![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
spookshow-girl.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
multiplicity_archivesIt seems some people are concerned that others on this community might be a "bad influence" on the new members of this community. As an all-around bad influence, and the sort of person that parents don't want their kids meeting, I call bullshit. I've never influenced someone who didn't want to be influenced in the first place.
If someone chooses to define their existence by the postings of someone else, on the internet, they've already got a problem that is not solved by "protecting them from the crazies". If everyone here jumped off the brooklyn bridge, would they do it too?
It really doesn't matter which multiplicity philosophy they grab. If all they do is grab the first thing they see, they're already in for a world of trouble. Don't blame someone else for their inability to think for themselves.
To those who are looking for answers:
All anyone can give, while on the internet, is minimally informed opinions and advice. They don't live your life. They don't have the answers. They, bluntly, don't know you from a fucking hole in the wall. Figure it out for yourself. Sure, you can ask other people for input, but the final assessment should be yours. If you are fucking crazy, it's best to be fucking crazy due to your own opinions. Second-hand delusions do noone any good. Who wants to be a cut-rate generic whackjob?
End rant.
--Me
If someone chooses to define their existence by the postings of someone else, on the internet, they've already got a problem that is not solved by "protecting them from the crazies". If everyone here jumped off the brooklyn bridge, would they do it too?
It really doesn't matter which multiplicity philosophy they grab. If all they do is grab the first thing they see, they're already in for a world of trouble. Don't blame someone else for their inability to think for themselves.
To those who are looking for answers:
All anyone can give, while on the internet, is minimally informed opinions and advice. They don't live your life. They don't have the answers. They, bluntly, don't know you from a fucking hole in the wall. Figure it out for yourself. Sure, you can ask other people for input, but the final assessment should be yours. If you are fucking crazy, it's best to be fucking crazy due to your own opinions. Second-hand delusions do noone any good. Who wants to be a cut-rate generic whackjob?
End rant.
--Me
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-11-29 10:54 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-11-29 11:04 pm (UTC)That's part of what I see going on. There is an inordinate amount of people who come here looking to be defined by complete strangers. Instead of questioning that attitude, people are more concerned with making sure that the impressionable newcomers don't get exposed to anything that they personally don't approve of. It strikes me as far more productive to encourage the newcomers to figure things out for themselves, and to warn them of the general pitfalls of trusting a stranger with your sense of self.
--Me
no subject
Date: 2005-11-29 11:11 pm (UTC)-David
no subject
Date: 2005-11-29 11:22 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-11-29 11:30 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-11-29 11:37 pm (UTC)not today..
no subject
Date: 2005-11-29 11:48 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-11-29 11:39 pm (UTC)Define for me:
Date: 2005-11-30 01:31 am (UTC)Because it seems that, unless people decide to keep their mouth's shut when they have an emotional response, it's causing, or courting, drama. It also seems that whenever there is a negative display of emotion, or a conversation that causes people discomfort, it's also "drama". So, I'd like a no-bullshit answer. Exactly what do people mean by "drama"?
I remember at least one post about a similar topic elsewhere. We've had this discussion before. Conversation is two-way, not one-way. If someone has the right to say what they believe, the next person has a right to disagree. Dissent is the key to discourse, and progress of any kind. Progress is not made by toeing the line. When one person states their opinion in a manner that is deliberately insulting, exactly why shouldn't that person get treatment in kind? Why should they be protected by rules of conduct they have no desire to follow?
If people have a problem with counter-snarks, then perhaps people should express more problems with the original snarks in the first place. At any rate, how much do you expect people to get snarked at, without eventually responding in kind?
Should we all be good little
Personally, I don't think so, and previous conversations with you would indicate you don't feel that way either.
Yeah, it can be uncomfortable when things go back and forth on here. However, people can only come out swinging for so long before someone swings back. Don't like it? Too bad. People are emotional beings.
In short, get over it.
--Me
Re: Define for me:
Date: 2005-11-30 03:00 am (UTC)drama to me is all sorts of stories someone tells that isn't based on anything truthful.. or maybe there's a germ of truth to it, but it got blown all out of proportion into something ridiculous.. sometimes it's hard to judge what's truth and a lie unless you listen to it for awhile.. or an internal bullshit meter starts buzzing..
but livejournal is a journal place and it's for bleeding yourself dry.. so I guess there's bound to be all sorts of stories and people in here..
personally, I'm more worried about worrying other people with my down stories than anything else.. there are times when I really sink so low in my emotions that it bleeds into everything I type.. and it bleeds over to others in our group too.. I'll say alot of super depressing stuff, but might be alright in a week or two.. but damn, while I'm in it.. you know?
but yeah..
Shit. My bad.
Date: 2005-11-30 05:28 am (UTC)*head hits keyboard* It's official. I barely understand word one that comes from your mouth. It's not even like you write poor english or anything. I might annoy the hell out of you in future comments, by asking you what you mean, if I want to comment on something you said.
--Me
Re: Define for me:
Date: 2005-11-30 12:10 pm (UTC)Because the bit about countersnark posts is just as easily, if not more so, applied to this entry as to those it refers to.
Re: Define for me:
Date: 2005-11-30 02:46 pm (UTC)Words I wish more people heard. *stands and applauds*
[. . .] people can only come out swinging for so long before someone swings back.
*glances at the big damn post* A lot of someones, this time.
Cat, damned if she uses her skeptic-brain, damned if she believes in something. hmph.
"Counter-snark"
Date: 2005-11-30 01:43 am (UTC)I'm just generically bitching at the fact that everyone else is expected to be responsible for the decisions of a nebulous quantity of "impressionable, new multiples", except the multiple themselves. I am not their keeper, or their babysitter. I'm annoyed that it doesn't seem to cross people's minds that the newcomers should figure things out on their own. It sounds like the family values crew blaming violence on videogames, instead of the kids, or their parents, who actually are responsible for their upbringing.
The idea that I should be, without some form of financial compensation, is annoying. If I wanted to do that, I would be babysitting my nephew right now.
The fact that this particular bitchy rant on the topic happens to be instigated by someone you happen to agree with is actually far from the point. I'm not here to babysit anyone's impressionable young multiples.
They emulate me at their own risk. Unless I've systematically crippled it, I'm not responsible for anyone's lack of self-worth.
--Me
Re: "Counter-snark"
Date: 2005-11-30 02:05 am (UTC)Re: "Counter-snark"
Date: 2005-11-30 03:52 am (UTC)A) Someone comes in and introduces themselves as multiple, and the community takes them at face value unless there's some pressing reason to suspect them of trolling.
B) Someone posts a litany of traits/symptoms/etc that they have and asks "Am I multiple?", and the community consensus generally boils down to "Maybe. You're the only one who can know for sure."
C) Someone posts a similar litany and asks "Do any/all multiples experience X, Y, and Z?", and those who do or do not have those experiences chime in.
Your phrasing suggests you're referring to the second sort of instance, but I haven't really seen much of the behavior you mentioned.. I CAN potentially see false positives arising from the third, in an indirect way. (Personally, I'm of the mindset that the opinion that a person forms from the response they get to a 'Do any of you...?' question is their own responsibility, but I'm willing to agree to disagree on that.)
Am I incorrect in surmising that this is what you're annoyed at, or are you interpreting A and B instances differently than I do?
...And I personally don't really see any of the 'sheep' behavior that you're mentioning below. People feeling excluded and not offering their viewpoint because there aren't many others sharing that viewpoint, yes. A general tendency to follow the lead of the moderators, maybe. Willingness to follow others off a metaphorical bridge.... it may just be me being autistic-ish and missing some kind of cue or marker, but I'm really not seeing it.
no subject
Date: 2005-11-30 05:02 am (UTC)As you're reading through the archives, you'll probably notice a lot of trends. Things become popular in one system and it spreads to the other systems; everything from explanations of origins to traumatic histories to the types of people in a system. It all goes in waves and it's amazing how fast something can become a social norm. Sometimes you can follow along how far the new posters are into the archives based on what problems they're posting about finding in their system.
Re: "Counter-snark"
Date: 2005-12-01 07:21 pm (UTC)Since I'm sure just about any attitude will be viewed that way by someone this community can get very quiet very quick.
However despite that, you put forth a good question anyway, and I'd like to take a moment to tackle it.
I consider yes-botting in this context a very poor idea. There are various reasons that people will do so. The most common one to me, seems to be fear of being percieved as mean, rude, or like they aren't being inclusive. I'd also consider no-botting a similar problem, but it's siginficantly less likely here.
At the same time, not everyone who say's yes will be yes-botting. Sometimes they legitimately feel the answer is yes. Perhaps they were yes botted themselves, or perhaps the answer is, as far as they can perceive, obviously yes.
No matter the reason, I do feel that it is up to the poster to continue analyzing their situation, even after they receive validation from a bunch of strangers online. You should be able to expect your friends to tell you what they really think, however, few people here even know each other, much less deserve that sort of trust.
I would also like to point out that a few of the people who come here are looking for that validation, and enablement, and could really care less about the reality of the situation. *shrugs* I don't like it, but I guess they got what they wanted. I can't be too concerned for them.
--Me
Re: "Counter-snark"
Date: 2005-11-30 05:23 am (UTC)Mystery solved. I figured it wasn't, it wasn't my intent.
You might be missing the point, again. He's allowed to make a skeptic post. I'm allowed to respond, blahblahblahdidntwetalkaboutthisbefore. However, my response isn't about him being a skeptic. Hence my clarification, and actually, the annoyance that colored the tone of my original response to your comment.
Ugh, again, it's not that he's a skeptic. I live with people much more skeptical on the topic than him. The post wasn't defending people from the skeptics. It's talking about each system's personal responsibility for their own actions, and the fact that other systems, your's and mine included are not responsible for actions of others, contextually.
No I'm not, because I'm not saying you said that. The comment isn't about you, it's about the intent of my original post.
Fair enough, but keep in mind that I'm not just angry at the OP. I'm angry at a generalized attitude which completely discounts personal responsibility. It's not all about him, and it's not at all about whether or not he should agree with my worldview, which few people here even know.
How so? I can certainly see how the other one was, but aside from the comment about counter-snark, this really was intended to clarify things, not make them worse.
Fine, I'm too defensive. However, I think that more often than not, that you are also misinterpreting me. I was not trying to patronize you last time. My post here isn't just about the thread a couple of minutes ago. I'm not saying that you believe I should be responsible for the actions of others.
I also think I frequently misunderstand you.
Correction, although I doubt, nor care if, you'll believe me. I didn't "follow you". I checked out the community's friend page, which I do, on occasion. I saw your post, and figured you might be talking about me. I checked my email, and then noticed your responses to my comments, responded to the comments, and then responded to the journal. I also remember telling you that I don't mind the fact that you posted about me. Anyway, seeing as I can be openly bitchy, it'd be a waste of time to lie in order to preserve some sort of innocent facade. It's almost a waste of time trying to correct a legitimate inaccuracy.
--Me
Re: "Counter-snark"
Date: 2005-11-30 06:08 am (UTC)Trying to see if I can keep things stable here...
I do want to do something about this. The fact that several posters have expressed this indicates that I should change the way I handle the issue. I'm curious why, when I brought up the topic last week of whether people felt censored by the mods-- partly in response to discussions along the lines of this one-- only one person mentioned feeling uncomfortable bringing up certain topics. Obviously there were others besides her.
To explain where I'm coming from, my perception has mostly been that open skepticism is rarely expressed in this group without some amount of hostility, or throwing emotionally loaded words around-- terms like "batshit insane." But I'm certainly aware that it is possible to have respectful skepticism, expressed without condescension or personal attack. I would just like to know why it seems that few of the doubting posts in this community ever seem to be totally free of it. Is it because frustrations build up until it just gets to the point where it explodes?
To be perfectly honest, I don't 'believe' all of the experiences people describe here, in that I believe they exist in a literal, objective sense. I believe they're experienced as subjective reality by the people describing them, and I respect that, but I don't automatically take them as literal truth. I think some of them are playing with ideas and will get tired of it eventually, or are finding a way to 'play out' personal issues. Which can do some good, especially if the alternative is taking a bunch of pills or beating on your spouse or kids. Some of them may really have clinical delusions, but it's not my prerogative to determine which is which, since it's all at least partly out of context.
I don't generally discuss this because I don't have a reason to bring it up, unless someone is attempting to force me to acknowledge something I don't believe. I don't feel that my not considering them literal truth is sufficient reason to tell people to stop talking about it. I may say to myself "oh, come on," and I have, but if someone is getting some benefit out of the experience, I would actually encourage them to work with it within context even if I thought it was the most ridiculous thing ever. The one thing I have ever cautioned people against is implicit belief in everything which feels like a memory.
I do sympathise with some of the views you've expressed, regarding having to be secretive and not talk about 'unusual' things openly. We were very secretive about our experience for many years and will continue to tell people that they may want to be careful what they reveal to whom.
It does sometimes seem to me that when people on either side here ask for equal representation of their views, what they mean is that they want to express negative opinions of others, without those others coming forth to defend or justify themselves.
Re: "Counter-snark"
Date: 2005-11-30 04:06 pm (UTC)I'm not sure that's something a mod can fix, without dictating to others how to respond. It's not a problem with the moderators as much as it is a problem with the individual members of the community. Maybe a mod post reminding everyone to be respectful of others would be helpful, but I can't think of anything you all can do to fix the problem, short of censorship.
Re: "Counter-snark"
Date: 2005-12-01 08:52 pm (UTC)yeah... ^^;
no subject
Date: 2005-11-30 03:34 am (UTC)I worry like Sunday when I made the mistake with medecine that could be considered high maitenance or drama, but I figured if anyone had done this with mixing up time, it might be another multiple, and they would know how to get back on track.
But maybe I shoulda just called the Pharmacist. I was more worried with getting in trouble here. Our sysetem does not all get along real nice like I see in allot of the Lj community. Everyone we see here sems to accept each other real well when most of the others shock the hell out of me and I doont get how there with me when at times I feel anlone . We just dont get along so I come to the community to figure out how to do that sometimes.I guess we would not be considerd functional by maybe LJ definition cause we dont all like each other. So we get enouph fighting here over everything.
no subject
Date: 2005-11-30 03:48 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-11-29 11:44 pm (UTC)We avoided having to go through that and worse by basically locking people away from the front, but it's not something I would recommend to anyone.
no subject
Date: 2005-11-30 12:03 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-11-30 12:12 am (UTC)Bad influence or not, you're blunt. ;) Some people need to be spoken with bluntly. Good rant.
no subject
Date: 2005-11-30 01:44 am (UTC)--Me
no subject
Date: 2005-11-30 12:22 am (UTC)I agree wholeheartedly, as does most of the rest of my system. we enjoy blunt people, as we've always felt sometimes you need to meet the harshness of reality to grow, if you're protected, you'll never know yourself and how far you can go in life.
that coming from a trauma multiple at that. ha.
~ Damien Shadowalker
no subject
Date: 2005-12-02 07:47 pm (UTC)You don't. You become someone else's doll. At least, that's how it feels to me.
Agreed, and vehemently. Without knowing how far you can go, you'll also never be able to push your limits.
I've never been of the opinion that being a trauma multiple required spending the rest of your life in a hole. In fact, the fact that some encourage this actually disturbs me. It's a person's chioce, if they want to, but to push for it to be the standard for others, is a bit much.
My thoughts are a bit convoluted right now, as I have to head out the door in a few minutes. Hopefully I've made sense.
--Me
no subject
Date: 2005-12-03 12:02 am (UTC)we were saying, that's what we're trying to get at. we don't belive in living your life in a 'hole', you only hang yourself by hiding from all of life's harshness. we've always faced everything dead on, it's how we live adn survive instead of feeling victimized all the time. we take pride in being strong, in spite of all the crap in our past.
Bad influence
Date: 2005-11-30 02:08 am (UTC)I'm viewed at with a sidelong glance, because I don't fit the mold of a model citizen. I don't think I'm particularly bad, but others think that I am. I'm tattooed. I have multi-color hair. I wear a trenchcoat. None of the above even seem worth notice to me, but I've had parents pull their kids away from me, when all I've done is smile and wave at them.
My interests, philosophies, spiritual beliefs, and sexual preference have all, at one point or another, been tagged as bad or immoral by some person or another. I'm used to being treated as though I'm "bad", or something to watch out for, because of this.
My ethical system is considered lacking by some people, but I believe it's a good, and relatively honest system. My default response to being told I shouldn't do something, is to ask why. This doesn't mean you can't give me an answer that I'll agree with, or understand. In fact, because of this habit, I'm sometimes better able to explain the ethical considerations of an action in more depth than someone who just dogmatically followed orders.
Whether or not I'm "proud" of being a bad influence, depends on my mood. The more cynical I feel, the more likely I am to be amused by it. The more amused I am, the more likely I am going to appear proud of it.
There's more to it, but I figure this get's the basic jist across.
You know something? I'm happy you told me what you felt. You also did so in a civil fashion, which impresses me.
--Me
no subject
Date: 2005-11-30 12:13 pm (UTC)What we have considered to be a bad influence has been something others have embraced. *shrugs* It can be painful if it's someone you know, but there's not really much you can do. I'd be considered a bad influence by some people too.
no subject
Date: 2005-12-02 06:54 pm (UTC)--Me
no subject
Date: 2005-11-30 01:13 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-12-02 07:40 pm (UTC)No joke. I don't get a lot of it really. We're all pretty different, and not all of us have the same priorities, beliefs or values. Is this news to anyone?
--Me
no subject
Date: 2005-12-03 03:06 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-11-30 02:40 am (UTC)In this community? Yes.
no subject
Date: 2005-11-30 03:07 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-11-30 04:22 am (UTC)-David
no subject
Date: 2005-11-30 04:02 pm (UTC)*laughs*
Date: 2005-11-30 05:31 am (UTC)--Me
no subject
Date: 2005-11-30 04:03 am (UTC)I just think its funny like Lisa and I could be talking fromebeyond and getting along fine ( I am just using you as a example) not a bad thing and for instance Maxim could inwardly hate me so it is hard to trust in this community.
Cause like I can understand a post and Toni or Tiea totally think it sucks but they still like that system but were alawys aware because were dealing with groups within a larger Lj group and a even larger Internet group we can getin trouble for out opinions. or just our posts.
So I think it just takes courage to be here in the first place.
I could go hang in Poetry community and write a angsty poem about my system or someone elses and some time I do or I hang out it in my journal
Or I can come here and be with the majority of what I count friends
Cause Poetry will enjoy my poetry maybe but they'll never understand I am writing about giving up the front or keeping my position.But you all would get it right away.
Maybe that makes me naive I just see the good in people. Jade had the same look you speak of going on for years she wore a black trench coat laether and had plum and eggplant hair with a streak of silver in it, black nail polish and lots of tatoos Jade was considered a outcast but she is really all about control and expressing herself. We all just had to get to know her better she wanted to actually draw attention to herself cause she felt powerless dressing the way she did was her signature she got strange looks, but we newver thought she was a bad influence. We thought she felt left out and she did most times.Thnx Elaine
no subject
Date: 2005-12-12 09:26 am (UTC)