[redacted]: Am curious about
"One can harm others by using a truth/falsehood framework in making statements described by clarity/opaqueness. Some TAPAICAL folk do this."

Elizabeth Synclair: like, how Maggie Mayhem's all "Maymay's harassing me and stalking me and he's an abuser"
factual statement using words (harass, stalk, abuse) that aren't factual

[redacted]: what do they have to do with "clarity/opaqueness"

Elizabeth Synclair: hmm, let me try and express this
If someone asserts "I was raped," people's interpretation of this as valid or not is based solely on what they know factually and on the (not known to be fact) statements of others
so it's manipulatable reality if you remove it enough from known fact
"rape" becomes abstract

[redacted]: OK
still don't understand the original statement

Elizabeth Synclair: hm.
so opaqueness is when "I was raped" is backed by unverifiable statements
and clarity is when "I was raped" communicates a shared understanding
like, when it works as shorthand
v just being symbols
grokability
can I post this chat transcript somewhere? I wanna hold onto it.

[redacted]: OK

Elizabeth Synclair: Cool.

[redacted]: and it's bad to talk as if things like "I was raped" are directly observable facts

Elizabeth Synclair: I mean, they are if you were present for the rape, but not otherwise

[redacted]: right

Elizabeth Synclair: this is why Maymay's been sharing his emails w Maggie Mayhem
they let others directly observe the facts

[redacted]: and talking as if opaque things are directly observable can be part of verbally beating people up
is that the idea?

Elizabeth Synclair: yes.

Reply · Report Post