drwex: (Troll)
[personal profile] drwex
It's a weird day when multiple people take the time to thank me for being the voice of reason. You all who know me can stop laughing now. Any minute. I'll wait.

I've been posting a good deal in both [livejournal.com profile] sunspiral's LJ and [livejournal.com profile] shadesong's LJ. I'm glad to be able to have discussions with both of them. This is where I stand:

- Judah is a self-admitted abuser and has a restraining order against him for domestic violence and other related offenses. As such, I do not want him at my house and I am probably not comfortable going to other parties where he is welcome. That might change in the future; or, maybe not. I'm in new territory here and the Magic 8 Ball is cloudy.

- My comfort is about me and my loved ones. It's not a standard for other private individuals to follow. I am not the boss of you (unless you're one of my kids and they have some vehement objections to my Boss status anyway).

- When I go to a party I expect to follow the hosts' rules. When people come to my parties I'd like them to follow my rules, which are often summarized as "don't piss off the hosts." Part of why Judah is not welcome is because I'm so angry at what he did. I want him to be banned from other events where I might attend because I have my visceral, fist-clenching furious reaction to imagining someone doing to my loved ones what he did to Shira.

- I recognize that my response to the situation is seated in a position of vast privilege, including white, able, cis-male, wealth privilege. I also don't know what to do with that, except try to keep it in mind when I write or speak.

- There are people I like, love, and respect, on all sides of this debate. I am struggling to understand how these people I respect have reasoned to the positions they hold. I think we have now a large rift in the circle of people I like and if people do not understand each other there is no hope for dialog. Because this is all about me, I feel like I want to understand all the sides first.

- I am currently using the theoretical basis of framing ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framing_(social_sciences) ) to think about this. I believe we have a framing problem, not a Rashomon problem. In Rashomon, every witness tells their own version of events, and no two of them agree on all the facts. In this situation I think pretty much everyone agrees on the facts, but is using different framings to interpret those facts.

- I have a long and friendly relationship with Scott & Rachel. I have a much shorter acquaintanceship with Shira and even less so with Adam but I'd like to think that Shira and I are at least on friendly terms.

- I am intensely sad that this situation has now become a conflict between these households when I think that conflict was entirely avoidable. I see people responding to perceived attacks on each of these people, being protective of the people they love. I understand that, deeply. I continue to believe that this level of self- and other-protectiveness is preventing many people from recognizing the framing differences.

- We accuse each other of lies, deceptions, exaggerations, denials, etc. But I think these things are all distractions from the core issues. I care about how you treat the people who commit these violent acts; how you treat the people who are the victims of these acts; how you treat the people who have to deal with the consequences of these acts; and how you treat the people who are trying to navigate these unknown and shark-infested waters. I reject any formulation that says, "It's simple, just XYZ." It's not simple.

- I would like to be able to focus on the problems that having Judah in the social circle brings and how we can deal with that. Unfortunately the grounds have shifted and people are choosing up sides in a wholly unnecessary war. Perhaps I'm falling into a geek fallacy, but I also see this as an important test case. If we cannot find a way to work with each other - despite our different frameworks - to deal with an abuser and social gatherings then we have a pretty deep problem.

Date: 2014-07-10 03:37 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] shadesong.livejournal.com
Okay. Where I get it from is "It's taken somebody directly causing a problem for roozle or me, or an ongoing pattern of unacceptable behavior to get somebody banned from our house. We did not regard Judah as a danger to people other than Shira, and felt that if she wasn't at our house then it was ok for him to be here. "

How I read that statement is "you have to rape more than one person". Due to not regarding him as "a danger to people other than Shira".

It's been established that he has a classic escalating DV pattern that has been ongoing for ten years. He has raped more than one person (the other person has not come forward, but has written a statement for my lawyer). It's very well established that most rapists are serial rapists (http://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2009/11/12/meet-the-predators/). I don't know how anyone can assume that someone with Judah's history and MO could possibly not continue to be a danger. If he doesn't rape anyone ever again, he would be a huge statistical anomaly. Think horses, not zebras.

Date: 2014-07-10 04:07 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] shadesong.livejournal.com
But crucially, I don't think S&R have that evidence, nor do they have your training, nor do they have your past history.

The second and third parts of that are, of course, true. The first part - I did write about it extensively. I don't have time to dig up links right now (I'm getting ready for a con that starts this evening), but the posts are tagged with Judah's name.

I do know that Rachel is aware of stuff like the Meet the Predators post and the MOs of serial offenders because I presented it to her and other Arisia and Boskone staff during a BARCC workshop that she requested.

Scott has repeatedly referred to past situations and it's clear to me that he's using those to model this situation. What I hear you saying is that either those past situations were not handled the way you'd've liked them to be, or they're not appropriate models for this situation. Does that seem accurate to you?

I don't know enough about the past situations to judge. The key thing I don't know, so I can't know whether to disagree with Scott's decisions on them, is that I don't know if anyone in those prior situations was a violent offender. I believe that if one party is a violent offender and the other their victim, the logical and responsible choice would be to disinvite the violent offender. However, I do not know if that's the case in their prior RO situations. If that was the case, yes, I'd say their way of handling it was irresponsible, but I do not have sufficient data to make that call. By a long shot.

Another factor there is that Scott claims that both parties negotiated who'd go to which event, which is odd, as an RO forbids all contact, and therefore any such communication would be in violation of the RO. So... that's curious.

Being mistaken is not the same as being insane or illogical.

I've never said "insane" in this conversation, FTR. I do believe that someone can be mistaken without also acting illogically, but I don't see that as the case here.

Date: 2014-07-10 05:35 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] shadesong.livejournal.com
I continue to appreciate that we've been able to have a positive conversation despite having some differences.

As do I.

She's been notably silent in these public conversations so I'm reluctant to make assumptions about what she knows, remembers, or believes.

Agreed. I can only state that she was, at one point, aware.

He has clarified that they negotiated through third parties other than himself and conveyed a joint agreement to him.

Which is also a violation of the restraining order, actually. I really do need to get Adam to scan mine... But the person who has the RO against them is specifically prohibited from contacting the other party even via a third party, even to respond to a question the other party asks.

Date: 2014-07-10 06:06 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] shadesong.livejournal.com
Okay. Mine is a 209(A), for the record; I can show it to you next time we're in the same space.

Date: 2014-07-12 04:04 am (UTC)
From: [personal profile] ron_newman
If you could can a copy of that restraining order (appropriately redacted to remove personal information as needed), that would help people understand your situation better.

Date: 2014-07-12 12:34 pm (UTC)
From: [personal profile] ron_newman
Fair enough. I'm hearing -- and personally having -- some confusion over whether the order imposes any obligation upon its "owner" as well as on its "target", and seeing one of these in (virtual) print might clear that up. If 'Song's order is a generic form with just the two names filled in, perhaps a link to such an un-filled-in form could be helpful.

(also, I now see a stupid typo in my earlier comment, which I can't fix now that you've replied to it)
Edited Date: 2014-07-12 12:35 pm (UTC)

(no subject)

From: [personal profile] ron_newman - Date: 2014-07-12 06:27 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [personal profile] ron_newman - Date: 2014-07-12 07:06 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] deguspice.livejournal.com - Date: 2014-07-13 08:59 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [personal profile] ron_newman - Date: 2014-07-13 11:10 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] alienne.livejournal.com - Date: 2014-07-14 03:41 am (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] curly-chick.livejournal.com - Date: 2014-07-15 03:30 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [personal profile] ron_newman - Date: 2014-07-15 03:43 pm (UTC) - Expand

Date: 2014-07-10 04:21 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] shadesong.livejournal.com
And - Scott continues to lie egregiously (http://sunspiral.livejournal.com/315027.html?thread=4798355#t4798355), so I don't think there's anywhere productive we can go with regards to him.

Date: 2014-07-10 04:32 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] shadesong.livejournal.com
I texted Mink shortly after I texted you; she had just arrived at the party. Like, parking-the-car arrived. (Double-checked my phone.) As you know, she's been my rock through a lot of this, so of course I texted her right away.

I don't know how long he'd been there when she arrived - could've been a matter of minutes - but Scott could not have gotten credible information about my lack of attendance until she got there.

I do agree it's a distraction and would rather focus on making safer communities, but that's hard when one party persists in stating bald-faced lies and I keep having to correct it to what actually happened. It gives me the impression that our goals are not his.

Date: 2014-07-10 04:43 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] shadesong.livejournal.com
Can we dissect the difference between "lies" and "being wrong" a bit? We can dismiss "mistaken", I feel, because you can't be mistaken about whether you contacted me or spoke to the one other person who had that information (for completeness's sake, Andy knew as well, but he was with Mink). That much is binary. You did or didn't. We know Scott didn't.

When I see him claiming that he had "credible information" that he had absolutely no way of having... yes, he's wrong about having the information he did not have. But he is choosing to present information he did not have to justify inviting a rapist to his part. The deliberate choice to use a fictional pretext here is what causes me to say "lie".

And that's the version of events that's actually most complimentary to them: their story that they were told I wouldn't be there, did not contact me to verify this, and invited a known rapist.

That's concerning all by itself. Even before you realize that they were told no such thing.

I'm not sure how I can help shift the focus here. I'm conversing honestly, calmly, and logically (with some understandable frustration), and he keeps restating things that are already proven to be factually incorrect, in one case making an entirely separate post to do so. I don't think I'm the one who is most in need of a tone shift here.

Date: 2014-07-10 06:05 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] shadesong.livejournal.com
I think we're probably going to continue to disagree about whether or not Scott's repetition things he knows to be untrue (because he has been told several times at this point that Mink was the only holder of credible information) is a lie or is just "being wrong".

There are reasons why you concede points you don't believe in courtrooms or in arguments/negotiation and I see this as a point you can concede with no loss and with the gain of re-focusing things on the important question, which is, not to put it too bluntly, WTF??

Hm. I think this, right here, is a point where we're operating at cross purposes.

One of my goals, here and in life, is to say nothing that is not true, and to not allow myself to be represented in ways that are not true.

I feel that conceding a point I don't believe is a form of lying, and I'm unwilling to do so. My insistence on the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but may make me difficult to negotiate with at times, but it's also very important to me and my character. Starting to not challenge lies about me - especially now - is not only hurtful, but also potentially damaging in my court case.

I agree that WTF is the important question. I also feel like I've been letting myself get shit on kinda a lot - the last few days are not the only times I've had to contend with bad stuff and comport myself politely regardless at great cost to me. I've done a lot of fading back so things get focused on his behaviors and not on me. Because you don't have to like me in order to agree that rape is bad.

At the same time, I think that makes people forget that I am the survivor of two violent crimes at Judah's hands that traumatized me deeply, and that these conversations are difficult and painful and I have a right to protect myself during them. Part of protecting myself is not letting the lies proliferate.

I'm doing my best to disappear myself so we can focus on the very important issue of community safety, but there's a certain point past which I can't disappear any further than I already have. I'm doing my best to balance all of this, but I may be doing too well, in that it may not be sufficiently apparent that I am in these discussions at great cost to myself.

Date: 2014-07-10 06:26 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] points.livejournal.com
Another side note - to lie is to willfully state what you know to be an untruth. Scott has already said (I believe from other threads) that he already believes you, yourself are telling untruths (I am not going to get into the truth value of -that- statement). Thus, the fact that you say that 'X is the truth, so if and only if X, then Y can't be true' but Scot says 'I don't believe X is the truth,' then you both aren't operating under the same perceived truth value for Y. Mind you, now -I'm- imputing for the both of you, which may not be helpful.

However, reading through the tons of side (or not-side) writing going on here and elsewhere, this really seems to be what everyone is coming down to. Who is really 'correct,' and what the other party must then know/feel... and I guess this is what comes back to Wex's framing discussion.

Date: 2014-07-10 06:33 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] shadesong.livejournal.com
Yeah. Scott's post here (http://sunspiral.livejournal.com/315027.html) where he accuses me of saying I never sent that text came after our conversation here (http://sunspiral.livejournal.com/314854.html?thread=4766694#t4766694) where I clearly refute it.

His accusation is "Shira is now attempting to deny that she made a threat to bring the police to our house during the BOS party. Some of this has involved word games, some of this has been completely untrue statements. The actual and complete line in the text sent to a third party who was at our house that night was "Okay. On my way with the restraining order; police to follow."

My response is and was "I did text that, and have never claimed that I didn't."

So... that kinda proves I'm not lying. Really, really clearly.

And the fact that Scott is making additional posts and comments claiming that I didn't say what I clearly said and claiming that I said completely different things...

*spreads hands* I leave this as an exercise to the reader.

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] spinrabbit.livejournal.com - Date: 2014-07-10 11:34 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] shadesong.livejournal.com - Date: 2014-07-11 11:39 am (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] spinrabbit.livejournal.com - Date: 2014-07-11 02:40 pm (UTC) - Expand

Date: 2014-07-10 07:58 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] shadesong.livejournal.com
I think I was unclear on "disappear myself"! I'm not leaving. :) I meant more.... to make myself transparent so that the focus is on Judah's wrongdoing and Scott's choices, not on whether or not people like me personally. I want my views there. But that blame-shifting is making it difficult.

I don't know what the best path is to the end goal right now.

I'm glad I have a con this weekend so I can - and have to - step back from this. I hope that'll help.

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] shadesong.livejournal.com - Date: 2014-07-10 08:23 pm (UTC) - Expand

Date: 2014-07-11 12:12 am (UTC)
From: (Anonymous)
I would suggest that not disappearing yourself might be the better course of action. "Community safety" IMO is a very nebulous topic and makes it far too easy to get distracted into generalities. Everybody can agree that making the community safer is better, but that's a slogan not a plan. Asking people to confront the specific real life case with its specific real life details is probably going be more useful for the community members at large. Though I acknowledge that it is also harder for those directly involved

Date: 2014-07-11 11:40 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] shadesong.livejournal.com
You have a point. And it is hard. Many on other threads (not here) are resorting to some nasty victim-blaming, which makes it even harder. :(

Date: 2014-07-12 03:57 pm (UTC)
gingicat: deep purple lilacs, some buds, some open (just me - ohi picture)
From: [personal profile] gingicat
The thing that has consistently bothered me BEYOND your excellent points here and elsewhere is the victim-blaming. People are taking your persistent honesty and using it to paint you as a drama queen. You and I are not close friends, but I trust you as much as the people close to me BECAUSE you are persistently and consistently honest.

Wex, thank you VERY much for making this post. I could not bring myself to wade into the agida of Scott's. I did see his post to polyboston.

--gingi

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] shadesong.livejournal.com - Date: 2014-07-13 10:31 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [personal profile] gingicat - Date: 2014-07-14 10:32 am (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] shadesong.livejournal.com - Date: 2014-07-14 12:17 pm (UTC) - Expand

Profile

drwex: (Default)
drwex

July 2021

S M T W T F S
    123
45678910
11121314151617
1819 2021222324
25262728293031

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 7th, 2025 07:40 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios