She’s quoting stuff that nobody ever said … ( https://mobile.twitter.com/Aella_Girl/status/1465397786107682817 )
To be precise: she puts the words “talking from abuse” in quotation marks. I don’t think it’s a secret that quotation marks are often used for things other than direct quotes, and I don’t think her use of them here is unusual. It’s ambiguous, certainly, but not in a way that I read as deliberate.
(For that matter, how do you know nobody ever said the exact words “talking from abuse” in relation to her post? They aren’t in this thread, but they might be elsewhere for all I know, and I’m guessing for all you know. I don’t particularly think it matters—but apparently you think it matters, so this bears mentioning.)
in a way that makes people sympathetic to her
Does it? The three tweets in question read
Some of the feedback on my frame control post centers around this being personal for me, or me “talking from abuse.” I centered on personal examples because the nature of the issue makes it really hard to use other people’s examples; it lies in the very tiny, nuanced details. 1/
A huge amount of my post came out of talking to and being around others who were doing frame control, or had escaped from frame control. My post would have had a very different vibe if I’d pulled mostly from my childhood. 2/
The post pulls from close encounters I had in or with people from 5 different heavy frame-control systems (not including my childhood), all of them different in small ways. 4 of those were ones I spent a long time listening to accounts from people impacted by them.
I can’t speak for anyone else, but this doesn’t make me feel particularly sympathetic to her? Nor the opposite, to be clear, it just… doesn’t generate strong emotions, and nor does it feel particularly engineered to? Reading these tweets, I think one learns approximately nothing about her own experiences or how she relates to them (e.g. she doesn’t describe them as abuse).
She’s quote-tweeting dumb things from Nate Soares … while she is making this power play ( https://i.imgur.com/e0wxqsk.png )
To be precise: three hours before she tweeted about the frame control thing, she tweeted a quote from Nate.
“power play” is not a neutral way to describe these tweets.
so he is more favorable to her
This is an inference and should be explicitly flagged as such. You do not have access to what is inside Aella’s mind.
This is also an inference. The previous “I guess” kind of flags it as such, except that that also applies to the “she just deleted it”, so I think it should be more explicitly flagged.
For someone supposedly concerned about manipulative people, you don’t seem to be trying very hard to not be manipulative yourself.
I also want to flag that Ruby explicitly said
I will hopefully get another chance in another couple of hours to review the thread and think about your comments. Please don’t comment in the meantime.
This seems like a clearly stated request. It’s the kind of request Ruby has explicit authority to make and enforce. It has two caveats making it less of an imposition than it might otherwise have been (it potentially expires after Ruby’s reviewed the thread, and Ruby gave you explicit permission to message him directly). And as far as I can tell you completely ignored it. I don’t think there are zero situations where it’s right to ignore such requests, but I do think that if you thought this was such a situation you should have explained why.
Apparently Ruby didn’t make a big deal out of this? So I feel kind of weird making a big deal of it myself, but… honestly, I’d be somewhat inclined to ban you just for this.
Talking of controlling the narrative...
To be precise: she puts the words “talking from abuse” in quotation marks. I don’t think it’s a secret that quotation marks are often used for things other than direct quotes, and I don’t think her use of them here is unusual. It’s ambiguous, certainly, but not in a way that I read as deliberate.
(For that matter, how do you know nobody ever said the exact words “talking from abuse” in relation to her post? They aren’t in this thread, but they might be elsewhere for all I know, and I’m guessing for all you know. I don’t particularly think it matters—but apparently you think it matters, so this bears mentioning.)
Does it? The three tweets in question read
I can’t speak for anyone else, but this doesn’t make me feel particularly sympathetic to her? Nor the opposite, to be clear, it just… doesn’t generate strong emotions, and nor does it feel particularly engineered to? Reading these tweets, I think one learns approximately nothing about her own experiences or how she relates to them (e.g. she doesn’t describe them as abuse).
To be precise: three hours before she tweeted about the frame control thing, she tweeted a quote from Nate.
“power play” is not a neutral way to describe these tweets.
This is an inference and should be explicitly flagged as such. You do not have access to what is inside Aella’s mind.
I can still see it at https://twitter.com/Aella_Girl/status/1465357722245910541.
This is also an inference. The previous “I guess” kind of flags it as such, except that that also applies to the “she just deleted it”, so I think it should be more explicitly flagged.
For someone supposedly concerned about manipulative people, you don’t seem to be trying very hard to not be manipulative yourself.
I also want to flag that Ruby explicitly said
This seems like a clearly stated request. It’s the kind of request Ruby has explicit authority to make and enforce. It has two caveats making it less of an imposition than it might otherwise have been (it potentially expires after Ruby’s reviewed the thread, and Ruby gave you explicit permission to message him directly). And as far as I can tell you completely ignored it. I don’t think there are zero situations where it’s right to ignore such requests, but I do think that if you thought this was such a situation you should have explained why.
Apparently Ruby didn’t make a big deal out of this? So I feel kind of weird making a big deal of it myself, but… honestly, I’d be somewhat inclined to ban you just for this.