The anon feature shifts group dynamics and also allows for gaming, and by that, I mean the ability to manipulate situations in convenient ways. The above allows me to point out a connected issue.
To further legitimize their bullying, they must infantilize my readership in some way, or remove their agency, because they must prove me unworthy of adult, mentally healthy, perfectly decisive readers. Therefore they must attack my anon messages. Here’s the pattern:
I do not want people targeted or engaging in stressful communication on my behalf, so for years I have told people not to defend me.
They claim there isn’t anyone to defend me. (Logical fallacy, appeal to ignorance: absence of proof is not proof of absence, logical fallacy, the argument of silence: silence indicates a lack of defense,)
People get fed up and either create secondary accounts or go on anon to defend me. I have a choice to make. Do I publish anonymous asks defending me? Publishing any asks defending me is self-serving by definition, but anon asks can be used as gaming tools. I publish some, and some I don’t, chosen to see if my prediction of their behavior proves true.
Without fail, the bullies imply that I am not worthy of help and so any anon asks sent to defend me, must be written by me, using another account.
Any secondary accounts that appear to defend me are speculated upon as also possibly being me. Any anonymous asks they receive calling their actions into question are asserted to also be me or to be people who are impaired.
This allows them to ignore what is being said (ad hominem: attacking the arguer and not the argument)
They further infantilize my readership more directly by often referring to them as needing saving, being vulnerable and mentally ill, accusing me of taking advantage of them, etc. when this is called ableist, they either delegitimize the message by pointing to how it was sent (as hominem) or to misdirect by manipulating.
They use a variety of fallacies to manipulate: fallacy of decontextulaizing or contextechtomy, which is to take a single line or word out of context and argue it has a different meaning. the argument of accent, informal, which is when emphasis is placed on a different word in order to change the entire meaning; the new meaning is then argued against. Post hoc, which is an argument of flawed causality, assuming that because an event happens after another, it was caused by it, The straw man fallacy which creates a completely false narrative, asserts it is the actual point, and then that argument is fought. The fallacy of false analogy which in this case is a fallacy of measurement, applying more weight to specific information but ignoring any data I produce as having less merit because of its qualities. Argumentum ad populum which asserts everyone agrees with them. False dilemma, appeal to ignorance, false analogy, card stacking…the list goes on and on. All of these are employed to make their actions and statements reasonable.
Meanwhile the argument I have been making from the beginning: that their actions are bullying (unwanted negative attention that serves no purpose but to harm the target for the pleasure of the aggressor) and therefore wrong, is ignored, and to them delegitimized, because each controversy is manipulated until they are in the right or performing some necessary action on behalf of my weak or infantilized readers. The entire process is a logical fallacy of begging the question. “Simon’s readers need saving because he is bad, he is bad because he has readers who need saving”
They can then use my anon ask box to create an impression of opposing views coming from third parties, larger numbers, and so forth. More ad populum but made tangible by the impressions anon asks create. This manipulation causes outsiders or new members of the group to question me, the others, and consider peer pressure. In Group Dynamics, this means they will defer to the blocking roles thes bullies take on, and even disregard their own perceptions and memories, in order to avoid controversy (a common PTSD response in abuse victims, who make up a considerable portion of my readership) in other words, anon, allows bullies not only to game on my blog, but game the psychology of my new or potential readership. This is done to further attempt to isolate me.
My isolation is argued as proof that I am bad, because I don’t have friends or my friends are flawed.
Do you see the pattern? This is one of many but it’s easy to point to. I have dozens of screen captures that match this pattern, courtesy of my bullies themselves who obsessively document me to the point of making direct correlation between my blog and their responses patently obvious.
Meanwhile I have been saying all along, for five years now: I have an IP tracker and I can watch them do this. One would think this would stop them! But no. The need is there to make themselves correct and legitimize their activities. So…the IP tracker and other software must be a lie. Or it must not work that way. Or the evidence I say I have must not exist. Simultaneously they all go out and get proxy servers and come back to do the exact same thing to argue that thing isn’t happening.
I have to turn off anon, and here we are, back to the same cycle…
The actual fact is: they were blocked for not listening to my boundaries. I asked a name to be removed. I asked that once they are blocked, they respect that and stay away. I asked them to stop visiting my site. They violated that series of requests. Doesn’t matter why they did. The very action makes them the aggressors. They come and document my blog, devote blogs to me, and so on. Objectively, in any situation, involving any other people, this would be bullying. I call it what it is.
Their response is to further break my boundaries by returning, gaming, and engaging in further manipulation or lying. They say it’s because they need to, because they are good and I am bad, but in order to make me bad, they must further bully me and infantilize my readers.
It’s circular by definition. And they’re the only smart ones who get it, so the whole thing is an act of ego.
And thus you have a comprehensive summary of my entire history with the hate bloggers.
I wrote this while drinking my morning coffee. Imagine what I could compose with all my data, the proof of their blogs, my own blogs and the comments. I am hypergraphic, my friends. I can write an essay half asleep and fully edited.
I’ll take predictions as to what the response to this will be. I’d say normally it can’t go unaddressed, but this time, I’m going to bet the reply is silence. Let’s see if I’m right, or if the very act of me setting this prediction down, makes them stop and do something different.
snowghoul
janainaart
jacobvanloon
theartofmadeline
germansingergirl
turnnoffyourmind
yousharknotpass
dededos
