It's a weird day
Jul. 9th, 2014 03:43 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
drwexIt'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]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
sunspiral's LJ and 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.
I've been posting a good deal in both
sunspiral's LJ and 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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2014-07-10 04:43 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2014-07-10 05:51 pm (UTC)Yes. I think it's a matter of intent, which is to say that a lie is intended to deceive.
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).
Here I'd slightly disagree. If Scott spoke to someone else who had that information, and that person conveyed an answer to him that Scott took as authoritative, then he would be mistaken. This is my sense of his side of the situation.
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".
I would write a sentence that said, "He is choosing to present information he believed he had to justify..." If that sentence is allowed, then we can stay in the realm of mistake.
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.
Right! Yes, exactly! This is precisely why I was trying to suggest that focusing on the notion of "lie" doesn't help and does distract. 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??
I've been discussing over in Scott's post with Xtina about how I feel like we are much less likely to make progress toward our shared goals if we cannot re-establish basic trust. Both you and he are significantly influential in the community; a continued divide pushes people toward poles and choosing sides.
I don't think I'm the one who is most in need of a tone shift here.
Yeah, I'm workin' on that. Never said you were but since you pointed to the issue when responding to
no subject
Date: 2014-07-10 06:05 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2014-07-10 06:26 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2014-07-10 06:33 pm (UTC)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
Date: 2014-07-10 11:34 pm (UTC)I understand the basis of your saying that this was not a threat. But the thing he interpreted as a threat exists, you knew that it existed, and it seems to me you must have recognized that it was the utterance he was referring to. Which means to me that saying it was imaginary is somewhere between lying and gaslighting. Given your feelings about truth, I'm sure you have a different read on that.
And the assertion that the police were going to come seems to be the emotional core of this issue for Scott -- far from the core for you, I know. I've been known to come a bit unstuck when someone tells me that the core of a disagreement I'm having is "imaginary".
no subject
Date: 2014-07-11 11:39 am (UTC)I don't remember the word imaginary, but I can't swear that I didn't say it. I've been typing kinda a lot these past few days.
But the original contention from Scott was that I had threatened him and Rachel directly with police action by threatening, to Rachel, to bring the cops. That didn't happen, as you can see from the image in my LJ. Only later did the third-party text get spoken of, and I said "yes, I did send that."
I still feel like if one of your usual attendees has a restraining order against another, who is a violent offender, and you don't want police at your party, the easiest way to keep that from happening is to ask the violent offender not to come. If I had been there when Judah walked in, I would have been obligated to call the police immediately. No "party policy" is going to make me put my life at risk. The restraining order was granted and extended because the judge had ample reason to believe that Judah is an active danger to me.
no subject
Date: 2014-07-11 02:40 pm (UTC)http://shadesong.livejournal.com/4509356.html
"During their "investigation", they sent me nastygrams that showed that they were focused on the utterly imaginary idea that I was calling the cops on them to the exclusion of much else. "
"I'm no longer invited because of my imaginary "threat to call the police"."
I very much agree with the second paragraph of your response to me. And I understand that the presence of dangerous people at social events is the heart of the issue for you -- and probably the heart of the issue for our community. But the threat/promise/prognostication of police involvement was the heart of the issue for Scott, and saying that was "imaginary" matters.
Given the similarity in wording between the text to Rachel and the first part of the third-party text, it seems unsurprising that someone could conflate them. The distinctions between a threat and a prediction, and between calling the police "on them" and calling them "to their property" are more important to you than to them.
no subject
Date: 2014-07-10 07:49 pm (UTC)Nod. Thank you for explaining that.
you don't have to like me in order to agree that rape is bad.
Yeah, I tried to put that point in my first post. Blame-shifting is totally a thing and it's totally happening. I am... somewhat at a loss as to what to do. But I'm continuing to think about it as an important problem to solve.
I'm doing my best to disappear myself so we can focus on the very important issue of community safety,
Wow I hope you don't have to do that. What I'd like to disappear is the conflict between you and Scott. Where the hell did I leave that magic wand?
OK, seriously for a second: both of you have a lot of throw-weight in the community. It's different kinds, but it's there. If you disappear yourself then I'm not certain the issue will shift to "what do we do about this violent person in our midst" but rather it'll shift to Scott. He's certainly gotten a large rasher of what-for in his own post - there are people talking there who I think are pointed and effective. But without you and your views it shifts to them-vs-Scott which is even farther from a solution.
Or, maybe not. Maybe this is like when your car gets stuck in the mud and you get a bunch of people to push and it moves a bit then falls back, so everyone pushes again. Repeat enough times and the car moves. So maybe what's needed here is enough people pushing one thing in one direction for some time.
Watch me flail. Watch me flail a whole lot.
no subject
Date: 2014-07-10 07:58 pm (UTC)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
Date: 2014-07-10 08:19 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-07-10 08:23 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-07-11 12:12 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-07-11 11:40 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-07-12 03:57 pm (UTC)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
Date: 2014-07-13 10:31 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-07-14 10:32 am (UTC)http://tigerbright.livejournal.com/1475762.html
no subject
Date: 2014-07-14 12:17 pm (UTC)