5 ms·

I think one of my problems with all of this is that many communities allow people with unchecked mental illnesses to continue to manipulate and harass everyone

I think one of my problems with all of this is that many communities allow people with unchecked mental illnesses to continue to manipulate and harass everyone around them. I ran a meetup group with a few other co-organizers and it's amazing the amount of abuse people will take. We had members that would come into the group, harass the rest of the members and continue with inappropriate behavior during our meetups. We had one guy that would come in and basically corner any girl in the group and ask them out. During the meetup he looked like he wanted to hurt someone (he had angry looks on his face all the time), and wouldn't really talk to anyone or get to know the members. After confronting the member, it continued. Since I was running the group with other people, I told them we needed to kick this guy out of the group. They outright refused. They felt that we shouldn't be exclusionary and that this would be 'mean'. This guy eventually left when he was trying to get into an ivy league school and he sent us a blank entrance form and wanted us to fill it out for him. He sent us all angry emails and never came back. I left the group shortly after this because I couldn't be part of a group that didn't protect its members. More communities need to kick people out for inappropriate and harmful behavior.

amoonki 11y ago
I've heard that this is somewhat common in nerdy communities, or at least common enough that someone felt moved to write about "geek social fallacies": http://www.plausiblydeniable.com/opinion/gsf.html http://www.plausiblydeniable.com/opinion/gsf.html
- CM30 11y ago
  It's not really common in nerdy communities as such, just mostly those somewhere between the mainstream and the incredibly niche. There's an interesting TV Tropes write up on that here: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheLawOfFanJackassery http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheLawOfFanJackas...
- tamana 11y ago
  That article would be better if it removed all the "geek" spam. It isn't a "geek" phenomenon.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- chias 11y ago
  I run a nerdy community. #1 and #2 are so impossibly ingrained in my users that this was both painful and cathartic to read. The only "potential fix" the author has is for people to read this and recognize the signs, but #2 prevents me from telling anyone there about it sigh
OvidNaso 11y ago
What are these people supposed to do? Your solutions sounds like certain cities solution to the homeless problem...kick them out of the city. I'm pround of the other members of your group. The mentally ill and socially inept should be shown kindness and we should lead by example. Not just kick everyone out that makes us uncomfortable.
- exolymph 11y ago
  I have the opposite reaction. That group sounds like one where women aren't safe. It's important to show abusive people that their behavior won't be tolerated in the spaces they want to occupy. No consequences = no change.
  - pavel_lishin 11y ago
    That group sounds like a place where I wouldn't feel safe, or particularly welcomed. The "homeless" analogy fails, because the Meetup isn't a city; it's an optional event run by volunteers. They don't owe a particular asshole membership, and they harmed the very group by allowing him to stay. If we do want to try to stretch the analogy, with the meetup-as-a-social-gathering being our city, then the asshole was breaking one of the city's ordinances - a social rule of not being an asshole who harasses others. Homeless and homeful alike would be arrested and fined, or put in jail, if they flung bricks through the windows; someone who's breaking social norms and making others feel unsafe ought to be expelled from the group.
  - taurath 11y ago
    The question is, do you completely ostracize the immature and potentially abusive people or do you socially shame them but offer them a legitimate path to being able to be in a group? Geek groups are frequently the last resort socially - its way down on the social ladder (at least when I was growing up) and people frequently are way behind on both social skills and tact. As such, they end up being a catch-all, and the last place that they can go to grow without completely removing themselves from society. Should that mean that people should feel safe? Of course - thats why you meet in public, and have other people around. Not defending this person, of course - just offering a wider perspective. I'd certainly pull this person aside frequently - if the group allowed for it constantly rather than shaming the person then I'd immediately look to leave the (now toxic) group if I couldn't convince them of the danger.
jsprogrammer 11y ago
What is an 'unchecked mental illness'? Are you a Doctor? If the member's behavior was so inappropriate, why did everyone else refuse to not associate with this person?
hitekker 11y ago
I find this believable. Having real empathy demands strength of character; it requires putting yourself in the shoes of a victim and feeling what it's like to be shat on. If you do it, and still find their suffering to be overblown, then that's your call to make. Most seem not to however: most will simply call an act of cruelty "awfully insensitive" or "woefully misguided" or some light phrase until it happens to them. Good on you for leaving those weak-minded people behind.
6stringmerc 11y ago
Very fascinating story to me, especially regarding the behavior being face-to-face, so I'm grateful you shared. I'm behind in getting my tail in gear, but I do have a personal essay in the works refelecting on my experiences with un-moderated vs. moderated forums and comment platforms. I've witnessed some pretty clear social behaviors (e.g. forming cliques, 'groupthink' habits) which seem to vary by the platform and moderation level. A dynamic exists, in my opinion, that can turn a community into a cesspool.
ultramancool 11y ago
> I left the group shortly after this because I couldn't be part of a group that didn't protect its members. Interesting. I've left groups that aggressively "protect" members, particularly those who do so even in online interactions. I find the aggressive protection detracts from honest and blunt communication or debate, I've seen people who basically think any remotely conservative opinion is rooted in misogyny or racism and should be immediately dismissed. It's something to weigh certainly, have to find the right balance appropriate for the group.
chris_wot 11y ago
I left Wikipedia because of the user Giano. Whilst he is good at writing articles (but consistently violates NPOV), he is a bully that has somehow managed to remain on the Wiki.

amoonki 11y ago

I've heard that this is somewhat common in nerdy communities, or at least common enough that someone felt moved to write about "geek social fallacies": http://www.plausiblydeniable.com/opinion/gsf.html http://www.plausiblydeniable.com/opinion/gsf.html

CM30 11y ago
It's not really common in nerdy communities as such, just mostly those somewhere between the mainstream and the incredibly niche. There's an interesting TV Tropes write up on that here: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheLawOfFanJackassery http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheLawOfFanJackas...
tamana 11y ago
That article would be better if it removed all the "geek" spam. It isn't a "geek" phenomenon.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
chias 11y ago
I run a nerdy community. #1 and #2 are so impossibly ingrained in my users that this was both painful and cathartic to read. The only "potential fix" the author has is for people to read this and recognize the signs, but #2 prevents me from telling anyone there about it sigh

OvidNaso 11y ago

What are these people supposed to do? Your solutions sounds like certain cities solution to the homeless problem...kick them out of the city. I'm pround of the other members of your group. The mentally ill and socially inept should be shown kindness and we should lead by example. Not just kick everyone out that makes us uncomfortable.

exolymph 11y ago
I have the opposite reaction. That group sounds like one where women aren't safe. It's important to show abusive people that their behavior won't be tolerated in the spaces they want to occupy. No consequences = no change.
- pavel_lishin 11y ago
  That group sounds like a place where I wouldn't feel safe, or particularly welcomed. The "homeless" analogy fails, because the Meetup isn't a city; it's an optional event run by volunteers. They don't owe a particular asshole membership, and they harmed the very group by allowing him to stay. If we do want to try to stretch the analogy, with the meetup-as-a-social-gathering being our city, then the asshole was breaking one of the city's ordinances - a social rule of not being an asshole who harasses others. Homeless and homeful alike would be arrested and fined, or put in jail, if they flung bricks through the windows; someone who's breaking social norms and making others feel unsafe ought to be expelled from the group.
- taurath 11y ago
  The question is, do you completely ostracize the immature and potentially abusive people or do you socially shame them but offer them a legitimate path to being able to be in a group? Geek groups are frequently the last resort socially - its way down on the social ladder (at least when I was growing up) and people frequently are way behind on both social skills and tact. As such, they end up being a catch-all, and the last place that they can go to grow without completely removing themselves from society. Should that mean that people should feel safe? Of course - thats why you meet in public, and have other people around. Not defending this person, of course - just offering a wider perspective. I'd certainly pull this person aside frequently - if the group allowed for it constantly rather than shaming the person then I'd immediately look to leave the (now toxic) group if I couldn't convince them of the danger.

jsprogrammer 11y ago

What is an 'unchecked mental illness'? Are you a Doctor? If the member's behavior was so inappropriate, why did everyone else refuse to not associate with this person?

hitekker 11y ago

I find this believable. Having real empathy demands strength of character; it requires putting yourself in the shoes of a victim and feeling what it's like to be shat on. If you do it, and still find their suffering to be overblown, then that's your call to make. Most seem not to however: most will simply call an act of cruelty "awfully insensitive" or "woefully misguided" or some light phrase until it happens to them. Good on you for leaving those weak-minded people behind.

6stringmerc 11y ago

Very fascinating story to me, especially regarding the behavior being face-to-face, so I'm grateful you shared. I'm behind in getting my tail in gear, but I do have a personal essay in the works refelecting on my experiences with un-moderated vs. moderated forums and comment platforms. I've witnessed some pretty clear social behaviors (e.g. forming cliques, 'groupthink' habits) which seem to vary by the platform and moderation level. A dynamic exists, in my opinion, that can turn a community into a cesspool.

ultramancool 11y ago

> I left the group shortly after this because I couldn't be part of a group that didn't protect its members. Interesting. I've left groups that aggressively "protect" members, particularly those who do so even in online interactions. I find the aggressive protection detracts from honest and blunt communication or debate, I've seen people who basically think any remotely conservative opinion is rooted in misogyny or racism and should be immediately dismissed. It's something to weigh certainly, have to find the right balance appropriate for the group.

chris_wot 11y ago

I left Wikipedia because of the user Giano. Whilst he is good at writing articles (but consistently violates NPOV), he is a bully that has somehow managed to remain on the Wiki.