I'm about 0.1% as famous as you are (I was the top-read author on polyamory and related topics from my country for a number of years) -- and as a result have seen probably only 0.01% of the abuse and lies you have. (an order of magnitude less guesstimated because the topics I've written extensively on doesn't arouse as strong feelings as things like sex and drugs do)
And yet what you say here rings very true to me. Perhaps especially this part:
"The accuser doesn’t offer concrete behaviors, but rather leaves the badness as general associations. They don’t make explicit accusations, but rather implicit ones."
I've learned to be skeptical of that. When people level strong accusations against someone, but there's a conspicuous absence of any specific claim about what the accused actually did or said.
Instead, there's typically a large pile of vague claims that can't be refuted because there's nothing specific in them. "I felt very uncomfortable" kinda claims. Okay, but even if we take as a given that that claim is genuinely true -- it's not actual evidence that anyone did anything wrong.
I share your suspicion -- the REASON they don't include any specifics is that if they did, then the reader would be free to draw their own conclusions from the description, and those conclusions might not be the ones the person wants them to draw.
I once wrote a post about visiting a female erotic masseuse and an author wrote an article accusing me of raping a male sex worker. That was odd. Her supporters sent me DMs calling me vile but also telling me how badly I had hurt this other author by writing my story, which clearly none of them had read... (Also I think there's a repeated paragraph in here).
Yes, social media is giving us all a taste of what only bona fide celebrities used to know: Namely that there are an uncomfortably large number of jealous vicious liars in our species.
I think sometimes people want to find a very good reason to dislike other people that many people (who they like) like, because if they just sort of find you annoying but others don't, then they have a problem to deal with. If instead they can frame you as evil, they can try to make their dislike of you into your problem via ostracization.
The second example seems like a textbook anti-autistic bias. You're just having normal autistic behavior : talking about an intense interest, not respecting stupid social rules (by someone who socially rejects you ON PURPOSE and then complains that you leave, which is FUCKIN WILD).
And then some asshole thinks it's about him.
Fuck the fucker 🤷♂️
I'm wondering how that could influence other claims made about you ?
I've had people sometimes infer WILD things about me (without being famous), and in hindsight they were just misinterpreting because they add subtext to very literal and genuine behaviors.
Of course, the not being famous part prevented it from escalating, but I'm wondering if this could be the root of the issue in a lot of what you're experiencing.
Although you (fairly) identified the lack of concrete accusations as a weakness in these two examples, I interpret it as evidence that these two writers simply had nothing (at all) to say. And yet, they wrote a (very boring) post anyway and they (presumably) got clicks. It’s just content, posted by people who have literally nothing interesting to say. But I understand why it seems unfair and makes you feel bad. I have never had any desire to be famous.
I was slightly reluctant to make this comment, but I think it might help to separate the things you describe into two categories which seem importantly different.
One category consists of straightforward factual claims which are either true or false. For example, saying that you organised parties involving “drug roulette”, or that illegal drugs were widely available, is a concrete allegation about events in the world. That is the kind of claim that can simply be answered with: this did or did not happen. And yes, people make such things up. And if they don't like you, or disapprove of your behaviour, they'd do it more. Often following inferences from the second (much more common) form.
But most of the other examples you mention seem to fall into a different category. They are not really factual accusations so much as interpretations or narrative framings of your behaviour by particular people. They describe how someone experienced an event, what meaning they attached to it, or what conclusions they drew about you from it. In other words, they are not really claims about objective facts. And you notice it yourself, it's more accusation by implication.
And this second kind of statement is not REALLY “making things up”. It is a common social mechanism in trying to "fight" somone one dislikes, or disapproves of: people highlight certain details, connect them to their own values or discomfort, and present the resulting interpretation in a way that implies "wrongness". That can damage reputation, but it is much harder to defend from because it CANNOT BE ARGUED WITH -- operates through framing and implication rather than through actually inventing false events.You (or no-one else) cannot argue with "I felt horrible at Aella's party" because that's not a truly truth-apt or at least not falsifiable statement.
So while outright false allegations and interpretive narrative-building can both have similar effects, they seem to function quite differently and call for different kinds of response.
I suppose the implicit argument made in the article is that a character assassination should be supported with several straightforwards (and true!) factual claims, and that these more interpretive and irrefutable experience/guilt by association claims are should not be considered to be strong arguments.
Personally I find writeups that rely heavily on that second kind of statement quite frustrating to read because they're light on facts and heavy on editorializing.
I agree. But "guilt by association or vague implication" is a form of social warfare that's I think more or less intuitively recognised as such by most people as different from false factual claims.
So... You throw sex parties, have no moral or philosophical objection to the recreational use of illegal drugs, and may have attended sex parties organized by other people that did feature significant recreational uses of illegal drugs?
Maybe I'm not part of your target audience here, no one ever accused me of being too good at reading the room, but those admissions seem rather "bad" to me all by themselves, even without any reference to unsubstantiated allegations from anyone else.
If someone were like 'omg aella throws sex parties and has recreationally done illegal drugs before' i would be like 'yes your accusations are correct, your descriptions about me have in fact updated people to a more correct view about reality' and would have no issue with it.
I think that the point the OP makes is that she wasn't explicitly accused of any of these things as bad, apart from "drugs at her parties" (a false accusation according to OP's account).
But I also think that your comment illustrates rather beautifully why and how such accusations occur, specifically in Aella's case.
What a pity all sex parties are tainted with the same old yellow brush of envy, resentment, rivalry, whatever. So sorry Aela that you're being targeted; we've got your back.
Social media has changed the nature of fame. It's made it both more valuable and also more damaging. This nuanced and well written account shows the damage.
My impression was that, the smaller the scale, the more sense it makes to think it’s actually your fault, but this is still very simplistic. In an abusive family, class or workplace, you’re basically not allowed to conceive that anyone might be at fault but you. I guess the same is true as far as Internet haters and would-be kidnappers are concerned.
I'm about 0.1% as famous as you are (I was the top-read author on polyamory and related topics from my country for a number of years) -- and as a result have seen probably only 0.01% of the abuse and lies you have. (an order of magnitude less guesstimated because the topics I've written extensively on doesn't arouse as strong feelings as things like sex and drugs do)
And yet what you say here rings very true to me. Perhaps especially this part:
"The accuser doesn’t offer concrete behaviors, but rather leaves the badness as general associations. They don’t make explicit accusations, but rather implicit ones."
I've learned to be skeptical of that. When people level strong accusations against someone, but there's a conspicuous absence of any specific claim about what the accused actually did or said.
Instead, there's typically a large pile of vague claims that can't be refuted because there's nothing specific in them. "I felt very uncomfortable" kinda claims. Okay, but even if we take as a given that that claim is genuinely true -- it's not actual evidence that anyone did anything wrong.
I share your suspicion -- the REASON they don't include any specifics is that if they did, then the reader would be free to draw their own conclusions from the description, and those conclusions might not be the ones the person wants them to draw.
I once wrote a post about visiting a female erotic masseuse and an author wrote an article accusing me of raping a male sex worker. That was odd. Her supporters sent me DMs calling me vile but also telling me how badly I had hurt this other author by writing my story, which clearly none of them had read... (Also I think there's a repeated paragraph in here).
Yes, social media is giving us all a taste of what only bona fide celebrities used to know: Namely that there are an uncomfortably large number of jealous vicious liars in our species.
I think sometimes people want to find a very good reason to dislike other people that many people (who they like) like, because if they just sort of find you annoying but others don't, then they have a problem to deal with. If instead they can frame you as evil, they can try to make their dislike of you into your problem via ostracization.
I think this is a big part of this phenomenon.
The second example seems like a textbook anti-autistic bias. You're just having normal autistic behavior : talking about an intense interest, not respecting stupid social rules (by someone who socially rejects you ON PURPOSE and then complains that you leave, which is FUCKIN WILD).
And then some asshole thinks it's about him.
Fuck the fucker 🤷♂️
I'm wondering how that could influence other claims made about you ?
I've had people sometimes infer WILD things about me (without being famous), and in hindsight they were just misinterpreting because they add subtext to very literal and genuine behaviors.
Of course, the not being famous part prevented it from escalating, but I'm wondering if this could be the root of the issue in a lot of what you're experiencing.
I'm sorry you've been treated that way.
Although you (fairly) identified the lack of concrete accusations as a weakness in these two examples, I interpret it as evidence that these two writers simply had nothing (at all) to say. And yet, they wrote a (very boring) post anyway and they (presumably) got clicks. It’s just content, posted by people who have literally nothing interesting to say. But I understand why it seems unfair and makes you feel bad. I have never had any desire to be famous.
Just dismiss them categorically as having aella derangement syndrome.
i mean i didn't think TDS was a real thing. But you've cited convincing first hand source knowledge that makes me reconsider.
first day on the internet?
I'm sorry these things happen to you - but useless crazy leeches gonna useless crazy.
Listen, your are a treasure for humanity. And I'm shocked and disgusted that anyone will yell at you. Honest. Lowlifes.
I was slightly reluctant to make this comment, but I think it might help to separate the things you describe into two categories which seem importantly different.
One category consists of straightforward factual claims which are either true or false. For example, saying that you organised parties involving “drug roulette”, or that illegal drugs were widely available, is a concrete allegation about events in the world. That is the kind of claim that can simply be answered with: this did or did not happen. And yes, people make such things up. And if they don't like you, or disapprove of your behaviour, they'd do it more. Often following inferences from the second (much more common) form.
But most of the other examples you mention seem to fall into a different category. They are not really factual accusations so much as interpretations or narrative framings of your behaviour by particular people. They describe how someone experienced an event, what meaning they attached to it, or what conclusions they drew about you from it. In other words, they are not really claims about objective facts. And you notice it yourself, it's more accusation by implication.
And this second kind of statement is not REALLY “making things up”. It is a common social mechanism in trying to "fight" somone one dislikes, or disapproves of: people highlight certain details, connect them to their own values or discomfort, and present the resulting interpretation in a way that implies "wrongness". That can damage reputation, but it is much harder to defend from because it CANNOT BE ARGUED WITH -- operates through framing and implication rather than through actually inventing false events.You (or no-one else) cannot argue with "I felt horrible at Aella's party" because that's not a truly truth-apt or at least not falsifiable statement.
So while outright false allegations and interpretive narrative-building can both have similar effects, they seem to function quite differently and call for different kinds of response.
I suppose the implicit argument made in the article is that a character assassination should be supported with several straightforwards (and true!) factual claims, and that these more interpretive and irrefutable experience/guilt by association claims are should not be considered to be strong arguments.
Personally I find writeups that rely heavily on that second kind of statement quite frustrating to read because they're light on facts and heavy on editorializing.
I agree. But "guilt by association or vague implication" is a form of social warfare that's I think more or less intuitively recognised as such by most people as different from false factual claims.
So... You throw sex parties, have no moral or philosophical objection to the recreational use of illegal drugs, and may have attended sex parties organized by other people that did feature significant recreational uses of illegal drugs?
Maybe I'm not part of your target audience here, no one ever accused me of being too good at reading the room, but those admissions seem rather "bad" to me all by themselves, even without any reference to unsubstantiated allegations from anyone else.
If someone were like 'omg aella throws sex parties and has recreationally done illegal drugs before' i would be like 'yes your accusations are correct, your descriptions about me have in fact updated people to a more correct view about reality' and would have no issue with it.
I think that the point the OP makes is that she wasn't explicitly accused of any of these things as bad, apart from "drugs at her parties" (a false accusation according to OP's account).
But I also think that your comment illustrates rather beautifully why and how such accusations occur, specifically in Aella's case.
That first example-- why didn't they leave the party instead of crying for hours?
Your attackers sound like they're using Candace Owens' style, implying that something suspicious is going on when they have no evidence or even logic.
What a pity all sex parties are tainted with the same old yellow brush of envy, resentment, rivalry, whatever. So sorry Aela that you're being targeted; we've got your back.
Social media has changed the nature of fame. It's made it both more valuable and also more damaging. This nuanced and well written account shows the damage.
i love listening to your mind....thank you.
Does that only manifest at large scales? You can never please everyone.
It *can* manifest at the smallest scales-- consider abusive families, classes, and workplaces. It may be inevitable at large scales.
My impression was that, the smaller the scale, the more sense it makes to think it’s actually your fault, but this is still very simplistic. In an abusive family, class or workplace, you’re basically not allowed to conceive that anyone might be at fault but you. I guess the same is true as far as Internet haters and would-be kidnappers are concerned.