"If you know 400 people will be at an event with an obligate victim, are you willing to risk a 1-in-400 chance that you will be placed upon the junkie’s list of secret violent rapists which will be distributed to any future events he or she is interested in?"
Men are far more likely to be raped than to have a random false accusation made against them for a variety of reasons, and the FBI has identified that only 2-6% of accusations are unfounded (let alone false). If you feel like you have a .25% chance of being accused of violent rape if you attend an event I have questions??????? This seems like a lot of anxiety that doesn't really seem necessary.
But let's go with that. Say you're doing whatever sorts of things that put you in someone's crosshairs to such a degree that they'd falsely accuse you of a felony. I'd say quit doing them and stop worrying about it.
If you have a specific issue to raise with a specific person as this article seems to be about, I'd say address it with them.
"Men are far more likely to be raped than to have a random false accusation made against them for a variety of reasons, and the FBI has identified that only 2-6% of accusations are unfounded"
The studies you appear to be referring to are about criminal complaints, not social accusations.
"But let's go with that. Say you're doing whatever sorts of things that put you in someone's crosshairs to such a degree that they'd falsely accuse you of a felony. I'd say quit doing them and stop worrying about it."
Why would I abandon my community to a bad actor rather than seek to exclude the bad actor? That seems cowardly and unethical.
My guess is he wasn't referring to literal rape allegations but the concept of rape culture. He should have made that clearer if he was, but I think it's fair to critique the the way trauma junkies try to make a connection between their non-rape accusations and rape.
Ok you’ve convinced me. It took a while because I’m allergic to excluding people from communities for political reasons because I think bubbles are terrible for epistemics. But you’re right that trauma junkies are dangerous enough that it’s justified. They even reserve some of their worst vendettas for women like me who talk about our own experiences of being a victim of sexual abuse in ways they don’t approve of.
But if I’m going to like your article, I feel compelled to say that you really shouldn’t have used such aggressive wording. My favorite thing about rationalism is our open-mindedness, and I really appreciate when we hold ourselves to higher standards than this.
Hi there, I don't know you, but it seems from your subscriptions and recommendations that you probably identify as being from the rationalist community.
You are making quite extreme proposals here, basically saying that you should not allow people to express their trauma or caution against trauma-inducing behaviours within a community. And that if you do allow them to do so, you are basically failing as a leader, because apparently this causes irreparable damage to the social group. Elsewhere, you liken your so-called 'trauma junkies' to the 'violent psychotic' or 'convulsive rapist'.
Whereas I would welcome an earnest and sincere discussion about how best to manage discussions and treatments of trauma within a social group, your article strikes me as a click-baity opinion piece with no real substance.
You make no attempt to consider even the obvious problems with your proposition, such as the fact that your argument relies on the premise that everyone starting a discussion on trauma is doing so in bad faith or as a self-serving attempt, which seems strange even in theory. You also build it on the premise that a culture that discourages talking about trauma is inherently better than one where it is encouraged, without really ever justifying this point.
The 'word of caution' alluding to the fact that perhaps the 'trauma junkies' are indeed real victims of trauma doesn't deal with the consequences of this possibility and instead just rushes to the recommendation that they should be excluded like psychotic individual or rapists. If you don't seriously engage with the consequences of the adverse view you mention in your 'word of caution', and especially since it's the only point in which you actually make any effort to consider alternative views, I don't think there is much caution at all in your article.
The tone is also quite jokey and deliberately provocative, which does not help you come across as someone who is genuinely interested in making a considered response to a delicate topic, and more as someone who is trying to gain social support for an idea without bothering substantiating it with good arguments, and instead only relying on surface-level techniques of persuasion (sophistry).
I'm writing this comment because it seems to me that if you are genuinely interested in improving your reasoning and discussion skills you may wish to consider this feedback.
I’m not talking about people who’ve experienced trauma. I’m talking about trauma junkies. Trying to conflate the two only hurts people who have actually experienced trauma, because they will be worried about being seen as trauma junkies. If you care about people who are indeed hurt by bad actors you must make the spaces safe by preventing abuse by trauma junkies.
To quote my first paragraph again - “You know the kind. The person that bends every gathering and interaction into a hunt for the problematic elements or people within it. The person who is not happy unless we’re all doing the work to eliminate the systemic oppression at our event. The person who loudly centers themselves as leading the charge to making a place or group or scene “safe” for everyone.”
Horizontal hostility is a thing. People who've been hurt want to strike back...and people who've been victimized always see themselves as victims. It's tragic, and it leads to a lot of own goals.
If you want something done, you gotta do it yourself.
Doesn't mean you have to be all Slytherin about it, but becoming the sort of person who says something when they see something is powerful.
Add some empathy and an ability to stay in a mindset of relaxed mastery to the mix and you could be the leader you're looking for.
"If you know 400 people will be at an event with an obligate victim, are you willing to risk a 1-in-400 chance that you will be placed upon the junkie’s list of secret violent rapists which will be distributed to any future events he or she is interested in?"
Men are far more likely to be raped than to have a random false accusation made against them for a variety of reasons, and the FBI has identified that only 2-6% of accusations are unfounded (let alone false). If you feel like you have a .25% chance of being accused of violent rape if you attend an event I have questions??????? This seems like a lot of anxiety that doesn't really seem necessary.
But let's go with that. Say you're doing whatever sorts of things that put you in someone's crosshairs to such a degree that they'd falsely accuse you of a felony. I'd say quit doing them and stop worrying about it.
If you have a specific issue to raise with a specific person as this article seems to be about, I'd say address it with them.
"Men are far more likely to be raped than to have a random false accusation made against them for a variety of reasons, and the FBI has identified that only 2-6% of accusations are unfounded"
The studies you appear to be referring to are about criminal complaints, not social accusations.
"But let's go with that. Say you're doing whatever sorts of things that put you in someone's crosshairs to such a degree that they'd falsely accuse you of a felony. I'd say quit doing them and stop worrying about it."
Why would I abandon my community to a bad actor rather than seek to exclude the bad actor? That seems cowardly and unethical.
My guess is he wasn't referring to literal rape allegations but the concept of rape culture. He should have made that clearer if he was, but I think it's fair to critique the the way trauma junkies try to make a connection between their non-rape accusations and rape.
Ok you’ve convinced me. It took a while because I’m allergic to excluding people from communities for political reasons because I think bubbles are terrible for epistemics. But you’re right that trauma junkies are dangerous enough that it’s justified. They even reserve some of their worst vendettas for women like me who talk about our own experiences of being a victim of sexual abuse in ways they don’t approve of.
But if I’m going to like your article, I feel compelled to say that you really shouldn’t have used such aggressive wording. My favorite thing about rationalism is our open-mindedness, and I really appreciate when we hold ourselves to higher standards than this.
Hi there, I don't know you, but it seems from your subscriptions and recommendations that you probably identify as being from the rationalist community.
You are making quite extreme proposals here, basically saying that you should not allow people to express their trauma or caution against trauma-inducing behaviours within a community. And that if you do allow them to do so, you are basically failing as a leader, because apparently this causes irreparable damage to the social group. Elsewhere, you liken your so-called 'trauma junkies' to the 'violent psychotic' or 'convulsive rapist'.
Whereas I would welcome an earnest and sincere discussion about how best to manage discussions and treatments of trauma within a social group, your article strikes me as a click-baity opinion piece with no real substance.
You make no attempt to consider even the obvious problems with your proposition, such as the fact that your argument relies on the premise that everyone starting a discussion on trauma is doing so in bad faith or as a self-serving attempt, which seems strange even in theory. You also build it on the premise that a culture that discourages talking about trauma is inherently better than one where it is encouraged, without really ever justifying this point.
The 'word of caution' alluding to the fact that perhaps the 'trauma junkies' are indeed real victims of trauma doesn't deal with the consequences of this possibility and instead just rushes to the recommendation that they should be excluded like psychotic individual or rapists. If you don't seriously engage with the consequences of the adverse view you mention in your 'word of caution', and especially since it's the only point in which you actually make any effort to consider alternative views, I don't think there is much caution at all in your article.
The tone is also quite jokey and deliberately provocative, which does not help you come across as someone who is genuinely interested in making a considered response to a delicate topic, and more as someone who is trying to gain social support for an idea without bothering substantiating it with good arguments, and instead only relying on surface-level techniques of persuasion (sophistry).
I'm writing this comment because it seems to me that if you are genuinely interested in improving your reasoning and discussion skills you may wish to consider this feedback.
I’m not talking about people who’ve experienced trauma. I’m talking about trauma junkies. Trying to conflate the two only hurts people who have actually experienced trauma, because they will be worried about being seen as trauma junkies. If you care about people who are indeed hurt by bad actors you must make the spaces safe by preventing abuse by trauma junkies.
To quote my first paragraph again - “You know the kind. The person that bends every gathering and interaction into a hunt for the problematic elements or people within it. The person who is not happy unless we’re all doing the work to eliminate the systemic oppression at our event. The person who loudly centers themselves as leading the charge to making a place or group or scene “safe” for everyone.”
Horizontal hostility is a thing. People who've been hurt want to strike back...and people who've been victimized always see themselves as victims. It's tragic, and it leads to a lot of own goals.