they are currently under discussion here and other blogs. You didn't "drag" them out of anyone.

Why are you letting the comm derail itself in needless criticism of Abbey and TB, instead of pointing out that these are pressing questions which should be addressed ASAP?

Funny, I thought we were actually addressing some of those situations in this very thread. You know, the one where you said:

Discussions of such matters will ALWAYS lead to heated disagreements, which is why there is no POINT to them.

Take for example the matter of whether people like Meg should participate here or not. There are very good points for and against it, both as regards her personally, and as regards other people in the comm. You will never get a consensus on it.

Take for another example this comm's treatment of Meg. Most people on the comm feel that Meg was treated fine, but Abbey and TB disagree, and have said so in their own public spaces. So now what? Are you going to spend endless days or weeks trying to reach an unreachable consensus?

So are these conversations pointless in your view, or not? Do you want us to have them, or no?

In any case, I don't "let" the comm do anything because I have no power to control what anyone else posts.

By the way: I didn't suggest "banning" discussion on sensitive matters. Please don't put words in my mouth.

Fine, I'll rephrase: you claim that stating you'll unfollow someone aounts to policing, that there is no point in discussing sensitive matters people disagree on, and people's feelings getting hurt in heated discussions is evidence of some kind of injustice, and from that I infer that you think certain kinds of discussion are harmful or shouldn't happen, even if they occur in good faith.

I disagree.

I don't have to ask them because they are currently under discussion here and other blogs.

I'm not seeing any discussion going on anywhere. I'm seeing accusations being made, and people stating their opinions on various things, but no actual discussion of anything.

So are these conversations pointless in your view, or not? Do you want us to have them, or no?

Yes, they are pointless in my view, in the sense that I don't believe they will bring any good in any form, especially since Andy will be around to spread discord and inject his poison wherever he can. However, I neither want nor don't want you to have them, because it's not my place to decide what you all should do. I'll just keep my fingers crossed that the comm doesn't implode under the stress of trying to discuss unsolvable moral dilemmas.

DA

because it's not my place to decide what you all should do

...Are you trolling?

See, that's exactly the kind of stuff I'm talking about. From my entire comment, *this* is what you chose to comment on? And to ask such a pointless question, too? If I'm a troll, I'm obviously not going to admit to it, and if I'm not, I'm going to say so, so my answer is going to be the same either way. So why are you bothering to ask? Either you think I'm a troll, in which case you should know how it goes ("Don't feed the trolls" and all that), or you don't think I am, in which case why ask if I am?

More importantly, though: what about the rest of my comment? The MEAT of my comment? If you want to be productive, isn't it what you should be addressing?

TBH, at this point I just think you're entirely too fond of watching yourself type.

Way to reassure me that any serious discussion about sensitive topics which might try to happen around here will go well.

It's more likely to go well if you don't spend a thread telling people what to do, and then comment that you don't want to tell anyone what to do.

I'm just saying, is all.

Gloves Off

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject