Fuck, send me a counterpoint and I'll publish it on the blog verbatim if you want. I've done that a few other times back in the day, but most of them were a sort of tepid "I half agree with you". Which sucks when trying to get some decent refutations.

We're both probably trying to go to bed and I feel a little bad having eaten your whole day. I do appreciate your time; like, it's been /wild/ talking about stuff like this after ten years. Obviously I have nothing against you, and I do invite you or others to send me corrections?

If there's something factually wrong in them though, point it out and send me proof and I'll legit do like a 10 year followup on them. It could be fun? Like, they're already covered with "please please please show me if you have info I don't" disclaimers. Those still apply.

I think they're best taken as a sort of historical look into what sort of information was available and how the situation looked to someone with a lot of friends in every part of it. They are as factual as I could get them at the time, and I stress they are largely my personal experiences.

One of the reasons I don't delete/disavow the old essays or something is because that would give the impression there's something horrible in them, when it's really not that bad? Like, at worst I'm wrong about something, but all I do with that is say "this should get a formal response".

It's been like 10 years though, I forgot most of the details by now. The best I can say is that at least back then, there were well-intentioned people concerned about abuse/harassment who could not get a solid reply that quelled their concerns - even if it was that the concern was fake.

And with the ex, my feelings on it pivot heavily on whether the relationship is viewed as abusive and him as a victim. I've seen arguments either way, but it's one of those things where I can get people wanting some kind of response?

With stuff like the charity, I'm /pretty/ sure it existed? I was watching stuff closely at the time to see how it unfolded, and I know it at least had stuff like an existing social media presence and site. I could be wrong obviously, but if so it was never shown to me, and I was actively looking.

The message through lots of them is that the wind could be taken out of the movement's sails by either showing that the accusations were false, or just doing some kind of apology and moving on. Obviously it wouldn't kill it entirely, but it would satisfy any well-meaning people in the mix.

Like I said, the essays are very explicitly against retaliatory action of any kind, or legitimizing the people who do it. The thesis from the start is that the people who wanted some reply on those initial two accusations (even if it was a refutation) were being wrongly dismissed as malicious.

I also struggle to see "right-leaning"? Like I hope you don't mind me prodding, but I am curious where the accusation comes from.

Please don't take this in an accusatory manner, but I have to ask: did you read the essays? Obviously they're super embarrassing now on a writing level (I was in my 20s), but there's not anything super evil in them AFAIK? A lot is about first- and second-hand experiences with minroity erasure.

The essay series is pretty explicitly against harassment, both on principle and since that's obviously pretty counterproductive for people whose concern is abuse. Also, all the essays exist buried in a blog largely about executing effective activism?

I don't think I ever do that in any of the old essays though? Like, they are specifically about her using her social reach against that one charity before any of the gg stuff, and the situation with her ex. Later ones are about the handling of the situation with regard to people with those concerns.

Like I said at the start, I think the issue is one of granularity. A lot of people with very different views were slapped under one label and treated as if they were the same. I am curious, other than a label that me and people I know didnt originally consent to, where you and I disagree?

I've definitely said that other people under the label had valid points, but they were largely people who had the same perspectives/experiences I did - getting grouped in for some pretty conventional opinions about abuse being wrong, or getting harassed by the Good Guys and speaking up about it.

That's why I'm asking about my views specifically; like, what views I express that you find objectionable. If my own concerns i.e. about social reach abuse are valid, and I'm getting grouped in with gg whether I like it or not, then by definition at least one of them has a valid concern.

But like, you're asking me to disavow old posts that imo at worst commit a crime of living different experiences than you, without denying yours exist?

We also seem on the same page that someone holding views like that alone should not be grouped in with harassers? You could say I'm wrong to wear the same label, and to that I'd wholly agree; I didn't choose it and at best after a while I stopped fighting it.

I guess to tie it back some, I am kind of curious what part of my views you find objectionable or right-leaning? Like, we seem pretty much on the same page with regard to social reach being a responsibility, harassment being bad, and nobody being exempt from criticism.

The issue is that, back in the day, criticizing them /without/ being labeled part of a harassment mob was very difficult. Efforts were made to separate the two, but they were always very less-than-one-sided, with both GG's critics and less-savory elements claiming the distinction did not exist.

I also don't mean to accuse you in particular of anything, or imply you're wrong to defend yourself against harassment. Or, to imply any of the old figures are still regarded as above approach.

Sorry, I should've clarified that I was talking about the original early stuff, like with Quinn and that random little gaming charity :x. In retrospect I'm referencing a post I'm not sure you've read. Like, my first post about it was a timid "I don't think using followers like that is right".

I can't definitely say how many people like that were there, versus bigots who wanted to cause harm. But based on my personal experiences, it was the vast majority. My personal experiences might be anomalous, I don't know, but I don't want to misrepresent them, and everyone I knew had the same.

And like, these weren't random people saying "yes yes I support ethics *hides Nazi armband*". These were people I knew beforehand, and was familiar with their views on things like social reach or consent. They got involved because their personal views kept them from endorsing the "good" side.

In the same way I don't want to paint early gg with a uniform brush, I think it's important not to paint the people they were opposing with one. They did things that were objectionable under a lot of people's personal ethics. That doesn't justify harassment, but it does justify criticism.

And that's not even getting into the whole "is consent contingent on a lie rape" thing, where if someone believes that then she was accused of a very serious wrongdoing, with ample receipts. I know some people for whom that was their major issue, and all they really wanted was /some/ reply on it.

And what response even is there to the latter group? To shush any criticism of it because the aggressor was dealing with enough at the time? To defend the victim as having deserved it for getting on a high-reach person's wrong side? at least within my personal ethics, find these options appalling.

If I can be a little spicy, you and I have probably both said "there was no review" to just as many people, only I was saying it to people who believed there WAS a review, while you were saying it to people who feared a high-reach person causing them harm.

I think my favorite response was a friend telling me "I hate gg because it has made it so I can't criticize her without being a bigot".