[dot]

[Aralyn]

Okay, no.

You can't start a thread acting all offended about something a group of people have done, quote the thing that sparked up this giant grab for more attention, and then fire back with long, exhausting posts and attempts to mislead. You quoted the very post that set this off, and now you're trying to tell people it wasn't that post that you were talking about to begin with. I'm sure 'words like this prove' 'this is what's wrong with the community' is something you 100% believe, but that doesn't negate the fact that this topic started because of your feelings toward Alise/Stryker.
At least own it.

There's a whole lot more I could get into but I guess that was the thing that stuck out to me most.

[Greyce]

First of all, thank you for your response and approaching this in a reasonable way. I just wanted to address each point separately. I don't wholly disagree with you, but I think there are some things worth expanding on.

It's your clear and deliberate generalization of "the community", "all" of us. All against one. This is coming off as victimization and I don't agree with it. I don't know, speaking as genuinely and honestly as possible, who you were appealing to while blaming all of us.

Actually, I think by using the word "community" I am actually speaking to a smaller selection of people than most people are when they generalize and use the word "city". I've been actively trying to stop using the word "city" because there are probably so many humans and supernaturals in this city who don't even know what goes on in this paper or in the streets and go about their lives none the wiser, and wouldn't care if they did know.

And when I said "all of you" I meant the people who responded to the thread, because you all had one thing in common: You took what I said and made it about something it wasn't. Every comment (except Gypsy's) made the assumption that I posted what I posted because I was upset or hurt by what Stryker said about Alise. They made this thread about something emotional and personal, when that's not what was intended. And that may have partly been my fault.

When I said "this is what's wrong with the community" I didn't mean that the community is only negative and wrong. I just mean that this specific behavior, this specific act, is a facet that is wrong with the community. I do realize now that to say "this is what's wrong" makes it sound like this is the only thing that's wrong, and it isn't. But I also don't mean that the community is strictly wrong, evil, cruel, etc. etc.

I should have said "this is one of the things that's wrong with the community." And that I stand by. Such acts are one of the things wrong with the community.

In trying to be succinct, people misunderstood the post to be about my feelings and emotions towards Alise and/or Stryker, when that couldn't be further from the truth, and I misspoke in saying "this is what's wrong with the community."

To me, it was clear what I was referring to because I specifically said "words like this prove..." but maybe that wasn't enough. I take the fault for any misunderstanding concerning those things.

Your delivery here was inflammatory, just like the comment you reacted to. You're grieving, and I understand that this is a hard time for you. This is not an easy event to cope with and you might need someone or something to blame. "The community" is a big target, and you're going to isolate yourself by going after it.

My delivery was not meant to be inflammatory and I'm not trying to blame anyone for anything. In fact, who committed the act and who they were talking about isn't even relevant to the point I was trying to make. Regardless of who said it and who it was said about, I would have made this point. I've seen it happen on many an obituary, from people I don't like to people that I loved, and every single time I thought it was something that reflected negatively on our community as a whole and something that drives people out and stops people from coming. This was the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back.

What I was saying, before others tacked on, was that if you want to change what you perceive as being wrong with the environment and society around you, then you have to bring that change. You chose to take what was said and come here, to a place that is literally titled 'SOAPBOXES', to vent your outrage and say that those who leave us are better off for it.

This is the part of your initial statement that had me answer all of the responses in the way I did. In every single response, either an assumption was made about what I was doing (for example, you flat out said I was "shaming" Stryker, and I wasn't, as stated above), or people were calling me names ("morality police" and "self righteously indignant") for reasons that were so far off the original reason from what I posted.

Every response after yours, made the assumption that what I said was in defense of Alise. That I was upset with Stryker for saying mean things about Alise. That if I knew Stryker's side, maybe I wouldn't have attacked him. Literally every person had a reference to "both sides of the story."

I've already stated that neither side of the story is relevant in what I am speaking out against, so I won't belabor the point.

Here, again, you say that I came to vent my outrage, which, again, is an assumption. I don't feel outraged by what Stryker said to Alise. I don't feel anything towards it. What I feel is what I've stated many times at this point: That the act that was committed is a negative one for our community and drags us down.

You could have responded differently, and it might have garnered a different reaction. You could have taken the opportunity to remind people that an obituary is a place for remembrance and mourning. You could have spoken privately with the individual involved to explain that it hurt you to read that, and while he is entitled to feel that way, you would prefer it be removed. You could have responded by opening up about your grief to appear to those who have also felt it. To start a kind of courtesy that will prevent this from happening in the future.

But you did none of those things. You took up arms, you came here, created this thread, and pointed fingers.

While inconsiderate, I don't think Stryker's post was cruel. The difference between inconsideration and cruelty is the intent. I don't think it was said with the intent to hurt those left behind by Alise, but I also don't agree with the fact it was done in the first place. We have a WAYT thread for that reason. Had you started a movement to keep negative and painful posts out of obituaries, without pointing fingers and throwing blame, I would have supported you.

Maybe that's worth a moment to think about.

I'm sorry for your loss.

Here, I do disagree. Cruelty isn't only doing something with the intention of harming, but doing something and not caring whether or not it harms anyone.

I wanted to publicly state that I thought that the act that was committed is one of the things wrong with the community, and a small part of the reason that it has stagnated. Then, people chose to focus on something that wasn't the point of my statement and here we are now. Maybe I should have expanded on my post, but I thought that specifying that it was "words like this" that "prove the people who choose to leave are the ones who are better off" clarified that my issue wasn't with Stryker, but his words. The act committed.

Again, I don't know Stryker, so I couldn't say if this was characteristic of him or a one off or anything, so I wouldn't shame him or make fun of him or insult him.

I wouldn't do those things anyway if I did know him, just vehemently and publicly tell him that his actions are cruel (if he repeatedly did cruel things).

In trying to make up for the lack of clarity in my attempt to be succinct, I've probably over corrected and become too verbose. I apologize for that.

And yes, it's worth more than a moment to think about for the future.

Thank you.

My bad. I didn't think you'd use an obituary to gain favor for a point you were trying to make if you weren't in some way invested in it.

Since you're not, I'm disappointed. You also failed to see the purpose of my post, and instead chose to correct it.

cru·el
/ˈkro͞o(ə)l/
willfully causing pain or suffering to others, or feeling no concern about it.

in·con·sid·er·ate
/ˌinkənˈsid(ə)rət/
thoughtlessly causing hurt or inconvenience to others.

[Alex Ayres]

My bad. I didn't think you'd use an obituary to gain favor for a point you were trying to make if you weren't in some way invested in it.

Since you're not, I'm disappointed. You also failed to see the purpose of my post, and instead chose to correct it.

cru·el
/ˈkro͞o(ə)l/
willfully causing pain or suffering to others, or feeling no concern about it.

in·con·sid·er·ate
/ˌinkənˈsid(ə)rət/
thoughtlessly causing hurt or inconvenience to others.

I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say. I was just trying to make clear the separation between the fact that this wasn't because of some personal, emotional reaction to something someone said about someone who I cared about.

It was something I said because I think what was done was something that was detrimental to the community as a whole. It wasn't about the people involved.

I don't think making this distinction means that I am not invested in it. I personally believe we should all be invested in minimizing this kind of thing from happening. But I'm not going to tell anyone what or how they should do things. All I can do is share my opinion on it, and if people agree, maybe in the future they tell their friends if they see them doing something like this that it isn't beneficial to anyone.

I also don't see how the definitions you posted disprove my point? In fact, I said:

"Cruelty isn't only doing something with the intention of harming, but doing something and not caring whether or not it harms anyone.

And the definition you posted is:

cru·el
/ˈkro͞o(ə)l/
willfully causing pain or suffering to others, or feeling no concern about it.

How are what I said and the definition you posted different?


And how was my post a correction to yours and if I missed the point, what was the point? My intention was to just to better explain my thought process, not to correct you.

It could be better to continue this discussion in private, but if you would rather have it publicly, I don't mind. Or we could not continue it at all, your choice! Though, I would most certainly like to. There's clearly a disconnect in what you're writing and what I'm reading and what I'm writing and you're reading.

Okay, no.

You can't start a thread acting all offended about something a group of people have done, quote the thing that sparked up this giant grab for more attention, and then fire back with long, exhausting posts and attempts to mislead. You quoted the very post that set this off, and now you're trying to tell people it wasn't that post that you were talking about to begin with. I'm sure 'words like this prove' 'this is what's wrong with the community' is something you 100% believe, but that doesn't negate the fact that this topic started because of your feelings toward Alise/Stryker.
At least own it.

There's a whole lot more I could get into but I guess that was the thing that stuck out to me most.

So you're saying I can't use an anecdotal example of something that has happened many times, the most recent example of that thing that has happened, and speak out against that thing as a whole? Because it was about my once childe (who severed me well before she chose to go D and B), my response automatically is about this one specific event and is targeted at Stryker and how his words against Alise offended particularly me?

I think if you read the post, it's clear that isn't the case. If I was targeting Stryker, wouldn't I have mentioned his name somewhere in my post? Or even said something about him or Alise? I specifically said it was his words that I was talking about, and specifically said "the people who choose to leave."

It might be a difficult concept to understand, but some people are capable of removing their own emotions and feelings about a particular event and look at that event as objectively as possible without being a brick wall and weigh the pros and cons of the event and then make a decision as to whether or not that particular event negatively or positively impacts the collective and speak out for or against that event. Even if that particular event involves themselves or people they care/once cared about.


Again, if you'd like to discuss this further, it might be better to do so privately. But publicly, or not at all, are also options.

Thank you for your thoughts, though, on what I was doing/saying and my intentions in doing/saying it. It was helpful to hear your perspective so that I can (hopefully) better formulate my own thoughts in the future.


EDITED:

I removed "and specifically didn't mention Alise" after "the people who choose to leave" because in the post as a whole, I do mention Alise, just not in that section. And in mentioning her I say "people like Alise" to keep it general, i.e. people, like Alise, who generally have a negative perception surrounding them.

[Charlie]

The city is better off.

^^^ This is what's wrong with the community, not people like Alise.

Words like this prove the people who choose to leave are the ones who are better off. They don't have to deal with needless and senseless cruelty anymore.

Senseless cruelty? How's this for needlessly and senselessly cruel: I'm not really sure what woman you've been putting up with, but I dare say it wasn't our lovely, lovely Alise. Among her many splendid achievements:

...tried to slip into every bed possible, never taken no for an answer, and was utterly incapable of defining/accepting boundaries with people...

Her behavior, in general, was cruel, wasn't it? She was an absolute torment. I do admire her tenacity and her ability to not let sleeping dogs lie and her endless enthusiasm for beating a dead horse. Nobody can do those things quite like Alise could.

I daresay you're not looking at any of this from Stryker's point of view. Perhaps he just needed to express his feelings somewhere: He has every right to be angry and vindictive and cruel and to express those feelings. Anger is a very healthy emotion to feel. I'd say it's stifling the emotion of anger that causes those grocery store outbursts where the quiet and demure stockboy brings an automatic rifle to work and mows down friends, coworkers, and shoppers.

I'm not saying you shouldn't be pointing fingers at Stryker. Point all you want; I really don't care to defend anybody who gets fingers pointed at them. In fact, I'm here because we aren't pointing enough at Alise, who once trapped me in a closet at my shop for upwards of three hours, the pedantic little brute.

I wish I could have attended her funeral and given the eulogy. I would have said just that, 'She once trapped me in a closet at my shop for upwards of three hours, the little brute, and tried to kiss me on several occasions.'

Even after she was betrothed she'd come stomping into my shop demanding to know if I was jealous she was engaged. After I told her I wasn't jealous, at all, she continued this behavior over the course of a few weeks, stating that her only reason for intruding on my life and telling me I was jealous over and over, again, was because she was bored. I'd say that was cruel: Not because I was, in fact, jealous, but because her company causes great exertion. It's quite like trying to climb to the top of Mt. Everest when you haven't the stamina. She could only win a man over by submission to the terrible force of her insurmountable will.

I'll talk trash all I want about it and there's nothing you can do to stop me. Point a finger at me, next, I'm sure you'll find it's quite ineffective.

While I'm, by no means, a paradigm of proper behavior and I have my own sordid ways, let's not paint and veil the 'dead' with nostalgia and praise, just yet. It'd be better, really, if we didn't romanticize them at all. Romanticizing those who've passed on does nothing for anybody. I'm of the firm belief that eulogies should all end, 'And remember, they fucked and shat and cried and pissed and their noses ran and their bodies created mucous and they had pimples and made weird smells and they were all skeletous brambles wrapped in piggish fat.'

Also, I'm sure you'll feel quite silly about this foolish upstart in a few months when she's risen.

I'm also sure the occupants of Hell are finally getting their due suffering in ways no Devil could ever concoct, and when the pits of the underworld have spat her back out, again, she'll be wailing and complaining and kicking her legs and beating her little fists because she hasn't gotten her way.

I dare say we'll all go back to suffering the pain of her miraculous and pleasant behavior.

Despite your disinclinations, you're coming off as the marching, chanting, militant example of a co-dependency, aren't you? And then it seems you're trying to cover your tracks by poorly talking your way out of your inflammatory shit-starting. Kudos: You've all the beginnings of a positively serpentine narcissistic sociopath. When you've gotten a little better at it, give me a ring.

I think what's really wrong with this community is it's made up of people, you know, and people are (as a rule) awful. The entirety of the whole human race should be done away with. God should scrap us and replace us with something beneficial. We're a failed science experiment, a petri dish of bacterial cultures at odds with one another, the raging shit filling the intestines of an angry creator and sooner or later, we'll be flushed away by some act of nature or our own hostilities.

But, you know...

Everyone is entitled to an opinion...

Even you.

Even if that stating that reprehensible little opinion isn't living by your own muddied principles, you hypocrite, but is instead shaming by the mere means of the simple quoting a specifically-named person (Stryker) and calling him out independently for his behavior among the jury of his peers.

Judge not lest ye be judged, and all that melodious drivel.

I didn't fault Stryker. I didn't call him names.

But you did call him out, very specifically, didn't you? What does it matter if you're only talking about the language used or the actions, themselves?

You didn't exactly write a covert opinion piece that didn't point any specific fingers. I believe Marias was just as cruel as Stryker was, but you somehow didn't include Marias' opinion.

'Oh No'

So, you didn't cover all those bases by shining a light on everybody's bad behavior. Rather, you've really singled a person out, haven't you? Stop denying it, you impetuous little scorpion.

There's a standard rule of thumb for pointing your finger at people: When you point your finger, there are three pointing back at you. This is a statement about the hand, but I'm sure you understand that. I wouldn't want to act presumptuous about your scope of understanding.

...working on ways to better things in ways you can't and won't ever see or understand...

Darling, are you assuming the scope of my understanding? Are you putting yourself on some sort of intellectual pedestal? I'm sure it's much easier to look down on the people, to see them as a confederacy of dunces that stands against you, isn't it?

And that may have partly been my fault.

Wherever there is a miscommunication, the fault lays between both parties: One for not asking for clarification, one for assuming, and one for not communicating with clarity and precision and asking if they're understood.

I don't care about Stryker.

A paraphrase, but something we can agree on.

How are what I said and the definition you posted different?

Here, I do disagree. Cruelty isn't only doing something with the intention of harming, but doing something and not caring whether or not it harms anyone.

cru·el
/ˈkro͞o(ə)l/
willfully causing pain or suffering to others, or feeling no concern about it.

in·con·sid·er·ate
/ˌinkənˈsid(ə)rət/
thoughtlessly causing hurt or inconvenience to others.

An example: Me making the font this large is cruel, not inconsiderate, because I did it knowing full-well people would be irritated and inconvenienced. The difference is a matter of intention.

Used in another sentence: Alise was inconsiderate, but she was also very cruel.

You aren't the Webster's or the Oxford, Alex, I'd suggest you do a bit of research on words before you go arguing about the semantics. You're being interpreted for exactly what you've said, not what you've meant. What you mean matters only as much as what you mean matches those terms and phrases which have been prior defined. You can't just go around attributing new meanings to words and calling it right. That's breaking the rules of the game. You have to find abstract words with obscure definitions, at best, and then argue over those. You're lawyering your way out of this all wrong. While I admire your intent, your performance is slightly below par. You're giving the snakes a bad name.

There's a whole lot more I could get into but I guess that was the thing that stuck out to me most.

Please go on. You're positively fabulous and I'd adore a good show.


All that being said, I'd like to make it clear I'm not defending anybody. I'm just here to demonize Alise, some more, because I'm a helpless victim and everything that's wrong with this community, then some. Typing all this was positively exhausting, at best, so if you have something else to say, don't expect too much of a response.

[-Stryker-]

Now, since you want to go public I stsad being a man and coming directly to me. Let me clarify, I have every right to say what I said. Because she made my life a living hell. I have the screen shots, if you wish to see. She was a wishy-washy bitch. She would once say that there was no feelings, and even while she was engaged to Tait, she kept trying to say she had feelings for me. So, yes, my words are justified. Now, next time. Be a man and come to me and not a pussy and use the paper.

[Alex Ayres]

I'm just going to address the things you said that I didn't already clarify, multiple times.

While I'm, by no means, a paradigm of proper behavior and I have my own sordid ways, let's not paint and veil the 'dead' with nostalgia and praise, just yet. It'd be better, really, if we didn't romanticize them at all. Romanticizing those who've passed on does nothing for anybody. I'm of the firm belief that eulogies should all end, 'And remember, they fucked and shat and cried and pissed and their noses ran and their bodies created mucous and they had pimples and made weird smells and they were all skeletous brambles wrapped in piggish fat.'

Agreed.

But you did call him out, very specifically, didn't you? What does it matter if you're only talking about the language used or the actions, themselves?

You didn't exactly write a covert opinion piece that didn't point any specific fingers. I believe Marias was just as cruel as Stryker was, but you somehow didn't include Marias' opinion.

'Oh No'

I didn't think that I needed multiple examples of the behavior to make my point, so I just picked the one that was most obviously offensive from that thread when I finally got around to reading it. Otherwise, I would have went to Josephine, Pulse, and Kamala's threads and picked out all of the examples from those as well if I wanted all of the most recent examples of the behavior.

...working on ways to better things in ways you can't and won't ever see or understand...

Darling, are you assuming the scope of my understanding? Are you putting yourself on some sort of intellectual pedestal? I'm sure it's much easier to look down on the people, to see them as a confederacy of dunces that stands against you, isn't it?

No. Just pointing out that this post isn't a culmination of my activities. And when I've had discussions with people about my view of what helping is, they've been perplexed. If you'd like to have the discussion we most certainly can.

And that may have partly been my fault.

Wherever there is a miscommunication, the fault lays between both parties: One for not asking for clarification, one for assuming, and one for not communicating with clarity and precision and asking if they're understood.

Agreed. And I believe I both took the blame and apologized for my part in this miscommunication. If not, I'm doing so (I think again) now.

How are what I said and the definition you posted different?

Here, I do disagree. Cruelty isn't only doing something with the intention of harming, but doing something and not caring whether or not it harms anyone.

cru·el
/ˈkro͞o(ə)l/
willfully causing pain or suffering to others, or feeling no concern about it.

in·con·sid·er·ate
/ˌinkənˈsid(ə)rət/
thoughtlessly causing hurt or inconvenience to others.

I've refocused your bold to clarify my meaning.

All that being said, I'd like to make it clear I'm not defending anybody. I'm just here to demonize Alise, some more, because I'm a helpless victim and everything that's wrong with this community, then some. Typing all this was positively exhausting, at best, so if you have something else to say, don't expect too much of a response.

I don't think stating your opinion of me or Alise in a public forum entitled "Soapboxes" is wrong at all. In fact, I'm astounded, honored, and humbled that someone would take the time to give such an exhaustive response to something I said. I'm sure a lot of people appreciate you taking the time to tear me a new one and saying all of the things they were thinking.

[Alex Ayres]

Now, since you want to go public I stsad being a man and coming directly to me. Let me clarify, I have every right to say what I said. Because she made my life a living hell. I have the screen shots, if you wish to see. She was a wishy-washy bitch. She would once say that there was no feelings, and even while she was engaged to Tait, she kept trying to say she had feelings for me. So, yes, my words are justified. Now, next time. Be a man and come to me and not a pussy and use the paper.

The fact that you're offended enough to write this proves that you don't understand why I posted what I did, even after multiple attempts to clarify my original meaning.

I've actually learned in recent weeks that I'm not the only person who can say something and an entire community (there it is again) of people take those words and extrapolate a completely different meaning from those words, even after the person clarified their position multiple times.

I'll send you my contact information and we can speak.

[Greyce]

So then you made assumptions over what Stryker wrote, and what his intentions were, just like you said everyone here did.

How can you prove intent versus ignorance? He didn't say he intentionally caused the hurt of others. He shared his mind.

Maybe even thoughtlessly, but that would also be an assumption.

I guess that makes an ass of you and me.

[Zach]

It doesn't matter what you meant originally. I hope you're understand what people are saying. You can say..."Oh, this is actually what I meant" all you want but what you meant and what you said were clearly two different things. So I don't understand why you would be surprised that Stryker is offended and calling you out. You freakin' quoted what he said and went on a whole spill about this being what is wrong with the community. Had you not quoted him, I don't think it would have been in issue for him at least.

[Vulture]

Alex is still beating the dead horse?