Yes, I'm aware that... what was it at last count, six...? people have all simultaneously posted about what a terrible person I am. Linking to a post that allegedly contains "exhaustive research" into the matter. Heh. Well.
See, because more than 10 people read me, I'm in this situation. The situation being that, for example, I apparently shouldn't be allowed to rant about anything in my life that might possibly involve anyone else, because I have a Responsibility to treat everybody kindly all the time, even if they done me wrong. I know I'm weird, but... does that seem reasonable to you
? If I call someone a bitch, it rocks the world of LJ, I hear. Soooo... I ought to censor my LJ and not call anyone a bitch Evar Again? Huh?
That's just an example. What I'm leading up to with that example is this...
When people badmouth me? Apparently I'm not able to talk back. Because talking back creates Drama. When they attack me
, of course - that's not Drama, oh, nooo. But since I am read by more than ten people, if I respond with a "fuck you", I have the people who badmouth me
and everyone they
know yelling "Drama! Drama!" at me.
I know I'm weird, but... does that seem reasonable to you?
Anyway. That's why I'm making this post. Because even if I don't
post anything, it'll be assumed that I did, in a filter. Which creates Drama. And if I do post - Drama.
Honestly, what is wrong with people who pull this crap? For most of you, I'm a flicker of pixels. Why carry out vendettas? People some of these people posting this shit, I've never exchanged more than two sentences with, online or off. Is it because all the cool kids are doing it? Do you get a cookie? Because, y'know, I want a cookie. Here. I'm a bitch. When can I pick up my cookie? I prefer oatmeal raisin.
there cookies? There've got to be cookies.
So this is the deal. The post has a lot of interesting theories in it. And, y'know - I know that saying this "weakens my argument", but I gotta say - when a grudge-holding ex-boyfriend is steerin' the boat, you've really
got to consider the source. Anyway. The post has some interesting theories, backed up by exhaustive "evidence" - which pretty much consists of conjectures made by looking at posts through a ridiculously biased lens... y'know, I've started several examples, but I'd be here all night if I wrote 'em all. Or even half of 'em. One just silly one - I asked someone to visit me separately when he came to town, so I could see him in a situation other than A Big Party. This was apparently taken by everyone concerned as me intending to try to have sex with him. Um. This is the first I've heard of that one, and it's been 7 months. Don't sit on this stuff, people! And I no more would've even asked the guy for sex than I would've asked murnkay
to fuck me when he visited - during which time, he and I hung out alone
*gasp*. In his hotel room
, even. I mean, seriously. murnkay
rocks. But no. And I'm only using this example here because I was too damn surprised to parse the accusation and respond in my comments there, and I'm not going back
there. I'm done.
Anyway. The formula is simple. Take, say, three of my posts. Find a way to misconstrue them so they mean what you
want them to mean. Lather, rinse, repeat.Anyone with a whole lot of time on their hands can do that.
I've got a lot of posts on this here journal. Given enough time, anyone could take any number of unrelated posts and use that to back up their pet theories.
And people would buy it. Because buying it is easier than thinking for themselves.
And they would buy it because, given enough time, the person doing said things *can* construct a convincing facade.
Just, y'know, don't touch anything, or it'll all come tumbling down.
Can we repeat that one time?Given enough time, anyone can construct an attack with "detailed evidence". Anyone.
So if you have doubts, I urge you to read things in context
- say, not just
the post that's been singled out, but the rest of those from a given day or week. And that should give you a more realistic look at what the post was about.
Context. Beautiful thing. I have book and movie reviewers on my friends-lists, and you all know the fear of having your review, "Anyone who says "This movie is great!" deserves a hot-coffee enema" show up on the movie's poster as "This movie is great!" Did you say it? Yeah. Was that even remotely what your post was about
? Well, no.
Regarding my comments on allegations, I've made 'em in the original post and I'm not revisiting 'em. If anyone wants clarification, just e-mail me, because I'm not having the kind of hatefest for the perpetrators in my
journal that they're encouraging in theirs
As I said - I shouldn't have to feel like defending myself from an allegation is DramaWhoring. And I think that making public posts ranting about me is, y'know, what starts Drama. But. I could be wrong. And I've been told that there's no smear campaign goin' on against me, despite all patterns, and - wow. Six people posting this simultaneously? That couldn't have been... coordinated, could it? *gasp*
1. Context, context, context.
2. Consider your sources.
3. I'm allowed to say any damn thing I like in my journal and am not held to a higher non-rant standard than anyone else.
4. Dude, if you don't like me, why are you obsessing over me?
5. Use your brains.
6. Context, context, context. Seriously. Because that whole thing is built on a lack of context.
7. Seriously. Are
Because I really want a cookie.