I was thinking some about my motivation for posting, why I am here, what I want.
One major motivation is that I have gotten a lot of value from the FI/CF community over the years and would like to still be engaged with it in an active way because of that. I have found Elliot and other’s ideas helpful when dealing with stuff like my own personal/emotional issues, or learning, or trying to understand politics and the world. Just the other day I was arguing with someone who was making a radical libertarian type of case for some major legal change I thought would be problematic, and I used arguments inspired by stuff I’ve heard in this community and that I don’t think I could get elsewhere. So these ideas and this community have been an important and ongoing source of value for me and I’d like that to continue.
Given that, it would feel bad to leave the whole Gaslighting/CritRat thing permanently unresolved and have that be the note my involvement ends on. So I feel some sort of obligation to try to address that. I know I haven’t been doing so for a long time, but that was more out of thinking I wouldn’t be able to have a successful discussion about it than about thinking it was an unimportant topic. I still think that I probably won’t be able to have a successful discussion about it, but it seems better to try something then just give up.
I might still not be. When I did some analysis and came to some conclusions regarding DD, I think I moved closer to taking it seriously, but maybe not enough.
I think the analysis I did was okay, but I think I was able to do it because I basically took a suggestion from an anonymous poster as homework and so that gave me something to focus on. But I seem to have absolutely zero energy/creativity/initiative in coming up with stuff like that on my own, which is why I haven’t addressed the outstanding issues. Sometimes I will read through relevant discussions with the intent of doing something, and then…nothing. I am not sure how to address that issue.
I’m considering trying to make a discussion tree of the gaslighting discussion posts with anonymous33 from this post to this post. It seemed like there were multiple issues with that part of the discussion and I think maybe a discussion tree would help me find and clarify them. I’m looking for feedback on whether that seems like a productive idea because I don’t think I’m capable of making a serious effort to make progress in that discussion without some positive feedback about a specific potential approach. This is due to my current highly pessimistic attitude regarding the possibility of my making progress in that discussion. I would also consider suggestions about other things to try, but I’m only really interested in fairly specific suggestions (so posts about general methods to use are not really what I’m interested in as they are not specific enough).
BTW, regarding the above post, I think my proposal and my waiting for feedback on it addresses some criticism I received: 1) that I should use CF tools (such as tree diagrams) when trying to address issues, 2) that I should consider what a reasonable plan to do next is and not put a ton of work into something I expect others to read without having some sort of agreement with discussion partners (or in this case, potential discussion partners). I’m also trying to comply with the warning I received to try addressing stuff, as I would prefer to try to resolve things and not to be banned from the forum.
EDIT: I edited out a link the the post now immediately above this one because it no longer pointed to the correct post since the post was moved from a different thread. It was also unnecessary.
My current posting plan is to 1) make small comments on the gaslighting discussion while trying to figure out a way to proceed forward energetically that I am happy with, 2) make small comments on the HR/Lillian & associated tangents discussion, 3) make small comments on CF/Elliot articles. I plan to continue this until I come up with/agree to a better plan (or am told to stop).
I may be in error here. I took the creation of the JustinCEO Topic as limiting my posting to that thread exclusively unless otherwise specified (and thus overriding any previous policies). As I implied in this post, I thought the only two places I was currently allowed to post were JustinCEO Topic and the Lonsdale thread. I’ve been very hesitant about assuming I can post anywhere else since making a previous incorrect assumption. I thought I would need express permission to start posting in this thread again.
I thought you meant those were the only two off topic/ special exception places you were allowed to post. I thought that besides the gaslighting thread was implied, since that was (in my opinion) the MAIN place you are supposed to be posting.
This current thread – in my understanding – was created as an exception to allow you to post off topic posts in the thread, before the gaslighting issue was resolved. I did find it weird that you stopped posting in the gaslighting thread after you got this exception thread. But you also didn’t talk very much about gaslighting in this thread either, so I just took you to be completely ignoring the issue for nearly the last year.
I can’t see anywhere where that permission was rescinded in the first place. When Elliot created the thread, he didn’t say that you were no longer allowed to post in the gaslighting thread, and I can’t see anything that implies that. Is that what you assumed at the time too, or is this a newer assumption that came up after you posted in the wrong place?
I assumed that I could only post in JustinCEO Topic since it was created. I have acted consistently with this belief (other than the one time I posted elsewhere and the additional exception regarding the Lonsdale thread). I didn’t post in this thread at all directly since September of last year (until today). If I thought I could have posted here, I would have posted this post here.
I agree that I seem to have misunderstood where I could post. Since the JustinCEO Topic was created as a place for me to post stuff while the gaslighting discussion was unresolved, it does not make sense that I would not be able to go back to the gaslighting discussion without special permission first. And if there had been such a rule, I think it would have been explicitly stated, at least. So I seem to have been in error.
First, do you mean CritRat, singular? Not trying to be pedantic, just trying to make sure we are 1) discussing the same thing and 2) conceiving of it in the same way. I had an interaction with one CritRat. That’s what I’m talking about below.
Do you mean the harm I personally intended or expected at the time? None. I wasn’t thinking in terms of wanting to commit harm or in terms of what harm might result. I’m not saying that ignoring the potential harm was a proper attitude; I’m just saying that, as a matter of fact, I wasn’t thinking of it. I was upset and wanted to vent. That’s all I was thinking about.
The harm would be that the CritRat felt some kind of moral support or something like that, which would encourage them in further participation in the harassment campaign, which would harm Elliot in various ways. I think that such moral support was limited, because I’d regained some emotional control by the time I talked to them. It was actually an incredibly awkward discussion where I was mostly arguing with them and thought their statements were lame and easily criticized. They were very guarded and seemed kind of suspicious about the whole thing. I know that the very fact of having the conversation at all was bad, but I think objectively it’s not the sort of thing one could get a lot of moral support from.
No, for several reasons. First, I have more of an understanding of the harassment campaign than I did before, which would strongly disincline me to any interactions with CritRats in the future. Second, I spent over a year engaging with philosophy in order to increase my emotional control, and can now reliably break negative thought patterns just by going down a simple checklist. That is not a tool I had before, and greatly reduces the likelihood that I will get myself worked up into the emotional state where I could consider doing something like that.[1] Finally, I didn’t get even any fleeting value from my interaction with the CritRat. Not even a moment’s feeling of being validated or anything. So there is zero incentive for me to repeat the behavior.
Theoretically I could post some stuff to my blog or Twitter or something. I think that’s of limited value, because I have hardly any followers or influence. But it still might be something. Another issue is that I’d actually want to fully agree with what I am saying and have it be good and natural-sounding (there is a potential here for trying to say more than I actually agree with and have it come out sounding forced, which I think would be counterproductive). The analysis about David Deutsch’s involvement in the harassment campaign that I did might be a good example of something I could share that I fully agree with.
(This is a bit of a ramble on why I think I am less likely to get triggered thanks to stoicism and you may want to skip it) Relatedly, I was largely upset about being judged in what I regarded as a very harsh negative way (I was, as one can see in the above discussion, connecting gaslighting with stuff like domestic abuse). And then after talking with the CritRat, I was very upset about the possibility of getting permanently banned. First, some of my interpretations of the gaslighting discussion were wrong. But more importantly, I’ve accepted that I have various flaws. I’ve also accepted that I might be banned from the forum. I’ve accepted that Elliot and other posters might have strong negative judgments of me and express those judgments in public. My current flaws as they exist, and potential forum moderation decisions, and other people’s judgments about me, are not something within my direct control. So I accept these things with equanimity. I would prefer to not have my flaws and not be banned and not have wise people think bad things about me, of course. But the flaws are something I can only improve going forward. And neither the flaws or the banning or the judgments will be addressed by getting upset. It’s rather the opposite, I think: if I get upset, I’m more likely to not improve and get banned. So that’s a long way of saying that I think specific things I was prone to get triggered by won’t trigger me anymore. This is a different point than just being able to “manage” getting triggered better, which I also think is true and addressed above. ↩︎
The discussion doesn’t go anywhere unless I micromanage you, which isn’t OK. You need to do a brainstorming session to come up with harms. I’m confident that you could think of more than one if you tried.
You betrayed me consciously on purpose – and by your own account went through with it after you calmed down – and you just ignore this question and won’t even try to give me any answer for why you did that? (And also gave no reason for not answering, and just omitted it in a non-obvious way.) It’s also basically necessary to answer this question before considering whether you’d do it again.
I’m not sure what happened there re: omitting question. I had thought of a short reply to that question but somehow it didn’t make it into my reply. I was pretty tired when I wrote the reply and that’s the only thing I can think of as maybe being the cause. Regardless:
I initially reached out to the CritRat because I was upset by the discussion and wanted validation. I was also feeling really lonely or something, and that’s why I think I went through with the interaction despite partially calming down. (I think that’s a shitty reason and doesn’t make a ton of sense when analyzed rationally, but I think that’s why I did it.) The CritRat was somebody I used to know decently well, which made interacting with them seem relevant to my loneliness issue or something. I don’t know how to explain it well, especially in public and without getting into a lot of actually private information, but I think that’s the basic essence.
OK sure. Here are some potential harms that an objective person could reasonably expect to result from the circumstances (I may try coming up with some more later):
CritRats feel moral support (already mentioned), leading to various additional harms like more harassment and violation of property rights.
CritRats gossip about the situation, increasing their solidarity and hostility towards CF.
dealing with fallout from community member contacting CritRat serves as a distraction to ET that could have been spent more productively.
people feel alienated from CF discussions that result (cuz maybe they don’t want to read about “drama” and don’t care to analyze the details).
So I was able to come up with more than one, but I’m not sure if I’m missing anything important or am on the wrong track. And I’m having trouble coming up with more.
Imagine you’re a lawyer and you are trying to come up with a case against a person who did what you did. (Like, you are actually trying to build a case, as a lawyer, so you are brainstorming any possible harm you might be able to include.) Can you think of any more potential harms if you look at it in that context?
Also, did you brainstorm the actual harms? You could do that in the same way.
Thanks for the suggestion, I appreciate it. Unfortunately, I was still having trouble. I think I have some kind of mental block here. I actually asked ChatGPT 4 to help me brainstorm. My method was to paste the text of Elliot’s harassment summary into the chat window. I then asked what the foreseeable harms might be if a community member from CF talked to a CritRat. I asked a couple of different variations of my question (including more context in one variation). Some of the responses overlapped with stuff I already said, and some weren’t very on point, but it gave me some answers I thought were good points. I’m posting the good ones here and take responsibility for them. Note that I didn’t share any private info with ChatGPT. Also note that my current understanding is that we can use ChatGPT for posts if we disclose it.
Leak of Private Information : The community member might unintentionally or deliberately share sensitive information about Elliot or the CF community. This could be used by the CritRats to further harass or discredit them.
Potential for Recruitment : The CritRat could attempt to sway the community member to their side, effectively infiltrating the CF community.
Emotional Harm : Knowing about this private conversation could cause emotional harm to Elliot and other members of the CF community, who are already dealing with the stress and anxiety of ongoing harassment.
Misinterpretation of Events : The departing member might be upset or angry, and this could color their representation of the events or interactions within the CF community. The CritRat community could leverage this narrative to further their own agenda or justify their harassment.
Yeah, I think you must. It’s really surprising to me that even after a lawyer prompt, you weren’t able to come up with emotional distress or emotional harm on your own. I would be shocked if a lawyer trying to build a case to sue someone was unable to come up with emotional distress on their own as one of the harms.