An Open Letter to Stacnash (feel free to ignore this)

[MrHereWriting]

But in the politics forum where it belongs.

Your post said, "How to counter fascist..." so that would make you anti-fascist. How strange that was misunderstood.

Is that... a justification?

Did you read what her tongue-in-cheek comment was in response to?

 

[Bramblethorn]

But in the politics forum where it belongs.

And Stacnash's comment - the one that Simon's suggesting was worthy of her being banned from this forum in the name of "decency" - wasn't made here either.

I could understand a policy that treated off-AH comments as irrelevant to how AH is moderated. But if Simon's advocating for indecency bans for what people say outside AH, it's hard to see how calling somebody untalented comes close to encouraging animal cruelty as practice for shooting Democrats.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Your post said, "How to counter fascist..." so that would make you anti-fascist. How strange that was misunderstood.

I think Chloe would object to being categorised as antifa.

 

[MrHereWriting]

I think Chloe would object to being categorised as antifa.

I didn't say antifa, I said "anti-fascist."

 

[AlinaX]

What do you perceive is the difference?

 

[MrHereWriting]

What do you perceive is the difference?

You didn't quote me to notify me that you were asking a question, so if you weren't asking me a question, oops, my mistake.

Chloe's was satirizing a previous comment and there is nothing wrong with showing someone how foolish they are using their own means of foolishness.

 

[AlinaX]

I meant between antifa and anti-fascist.

 

[XerXesXu]

Am I back on AH? Thank God for that. Please don't send me to the Politics Board again, I couldn't find my way back and bumped into some really scary people.

However, I've gained some insight into what's passed.
1. Chloe Tang is anti-demonrat. She used the word 'fascist' as an adjective of common and vulgar abuse that can be hurled at any opponent on any topic.
2. Bramblethorn is concerned about the cats, not the people.
3. The threshold for abusive language language warranting cancellation is below 'fucking asshole' but above 'not a crumb of talent.

 

[MrHereWriting]

I meant between antifa and anti-fascist.

Among the reasons, anyone who doesn't agree with antifa is a "fascist" and that's an alarming stance to take for people who claim to be anti-fascist.

No quote again. I'm thinking you're hoping I don't answer your questions so I look like I'm at a loss for words.

 

[Jackie.Hikaru]

*shakes off the trance this thread induced* what am I doing here? I should be writing porn.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Among the reasons, anyone who doesn't agree with antifa is a "fascist" and that's an alarming stance to take for people who claim to be anti-fascist.

Ah, so you do understand that when people call their opponents "fascists" it doesn't necessarily mean that what they oppose actually is fascism.

 

[AlinaX]

I'm at a loss for words.

 

[onehitwanda]

*shakes off the trance this thread induced* what am I doing here? I should be writing porn.

I went through the seven stages of Velociraptor.

https://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/blogs/browbeat/2011/09/29/hugo_chavez_caption_contest/Dern_GIF.gif.CROP.original-original.gif

 

[PrincessArianrhod]

Wow, should not have read this thread with my morning coffee. I have nothing useful or relevant to add but I do have coffee coming out of my nose. Thanks for that.

I'm going for a lie down.

 

[ElectricBlue]

Weirdest drive-by I've seen for a while - not the absolute strangest, but right up there.

 

[onehitwanda]

Wow, should not have read this thread with my morning coffee.

My coffee machine has shuffled off this mortal coil. Life is not worth living.

 

[PrincessArianrhod]

My coffee machine has shuffled off this mortal coil. Life is not worth living.

My deepest and most heartfelt sympathy. I can't even begin to imagine what that must feel like.

 

[onehitwanda]

My deepest and most heartfelt sympathy. I can't even begin to imagine what that must feel like.

Like this, only with more rocks and thorns:

https://media.tenor.com/HRkvYaLImF0AAAAC/cat-i-dont-want.gif

 

[MediocreAuthor]

I have to admit, when I made this thread... I expected arguments. But THIS is NOT what I expected.

Let's get back on topic.

Nothing that Stacnash said (that I've seen) is ban-worthy. Can we agree on that? At the very least, it isn't enough for a permanent ban!?

(and even if it was, no one has claimed that she was banned for mean comments!)

@SimonDoom said "good riddance" and I can understand the sentiment of wanting rude commenters to go away...

But for the love of God, if "you don't have a crumb of talent" is enough to get you banned, then this forum isn't worth being on in the first place.

 

[SimonDoom]

"decency"

These are two different things, and the difference, to me, is all important.

One is the substantive expression of views in the politics forum. The politics forum is intended for people to express a very wide range of views, including views that many, myself included, consider outrageous. Expressing indecent political views in the politics forum is not grounds for banning somebody. It's par for the course.

The other is indecency in one's personal attitude toward another author in this forum. I think it's perfectly legitimate for the site to police that. The number one reason that this place goes downhill fast is not that people express opinions that are, substantively, outrageous or offensive, but that they get personally nasty with one another.

 

[Bramblethorn]

These are two different things, and the difference, to me, is all important.

One is the substantive expression of views in the politics forum. The politics forum is intended for people to express a very wide range of views, including views that many, myself included, consider outrageous. Expressing indecent political views in the politics forum is not grounds for banning somebody. It's par for the course.

The other is indecency in one's personal attitude toward another author in this forum. I think it's perfectly legitimate for the site to police that. The number one reason that this place goes downhill fast is not that people express opinions that are, substantively, outrageous or offensive, but that they get personally nasty with one another.

Wording is ambiguous here. Does "in this forum" refer to the location where the indecency is expressed, or to the fact that its target is a member of this forum?

 

[AwkwardlySet]

I can't possibly stress enough how wrong I believe the very existence of this thread is.
Why?
Because you are, once again, giving importance to a troll or a group of trolls who want nothing else but to insert their "importance" into our Lit community.
Once again, I want to try to emphasize something. The quality of reviews that this person left shouldn't matter one bit. Why? Because they have shown malicious and hateful behavior on Lit. For some reason that simply doesn't matter to some of you here. If you are okay with these people bombing your fellow authors then by all means, go ahead and discuss SN and her reviews. That is some amazing solidarity right there.
I have also seen the bombing being relativized in the sense of proof. Asking for hard physical proof is very commendable behavior and one I would support in normal circumstances. Yet asking for it in this case is like asking for "squaring the circle" mathematically speaking. Any hard physical proof for a case like this is not difficult to obtain - it is impossible to obtain, unless some of you believe that Laurel would provide it? Not in a million years, in my opinion. Hard, physical proof is way beyond our reach.
Yet the "circumstantial" evidence is overwhelming. I won't talk about the timing of it all, which exact authors were hit and so on, all of it making it very clear who is behind it all. Let's take a look at the evidence that was actually shown in the other thread. Just look at the screenshots and all the taunting and mocking from SN, the rubbing it in my face, practically short of saying "Yes, I am bombing you" Then this Thavipah person shows up and starts talking on her behalf and once again, explicitly tells me to apologize if I want the bombing to stop. It is right there in his first post. Finally, in that same thread I have fucking shown you that this Thavipah person started following me mere hours after I announced that I am taking down my stories with the possibility of reuploading them at some point in the future. But yeah, no hard evidence. So tough to say if she and her group are behind it all.

 

[alohadave]

Hey, I'm in agreement with you. I'm trying to reach out to someone who was nice to me, who was banned.
I have no idea how else to go about it

You could send them a message on the story side through their profile. It's still there if you search for their username.

 

[Omenainen]

Wow what a pile of muck this thread was to wade through.

Most endearing to me, personally, was your review of Eldritch Pact. I love that story to death, and you loved it too, so we're cool on that account. I'm biased, I suppose, but what can I say? I was also shocked that you decided to alter your review after I replied to your comment. That surprised and delighted the heck out of me, honestly.

I just stopped by to say I'm puzzled by this. "Decided to alter your review after I replied to your comment", and this is a good thing how? I've been trying to figure out a scenario where some comment or explanation or I don't even know what from the author would alter a review of a story. Like, you write a review based on the story, do you not? So then if the author says "but I really meant this and not that", well if it's not there in the story then it's not there in the story, no matter what their intentions are? Or worse, should the reviewer go "oh I see you're a nice person, let me say nicer things about your story", which has nothing to do with the story.

 

[Omenainen]

Is this an opinion that she agrees with? She calls herself a fascist?

So a fascist is only a fascist if they self identify as such?