Don’t forget we moved!
https://brandmu.day/
Bannings
-
Thanks. It’s a particular sort of manipulation tactic that relies heavily on humans being humans – it’s really hard to think that somebody you enjoy so much is literally making things up wholecloth about somebody who can be super abrasive. It is what it is, you know?
But when it’s exposed, and open in the light, and everybody can SEE it, I have absolutely no comprehension as to how anyone can condone that behavior. It’s deliberately hurtful!
While I appreciate that, I was told directly that I was a liar, and I was also subject to a number of very drastic shifts in level of engagement in areas that were really predictable and clear to see from my perspective. It was also confirmed to me in the apologies I was tendered that I was not imagining that people were believing her shit and treating me differently because of it.
the entity previously known as Sunny
-
I am so sorry about that. That’s fucking awful.
-
But when it’s exposed, and open in the light, and everybody can SEE it, I have absolutely no comprehension as to how anyone can condone that behavior. It’s deliberately hurtful!
Again, not wading in on the debate here:
But this is actually a combination of two interesting psychological phenomena. The status quo effect, which makes it hard to change thought patterns, even if the new option is better for us in some way, and the anchoring bias, which is where we tend to stick with the first thing we learn on a subject (often seen in a person’s preferred version of something, like which is one’s favourite James Bond, for instance).
This isn’t an excuse for any of the aforementioned behaviours, but something one should keep in mind when encountering new information regardless of what it is. Your cognitive brain doesn’t assume new information is as important as reinforcing old information.
He/Him. Opinions and views are solely my own unless specifically stated otherwise.
BE AN ADULT -
@Pavel Yes. My fave bond was Pierce Brosnan because Die Another Day was the first Bond film I watched.
I then watched more. So.
-
I am OK. But this is the behavior that’s being defended. It’s disgusting. People don’t forget this shit, no matter how many times you change your name.
I’ve done some shit in this hobby. I’ve made a lot of mistakes. I’m nowhere near a saint, and I completely understand when people don’t like me for honest reasons. I’m a lot to take, sometimes! But I am not deliberately cruel. I generally mean well. I care really hard about everybody involved here whether they care about ME or not.
My mistakes don’t justify what she did to me. Nobody else’s mistakes justifies what she did to them. She MAKES THINGS UP. Completely. Totally. Out of nothing. Again and again, it’s a pattern of behavior.
Why? Why me? Why do I get targeted for these campaigns? I don’t know, I don’t understand, but it’s happened enough times that a- I know mostly how to deal with it, and b- I can be pretty secure in knowing the truth will come out eventually. It has, EVERY time so far. Even Spider got caught eventually. Somebody might not believe me today, but they will eventually, and things will be OK.
That’s fucking fascinating, thank you.
-
@Pavel I’d say it also plays into the blowback effect to some degree. That once we establish a certain bias that frames part of our worldview, it is very, very difficult to change that. As it means confronting the aspect that our worldview may be wrong.
To the degree that this part of our brain that rationalizes these things is also tied to our fight or flight response. So when we’re confronted with something as truth that disproves our already established bias, people sometimes have a physical response to it.
I’m not saying this is what’s happening here, but it does remind me of it.
I don't know what I'm doing. Poke at Seven Nations sevennations.aresmush.com port 2021
-
@Testament Oh undoubtedly. I was focusing more on the pure cognition side over the behavioural, but it’s all linked and overlapped. Like a really bad omlette.
ETA: That is to say over the cognitive-behavioural. Science terms.
-
@hobos I’m a little late to this, but.
I saw what I saw. She lied to me. Repeatedly, and I thought we were on good terms. She’s definitely lying to you.
That’s all I’m going to say on this.
Same. SAME. I think that’s what really got me when the curtain got pulled back. I had always had good IC relationships with Moniques since the Greenmarch came on the grid (or got players - alpha days and all). Even when she tried telling me, during incarnation 1 or 2, that two of my dearest friends were telling all their friends not to talk to her (to which I informed her they never said anything like that to ME, or would), I still maintained a pretty friendly IC and OOC relationship. I genuinely enjoyed the story of their friendship over the IC years.
Why would she lie to me? Lie is the wrong word, really. Purposely and knowingly mislead me, for what exact reason? Why seek me the fuck out and ply me with bs about having read journals and really wanting to keep what ‘sounded like’ a great history? To ‘continue to do the IC friendship the honor it deserved’ to paraphrase? We never had a beef. She laid it on pretty fucking thick when it wasn’t necessary, which says all I really need to know about who she really, really is.
-
What I don’t understand is why we keep hearing again and again about how certain people did a thing to someone five years ago or ten years ago and how that makes them an awful person today.
Like, I get that some people did some super weird things, and were manipulative, etc. And maybe they haven’t grown out of it, and maybe they have. But if they aren’t actively doing stuff to you, why would you be actively trashing them on here?
Not aimed at a particular person or group because this seems fairly common (and I see the same people doing it that are themselves a target of it, so it’s kind of one big circle that I don’t understand).
It seems like grudges last forever to hear people talk about them.
EDIT: Sorry, this was meant as a general reply to the thread, not to a specific person. Didn’t realize there was a reply and a “reply as a topic” drop down.
-
@schrodingerscig This all happened two months ago.
In regards to Macha, someone asked? And Macha herself was bringing it up in DMs to strangers?
-
Five or ten years ago is relevant when the behaviors happening in the present are the exact same. People are talking about things that are happening in the present sense, and noting that they have their roots in events ten years ago. As in, that’s when the problematic behavior STARTED, but has not yet STOPPED.
You don’t get a pass on bad behavior for it being in the past…until you stop doing it.
-
@schrodingerscig said in Bannings:
What I don’t understand is why we keep hearing again and again about how certain people did a thing to someone five years ago or ten years ago and how that makes them an awful person today.
if somebody shit on your couch you’d remember it, and you’d probably bring it up when somebody else talked about how that person’s going around shitting on couches
-
I wanted to punch this monkey so hard. He had JUST ducking hit Simba. My young self was FURIOUS and any point trying to be made was completely lost.
-
@schrodingerscig This all happened two months ago.
In regards to Macha, someone asked? And Macha herself was bringing it up in DMs to strangers?
There’s a few examples throughout the thread. But reading back I saw someone get scolded for asking questions that somehow was taken as bait, so I guess it’s not worth enumerating. I get a good enough sense reading the multiple accounts about these people being brought up.
Was really just a musing about why people are talking about things that happened 10 or so years ago, is all. It seems (at least to me) that there is a ton of finger pointing all around, from a clique, at a clique, near a clique, at a clique that doesn’t exist, etc.
I’m not sure what the value is of all of it, I guess. But maybe I shouldn’t go chasing threads about Bannings and just stick to the rivers and the lakes that I’m used to.
-
@schrodingerscig said in Bannings:
Was really just a musing about why people are talking about things that happened 10 or so years ago, is all. It seems (at least to me) that there is a ton of finger pointing all around, from a clique, at a clique, near a clique, at a clique that doesn’t exist, etc.
Could you point me to an example – a quote would be preferred – of where something from ten years ago was mentioned without the context of “it is also happening right now or happened within the last six months”? I am not attempting to be aggressive or rude or scold, I am genuinely asking for you to point at what you are talking about.
Otherwise, the answer to your question is still: because it’s not just ten years ago, it started ten years ago, and continues in the ‘right now’. That’s the answer to your question.
If somebody spit in my food ten years ago, and then spit in my food again yesterday, I am well within my rights to mention the first time when I bring up the second. It’s not unreasonable, weird, or problematic even a little bit. It is appropriate and normal socialized human behavior.
-
@schrodingerscig I’ll cop to holding grudges like nobody’s business, but as @Meg and @IoleRae have noted, the incidents that have been discussed in this thread are, at most, 2 months old. Many of them are much fresher than that.
-
@schrodingerscig said in Bannings:
Was really just a musing about why people are talking about things that happened 10 or so years ago, is all. It seems (at least to me) that there is a ton of finger pointing all around, from a clique, at a clique, near a clique, at a clique that doesn’t exist, etc.
Could you point me to an example – a quote would be preferred – of where something from ten years ago was mentioned without the context of “it is also happening right now or happened within the last six months”? I am not attempting to be aggressive or rude or scold, I am genuinely asking for you to point at what you are talking about.
Otherwise, the answer to your question is still: because it’s not just ten years ago, it started ten years ago, and continues in the ‘right now’. That’s the answer to your question.
I was responding to a prior comment while you were offering your response, but because I hit submit it appears as if it came after yours. I’m not fast enough to keep up with these conversations.
I guess really my fundamental question was “why does all of it get brought up in the first place” not so much “why is it justifiable to talk about”, but it’s too hard not to conflate the two and I can’t type fast enough to have my response to one comment appear above the two or three other responses talking about other points.
My apologies for bringing it up at all, I’ll just go back to lurking. Safer that way.
-
@schrodingerscig said in Bannings:
I guess really my fundamental question was “why does all of it get brought up in the first place”
Because some humans have treated other humans very, very poorly, and they are reacting to having been treated poorly by warning the other humans about what happened? It’s not weird to talk about it when somebody does terrible things and hurts you, then goes on to target a different group of people within your line of sight?
My apologies for bringing it up at all, I’ll just go back to lurking. Safer that way.
This is really rude.
-
@schrodingerscig fair enough. Have a good lurk, whoever you are.
-
I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SAY I was maybe going to shoulder-devil @GF into doing a thing, but decided against it. I AM GROWING AS A PERSON… and also, I am distracted by my Conspiracy Board I have to write to keep track of all my ArxClues.
