Gloves Off

[anonniemouse]

Please use this post for discussion of those contentious, murky, triggering issues too complex to discuss/moderate on the main post.

Note that this post is NOT a free-for-all and will still be modded for slurs, namecalling, doxxing and trolling. But fair warning that it will not be moderated for discussion of issues some find triggering (trans issues, mental illness, etc.) and that if you choose to participate here, you do so at your own risk.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

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?

[(Anonymous)]

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.

[(Anonymous)]

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.