r/SneerClub archives
newest
bestest
longest
[Serious] A post about Jax's reactions to the LessWrong reactions. (https://www.reddit.com/r/SneerClub/comments/8twc72/serious_a_post_about_jaxs_reactions_to_the/)
38

Hi guys.

I know this isn’t necessarily a place for hugs and comfort, but you have genuinely been some of my most steadfast allies through this whole fucking mess. And it’s been a mess. I haven’t been able to sleep properly since I posted my first thread. I’ve had outbreaks of hives on my arms and chest. I’ve chewed through my lip twice. I’m still going. I’m still going, but it’s hard.

They’re making it hard on me, guys. Shit like this, this, this and this seem innocent, but they hit deep and in several complex ways.

  • There is no mention of me. Ever. No linking to my threads, no addressing my allegations. Everyone is asking about this big boogeyman of allegations of abuse, and no one ever points to my threads. It’s always some amorphous “publicity”. I spelled out exactly what happened with Andrew and Michael in my threads.
  • When Kathy is mentioned, which is slightly more common than me, she’s treated like the madwoman in the attic. No one ever mentions being concerned for her – she’s always “manipulative”, “dangerously delusional”, and “everyone knew what she was”.
  • Which leads to: the only actual accusation most people know about is Kathy’s. Which I shared. My work, along with several others’, is why it’s fucking public. It didn’t magically appear out of the aether. I put it there.
  • A lot of LWers mention Julia Wise as someone who is collecting reports, while simultaneously stating that they know a bunch of credible harassment cases that are ongoing.So, buds, why aren’t you doing anything to protect your friends?
  • I deleted a link to a post earlier fully blaming u/dgerard on the grounds that the original poster was going to apologize for fucking up The Discourse. As of now, that post is still up, and the poster has decided he is too afraid of me and The Discourse to either apologize or defend me.
  • Which leaves me back at square one, with you folks – which while I like you, will be used to further discredit me as just another member of the SneerClub and the spear that Kathy handed me will be fucking disregarded as just another crazy lady.

That’s how they treat us in this movement, my dudes. Women and femmes (edit: I use “women and femmes” here because people with feminine qualities and/or who use she/her pronouns are the targets, not because I ascribe to a binary) are playthings, or crazy bitches, or manipulative letters on a page. I can’t win. They won’t let me win.

I’m so tired. I’m so tired of being accused of being unsafe, that bringing Kathy’s letter to light makes LWers (like Scooter natch) unsafe, and of being ignored. It’s so much easier to discourse with the madwoman who can’t fight back, so the madwoman who will scratch and claw and bite to try and make things safer is best only spoken of in whispers and innuendo.

Don’t worry, I’m stable. I have a good support network and I’ll be disconnected from the internet this weekend.

If y’all could give me a hand in some positive ways, please look into convention harassment policies and share them whenever an LWer says there is no good solution for predators. Use my name in conversations. Make them listen.

Thanks again, SneerClub.

Personally, I think what you, and other folks like you, are doing to create awareness and change in your communities (EA, rationalist, nerd, geek,…) is important. I can only imagine how difficult it must be putting yourself out there, not only in your own communities, but also more publicly on the internet. I feel for you, and I really hope good things come from the challenges we’re facing today.

As a moderator of sneerclub, I am happy that we’ve been able to host what little space we have so that people can share their stories and hopefully make connections through which change can happen. That last part can’t be emphasized enough, because so much of our lives are mediated by internet culture that seem to limit our ability to really act in the world. And struggles against sexual violence, harassment, and oppression are always very real (as in IRL) and personal. It’s hard, I think, to translate our experiences of these problems we share into real world change, and I’ll admit that I rarely have good, practical answers. Which is why I am always happy to see others seriously and honestly talking about these things, because I know there are smart and clever people in the world who have or can come up with good ideas.

Which leads me to say, as a resident, self-critical sneerer: I do understand the caution or uncertainty about being associated with sneerclub. We aren’t really a “productive” part of the communities we feature. At least for me, being a sneermember (sneerofficer?), has meant being uncompromising about the pernicious effects of the overly permissive nature of rational, “civil,” internet-age discourse (that’s a mouthful). Or to put more plainly: I pride myself on being a hardass about the things I thoughtfully don’t like. And part of having a hardened ass is not giving into the polite discourse police, and making a point of it. This attitude doesn’t always get the right results, but conventional results are sometimes over-rated. This ultimately is a course rub against the norms of internet/nerd/rationalist culture, but I’ve felt it to be a necessary antidote to its worst excesses.

But that being said, I recognize that this attitude just doesn’t solve problems directly or easily: it doesn’t negotiate with terrorists, it doesn’t save lives, it doesn’t heal wounds, and it doesn’t build bridges. As a feminist, I hurt a little yesterday when a rationalist with serious concerns about protecting victims in their community identified sneerclub as “a pretty big point on the ‘con’ side” … “if I were the victim of harassment and trying to consider whether I wanted to share my experiences publicly.” I am left feeling sore from conflicting values: I don’t want to soften my ass but I also don’t want victims of sexual abuse or harassment to feel crushed between the margins (sneerclub) and the communities they are part of and care for.

So I guess I’ll say this: if I thought that sneerclub was hurting victims of sexual violence by hardening their home communities against them, I would no longer allow any discussion of the subject on our subreddit. If victims of sexual violence or harassment and their allies in the rationalist/EA/nerd communities feel like sneerclub is an dangerous specter, I wish I could convince you otherwise (or convince you that it might be worth having sneerclub and serious discussions of sexual violence should not be in conflict). And to the abusers, enablers, and patriarchs of these communities: stop using sneerclub as an out for your shitty behavior.

(EDIT: I realize after writing this, that I kinda stopped writing directly to you, /u/PolyamorousNephandus, and started writing to my own anxieties about sneerclub. It’s easy when we’re only talking about bad fanfiction and scientific racism—it’s hard when we’re talking about actual people, victims, and our own politically fraught subcultures.)

I actually do help with safety at some smaller cons in the area, so spreading awareness and helping with prevention is something I'm accustomed to. What I'm *not* used to is quoting a respected source (in this case, Kathy's note, as she was a dyed-in-the-wool LWer) and being ignored, but the source being called "crazy" and "dangerous". Usually, that's me but my source remains intact. It's a weird, painful inversion -- by calling Kathy crazy and ignoring me, they've managed to doublethink their way out of both of our stories at once. I appreciate you guys so much. I mean that -- don't ever let anyone tell you otherwise. It's just obnoxious to know that I am probably being discounted out of hand by people in the LW memeplex because I've been posting here as well as on Tumblr and Twitter. I know I'm an outsider and it's hard to reach without a handhold already in the group (it's why I'm stepping back a bit) but they're making it harder. Tbh, it really just does come back to a lot of people not wanting to hear about it, because then you have to critically examine yourself and ain't nobody got time for that.
Well I appriciate the light you've she'd on this problem, even if it's something that many of us have limited reach in out actions. (Tho, I would say with the extent of our rationalist lurkers, I think that we've probably reached some silent, local actors nonetheless.) The thing is, whether you're on sneerclub or not, or even if sneerclub exists or not: people who don't want to recognize these problems will find excuses to dismiss these problems. (It's noteworthy that this "club" began as a place to feature rationalist excesses, but was named after one rationalist's pejorative labeling of his Harry Potter fanfic critics---the club existed in the minds of rationalists before it had any actual members.) I think recognizing the boundaries of our own spheres of action are important: there is only so much any of us can do and it's smart to know our own limits. Hopefully, marginalized folks in the rationalist community can take up these problem, not bow to ssc slandering of victims, and push for real change. These are the moments where the oppressed are challenged to become champions---and as "outsiders" that's the best we can hope for. It was brave of you to share Kathy's story. Thanks for that, it wasn't easy.
I'm at a very similar place myself after reading through much of the discourse both on sneerclub and tumblr. One of the reasons I think sneerclub has been so beneficial for me is precisely because its "uncharitable" tone. Uncharitable is in quotes because that's how declining to engage in polite discourse is perceived by the rationalist/EA community. That being said, I completely share your worries and uncertainty about whether or not Sneerclub's reaction is making it more or less likely for victims within the rationalist/EA community to come forward and be more vocal about their sexual abuse. That being said, I also don't think that justifies ignoring people like Jax who do decide to come forward, and I'm glad that Sneerclub was able to offer support and help spread awareness of Jax's accusations within the EA/rationalist community (though for some reason most of the discourse I've encountered is about Kathy, which... I won't go into now but grrrr). That being said I'm pessimistic about the value in sneering at these communities going forward. I'm afraid it'll make it harder for victims to come forward if they expect their allegations to be used against their ingroup.
> That being said I'm pessimistic about the value in sneering at these communities going forward. I'm afraid it'll make it harder for victims to come forward if they expect their allegations to be used against their ingroup. I guess this is where being a hardass is important: I don't think sneerclub is the reason for their incalcitrance, I think it's just an excuse. Sneerclub existed in the minds of rationalists well before it existed in form. And if it wasn't sneerclub, it's jocks. And if it wasn't jocks, it's feminists, and if it wasn't feminists, it's SJWs, communists, BLM, social constructionists, Gawker, etc etc etc.... it goes on, and nothing *we* do can stop their scapegoating. So being a hardass means cutting through their bullshit, and recognizing that *we* are not the problem. Being outside the rationalist community, I can only suggest advice of what I'd do. And what I'd suggest is for those maginalized and forced to confine themselves to whisper networks: if you want a more open discussion of sexual harassment, you've got to harden your ass and cut through the bullshit. Don't let them e-scape sneergoat: we've been nothing if not supportive of a conversation that many feel needs to happen. But I think giving into the anxiety I gestured to yesterday is to give into gaslighting. Neither sneerclub or marginalized rationalists should be gaslighted---and that sin is entirely on the gaslighters.
[deleted]
Scott Alexander has regularly mentioned Gawker regularly as a bogeyman on his blog. Both Alexander and Aaronson follow sneerclub or are regularly "informed" of the activity of sneerclub from their followers. And lately there has developed a regular habit among those at ssc to speculate sneerclub/SJW conspiracies. I never said anything about Milo. Maybe if you'd read what I wrote, you'd be able to follow what I'm saying.
[deleted]
>Why are there relatively few sneers against EY, for instance? In the early days of sneerclub, Yudkowsky was the main target of the sneers. He even occupies a prominent place in the sidebar. The reason posts about Alexander overtook posts about Yudkowsky is simple: he is more prolific and more visible than Yudkowsky. Sure, Yudkowsky wrote the sequences and HPMOR, but those are in the past and since then he's written much less. On the other hand, Alexander has kept chugging along, his profile steadily raising over time. So of course he'll get more posts here than Yudkowsky. ---- Looking at your recent posting history, the lion's share of it is this sort of whinging in /r/sneerclub about how sneerclub is being too unfair or whatever. If you have such a low view of this place, why continue to post here? Surely you'd be happier spending your time somewhere else.
> On the other hand, Alexander has kept chugging along, his profile steadily raising over time. He's now granted canon status ("the Codex") on the front page of LW, and his posts have been shifted from User:Yvain to User:Scott Alexander.
[deleted]
Says the person who a few posts up was complaining about psychoanalysis 🙄
[deleted]
That is called whataboutism, which is a logical fallacy.
> You could also do to read more carefully. Notice that you said "rationalists," and I said "SSC commenters," not Scott in particular. Zeroing in on the neuroses of one man is "fun," at least to some people, but pretty meaningless when there's no particular indication that this is an actual wider phenomenon and not just one dude. I don't know why you're being so fiddly about this all of a sudden: you began by reading what I was doing as "This rationalist psychoanalysis...," but now you want to focus especially on "SSC commenters" but "not Scott in particular." That I didn't pick up on that shift has little to do with being careful, and more to do with your airy inattention. Above I was speaking directly about a scapegoating attitude I've observed among rationalists, SSC commenters, and Scotts. You can take it or leave it, I don't give a damn. I'll repeat the question /u/completely-ineffable asked, but you ignored: why are you posting here?
> I don't know why you're being so fiddly about this all of a sudden you'd almost think he was playing querulous rationalist concern troll
[deleted]
This isn't the perfect niche for you. Trolls bring your A-game or go home.
aw, poor little troll is looking for the perfect bridge to live under and has not found it yet
> Which leads me to say, as a resident, self-critical sneerer: I do understand the caution or uncertainty about being associated with sneerclub. We aren't really a "productive" part of the communities we feature. At least for me, being a sneermember (sneerofficer?), has meant being uncompromising about the pernicious effects of the overly permissive nature of rational, "civil," internet-age discourse (that's a mouthful). This whole thing has brought in a lot of people who wouldn't normally visit SneerClub. And when they come by, they look around, and this is what they see on the sidebar, the way SneerClub is officially describing itself: > the club attracts psychologically f'd-up people. Bullies, in a word, people who are powerfully reinforced by getting in what feels like good hits on Designated Targets, in the company of others doing the same and congratulating each other on it. No disclaimers. No rules. No "we don't tolerate bullying". No "this is all in good fun, we'll be different when it's serious". Not even the shadow of a pretense of being something other than a hangout for bullies. Now maybe, if you read for awhile, you'll find that SneerClub is something other than what it presents itself as. But I'm skeptical, and I'm not sticking around for that long. As a moderator of SneerClub, you have shirked some pretty serious responsibilities. [ETA: The sidebar seems to depend on whether you're using New Reddit or Old Reddit. That quote is shown when you're looking at it with Old Reddit.]
> the way SneerClub is officially describing itself: No, that's the way Big Y describes his critics. That bit of context is necessary to understand this subreddit. If you look around, I think you'll find that his description is more than a little uncharitable---as is your rushed conclusion. But maybe this isn't the place for you? Why are you even here in the first place?
I am aware of that context. The problem is that the quote is sitting in a spot where most other subreddits put their rules of civility, there are no rules of civility to be found anywhere, and the overall level of civility is quite bad. You lampshaded the fact that your subreddit is at risk of attracting bad people, while also lampshading the fact that you aren't doing anything to keep them out (even the things that most other subreddits are doing). > But maybe this isn't the place for you? Why are you even here in the first place? This absolutely is not the place for me, but as a member of the rationality community with some responsibility for keeping out abusers, I have to read what PolyamorousNephandus wrote, and this is where she chose to write it.
Maybe rules of civility are over-rated? Maybe rules of civility can never bring about "actual" civil conversations? Maybe getting uncivil is an important part of cutting straight to the truth of matters? In Steven Shapin's *A Social History of Truth*, he gives the nature of "civil conversation" as part of seventeenth century (early modern) science a very close look. "The practice which emerged with the Interregnum work of Boyle and his Oxford associates, and which institutionalized at the Restoration in the Royal Society of London, was strongly marked by a rejection of the quest for absolutely certain knowledge, by its suspicion of logical methods and demonstrative models of natural science, and by its tolerant posture towards the character of scientific truth.... Much of the rest of remainder of this book will seek to show how... conventions and codes of gentlemanly conversation were mobilized as particularly effective solutions to problems of scientific evidence, testimony and assent" (Shapin 1994:121). This pattern of conversational activity should look familiar, and if so there are two things to draw out that are pertinent here: 1. These norms of conversation are norms about what kinds of people can speak that is only partially about how they speak. Sure, the rationalist impulse is for certain rules of "methods" of rationality or rational discourse. But who sets these rules? Who has permission to violate them? We know that giving charity to your interlocutor is an important part of rationalism---one such article "steelmanning." But then who's allowed to violate these norms? And why is that? Here we should reflect on how Yudkwosky characterizes his fanfiction critics, or how Scott Alexander frames feminists or victims of sexual violence. 2. These norms of conversation curb or suppress our capacity to make and pass judgment. The rationalist method, when applied, seems to be about giving fair hearing and to examine all points of belief (see SA's "Anti-reactionary FAQ.") It is too often among rationalists we see extensive entertainment of regressive political ideas provides not only a legitimizing platform, and a veneer of thoughtful consideration. One of the key sanitizing elements of rationalist performance is the failure to pass judgment: priors are updated, ideas are explored, hypothetical universes are created---but real, honest judgment is absent. Real honest judgment is a violation of the norms of civil conversation.^† We here have put aside the need for strict or transparent rules of discourse because by all evidence they are necessarily incomplete (this may be related to Wittgenstein's rule-following paradox, idk). But here we both want to recognize the failures of the rationalist impulse while also being willing to pass judgment---however human and fallible. And our approach is more grounded: if there are rules to be *found*, they will arise naturally out of cutting pursuit of truth over civility. ---- ^† You can compare this with Luhmann's ideas that science and civil conversation are at odds: "Disagreement with belief expressed in a conversation was regarded as problematic, or even as an instance of unacceptable behavior. No articulated thought could be criticized, for it must never be forgotten that vulnerable persons were behind such thought: it must therefor only be commented upon, reviewed from another perspective, cautiously examined, and circumvented. *What was permissible as a discourse was determined by the fact that the discourse itself was the sole reason why most diverse persons took part in it.*" And also, *cf. Merton's "norms of science." Shapin makes the point that both Luhmann and Merton were using a specifically Cartesian conception of what science is as the base for their ideas, which misses a great deal of scientific activity doesn't resemble the "Cartesian project" (Shapin 1994:119--120). ---- > You lampshaded the fact that your subreddit is at risk of attracting bad people, while also lampshading the fact that you aren't doing anything to keep them out (even the things that most other subreddits are doing). No, I ban bad people on sight.
I feel like your long, effortful posts combined with my short comments make for a good team. It's like verbose mod, pithy mod. > No, I ban bad people on sight. [Already beat you to it.](https://www.reddit.com/r/SneerClub/comments/8twc72/serious_a_post_about_jaxs_reactions_to_the/e1g03u4/?context=1)
Concern trolling is pretty bad. But you know the real reason you got the ban first: my "effortful post" was also a post rationalizing our lack of rules because rules are work, banning is work, and I don't want to do that much work... and I tricked myself into doing effortful work. Also, Shapin is pretty good :P
I rationalize our lack of rules thusly: \*clicks "distinguish" button\*
> You lampshaded the fact that your subreddit is at risk of attracting bad people, I mean, we apparently attracted you. > while also lampshading the fact that you aren't doing anything to keep them out (even the things that most other subreddits are doing). Let's be clear: having little civility rules in the sidebar isn't going to keep out bad people. /r/SlateStarCodex has little civility rules in the sidebar and it's overrun with bad people. Here at sneerclub, we don't hold to the [smarmy](http://gawker.com/on-smarm-1476594977) view that civility = goodness.
Randomly mixing insults into comments, like you just did, is okay on a thread that's about fanfiction. It's not okay in a thread about sexual assault. As a moderator, if you aren't able to handle the context switch, you should be telling people to take the important conversations to a different forum.
Lmao how transparent of a concern troll can you even get? Banned for concern trolling in a [serious] thread.
btw, this is the guy who first noted that Roko had described a "basilisk", ban him *respectfully* dude
Lern2irony
[removed]
Go read Sarah Schulman's book *Conflict is Not Abuse*. Unfortunately, subreddit is not the place for Jeysiec. I don't truck in Gamergate nonsense---from either her or you. I don't tolerate it, and I especially don't tolerate the insinuation that we here are someone (hypothetically?) implicated their abuses (I have no fucking idea who "David" is.) That's really all I have to say to you on this subject. Your comment has been removed.
i think they mean dgerard
Probably. Apparently this is all *my* doing, and not them being reprehensible shitheads.

I’ve gotten a friend who used to post on Overcoming Bias to say he’ll cut those people out. Take care, and thank you for putting yourself through this.

Thank you for listening.

You’re excellent, doing what you’re doing. The sneering at /r/sneerclub is, at least in principle, supposed to be morally serious sneering. That’s how it get’s its name: Big Yud wants to dismiss people taking a morally serious stance as mere sneerers, so why not fucking sneer, yeah?

If they’re not going to take things seriously, focus on surface nonsense, their reputations, whateverthefuck, the only thing you can do is sneer at a surface level, or, if you’re a genuine victim, expose the bastards. And since that’s what they do in their own defence, transparently…

Anyway I’m rambling, you’re ace, fuck ’em up.

Hell yeah HELL YEAH

I’ll do what I can. Thanks again for speaking out.

Thank you for listening.

Stuff you’ve put up has already been successfully used by me to turn away two younger people I know from the periphery of their social circle.

Thank you for listening and sharing -- and it means so much to me that they won't have to go through what I did.

Thank you for speaking up.

Thank you for listening, and for looking out for me.

Thanks a lot for doing this, Jax. I’ve been sexually assaulted by people from that community, and I know that pushing back against them is a thankless task.

I’ll continue being a hermit for self-care reasons (it really works for me!), but you continue being amazing in whatever you do :)

[removed]

**mansplaining** _(v., inf.)_ - the act of a man carefuly and patiently explaining something to a woman that she obviously knows more about than he does.
I don't, and furthermore, I didn't ask you. I have a therapist and a wonderful support network and while retraumatizing myself has been an ordeal, I know what's best for me.
[removed]
I don't think you should demand people pretend to be grateful for unsolicited mental health advice?
what the fuck is this psychoanalysis bullshit? It’s like reading word vomit hastily dressed up with a thesaurus to hoping no one will notice the reek of the incoherent nonsense you’re pushing
Ew. Gross. No.