December 10, 2008

How to Hijack a Thread

Or, A Primer in Antisocial Attention-Seeking

Lay your groundwork. Watch the group interaction. Make yourself known to the community. Engage on a topic or two. Piss a few people off so they'll react to you reliably later.

Watch for your chance. If the blog is any good, the host and/or community practices some sort of moderation, active or passive. You'll have to catch them on a busy day or heated topic to get them to feed trolls.

Commit to the campaign. Prepare not to have a life for the duration. Refresh frequently and respond to everything before anyone else can. Drown anyone speaking in good faith in an avalanche of comments.

Build a fire. Say something known to be controversial. Be sure to compliment community members--in the most backhanded way possible. Extra points for dog whistles.

Make yourself the injured party. Recharacterize any objections to your statements as referenda on your character. Loudly protest your ignorance of even the concept of a dog whistle. Of course you didn't say that. Abuse yourself sarcastically in strong terms to show how misunderstood you are.

Limit your scope. If the conversation happens across several blogs, pick the one you want to make your own. Most of the community will gravitate to the comment threads where real discussion is happening, leaving a smaller field for you to manipulate.

Divide the community. Pick out a couple of people to side with. Ideally, these should be people with a history of both arguing with the community and making at least occasional good points. Agree broadly as soon as they say anything reasonable, so that anyone else who wants to agree with them must also agree with you.

Deflect topical discussion. Engage with everyone who still wants to discuss the idea at hand. However, don't engage with them on the topic. If you can turn them to talking about your behavior, this is a plus, but any sideline or distraction will do.

Deny group authority. Insist that if anyone wants to judge your behavior, they must also judge the behavior of all community members by the same standards. Point to their reactions to your bad behavior as bad behavior that also needs to be censured. Ignore the fact that you haven't contributed to the community in the same way they have.

Prepare to lose. You've almost certainly chosen a blog where your disruption will be noticed. After all, that's what you're there for. The problem with avoiding chaos is that these people have come together for a reason--to talk to each other, not you. They're eventually going to go back to doing just that, closing up ranks, and you're going to have to find a new way, or a new blog, to get anyone to pay attention to you again.

61 comments:

Peggy said...

At least the hijacking in DM's thread is allowing the real discussion to take place at drdrA and Dr. Isis's blogs.

Silver Fox said...

Very good characterization of the situation *over there*. I would also think that trying to have the last word might be part of the effort - but one can never guarantee that!

Stephanie Zvan said...

Peggy, I think there would have been real discussion at drdrA's anyway. There was before DM linked to it. Much of the discussion at Dr. Isis's blog was about the hijacking, and several people at DrugMonkey tried to put out suggestions for discussion that went nowhere in the noise.

No, this damaged the conversation, at least this time around. It pisses me off particularly because the parts that still managed to come through was some good brainstorming, and I think there could have been more. One of the things I wanted to do here was lay out how it was done, so someone can recognize it if it happens again.

Stephanie Zvan said...

Silver Fox, I admit, I was tempted to keep fighting it out, but there wasn't any point. It wasn't even about him defending his position. It was plain old trolling.

Greg Laden said...

One of the things I wanted to do here was lay out how it was done, so someone can recognize it if it happens again.

You mean those aren't instructions? Because they're pretty good instructions.

Stephanie Zvan said...

They're just about perfect instructions, which is what told me it was deliberate. I tried pretty hard to think of things that would improve it as a strategy (long meeting this morning) and failed.

Becca said...

Because satire is fun, not because you aren't right...


How to Hijack a Hijacker

Lay your groundwork. Be a well known and well respected commenter.
Jump right in. People will be (understandably) reacting emotionally. Engage this as appropriate to make sure peple feel "heard" (even if not by the hijacker). It helps to actually empathize.
Commit to the campaign. 100-comment threads are stamina straining? That's lazyoldman talk!
Bring a bucket Agree with something totally ridiculous that will make people laugh. Accept all compliments, and spin them your way.
Make everybody the injured party. At least pretend to see thing from multiple points of view.
Broaden your scope Play by house rules on different blogs. Play on multiple levels to fellow commenters on a single blog. Make sure none of your levels are utterly offensive, but make sure some are whimsical.
Unite the community. It's tempting to pick a scapegoat to do this, but smoother to come up with some generic rallying positive words (e.g. "nurturing"). Don't permit dichotomization of the issues.
Redirect topic conversation. Creative segues are your friend.
Keep putting ideas out there. Don't marry your ideas though, you need to appear available for the inevitable barage of marrige proposals.
Prepare to win, but don't expect it.

Stephanie Zvan said...

Becca, dear, you deserve a medal, or at least a sock monkey, for what you pulled off over there.

DrugMonkey said...

Great analysis! Although I'm not entirely sure it was intentional trolling. And our trollish friend did have a good observation or two..

Stephanie Zvan said...

I, on the other hand, am quite certain...which doesn't make me any more likely to be right. But just think how short a comment could have contained those observations.

Greg l said...

Style is important. The medium is -a- message.

Stephanie Zvan said...

Greg, that clued me in to one more thing that really bothered me about the thread, because the message I got from the medium was the one of an abusive relationship. "See how charming I can be when you behave? Well, if I'm not charming, you're obviously not behaving."

[shudder] With that and "Yes, I'm an asshole" (read "I have no intention of changing a thing"), I don't wonder that I got out of there as quickly as I could.

Comrade Physioprof said...

The asshole still got cookies in the end. Sheesh.

Stephanie Zvan said...

I hear you, CPP. Your co-blogger reads him differently than I do, though, at least this time. Not the first person that's happened on, either.

Anonymous said...

nice post Stephanie.

Greg Laden said...

He should have set his browser to not accept cookies.

Stephanie Zvan said...

Oh, come on, Greg. You like cookies. Of course, as with any good thing, one does have to watch how one treats the source.

Stephanie Zvan said...

And Anonymous, thank you.

Isis the Scientist said...

Greg, that clued me in to one more thing that really bothered me about the thread, because the message I got from the medium was the one of an abusive relationship. "See how charming I can be when you behave? Well, if I'm not charming, you're obviously not behaving."

This is exactly how it happened, Stephanie, and it is a shame. I am glad that I am not the only one who saw it this way.

Stephanie Zvan said...

Definitely not the only one, Isis. I'm guessing that if we asked Juniper, we'd get a similar answer there too.

Juniper Shoemaker said...

Thank you again, Stephanie. I have greatly appreciated this post since it went up, and I just want to say now what a fan of yours I am.

Juniper Shoemaker said...

LOL. I didn't see your last comment, Stephanie.

I posted some last thoughts on this whole affair here, in response to Becca's question.

Stephanie Zvan said...

Juniper, thank you very much.

Stephanie Zvan said...

And yes, that has some of the marks of an abusive relationship, all right.

Juniper Shoemaker said...

Okay, after this, I'll really shut up about it. But since Stephanie has provided a safe space to say it, I'm going to post what I've been writing and then erasing without publishing from comment boxes everywhere:

Am I the only one who cares that Dave didn't apologize to Dr. Isis? I'm just supposed to be okay with the fact that he passive-aggressively called her a crappy cranky bitch and her husband a loser? What, because he's capable of generating nuanced conversation about a controversy when he feels like it? In that case: how hard is it to fucking apologize?

I was too embarrassed to say that in front of a bunch of PIs. I didn't want them to think that I was in third grade or something, especially after my little outburst. But Dave proclaimed himself "unrepentant" on DM's blog, and then had the nerve to go over to Isis's and start telling her how to parent-- in his "warm", paternal way-- as if it were no big deal. That really was the last straw.

Okay. I'm going to shut up about it now. Thanks again, Stephanie.

Isis the Scientist said...

I am very thankful for women like Juniper, Peggy, and Stephanie. I do fail to see though while people are suddenly willing to start giving him the benefit of the doubt. I hope the DM blog moves on to non-gender related topics soon.

Isis the Scientist said...

Juniper, this is exactly the point. It made the hair on my neck stand up when he asked if PP was going to let a girl fight his fight for him. The fact that people over there seem willing to embrace him now absolutely disgusts me.

But, you should never be afraid to speak your mind, sweet Juniper regardless who you're speaking to. They might be a "bunch of PIs," but you seem to be the only one speaking any sense.

DrugMonkey said...

I think the notion that I or anyone else "embraced" Dave is a tad unfair. I stand by my opinion that he differs from the standard TSZ alienated-ally troll dude in this discussion. There are additional hints of redeemability as well. I suppose time will tell if my optimism is misplaced.

My other point is the responses did a fine job of eviscerating the assholery...so at some point maybe the personal pileon can slow down. I thought we had reached that point. Obviously opinions vary. The suggestion, Isis, that I should avoid blogging gender issues because you do not agree with me on when it is time to deflate the discussion is utter malarky.

Isis the Scientist said...

Then, DM, I have no idea what your grace under fire comments to him mean. To suggest that drdrA had to "deflame" anyone suggests that the response to his comments was inappropriate and led to nonproductive discussion. As far as the suggestion that he revealed some redeeming qualities that make you think he might not be a bad dude after all? That's lovely. Perhaps you think he didn't mean them? He was possessed by another entity when he typed them? I can totally see how one could misinterpret, "But I have a responsibility to all the other attendees to not fill the schedule with crappy bitter bitches" or "Of course, if this is true then the women scientists reading this must be dumber than most other women" when looking back I realize that they are obviously coming from someone who is supportive of women in science. Maintain your optimism and go have a beer with the guy. But, in outright complimenting him for his handling of the siuation you've alienated your female readers who felt hurt by his comments and made it seem as though it were their fault for being offended. That should be evident by reading the comments here. I don't give my son a cookie for sitting in time out when he misbehaves. I make him say, "I'm sorry, Mommy" before he can go back to play.

The responses may have adequately eviscerated him, in your opinion, but then you reached out and patted him on the head, thus shaming those who called him on the carpet. I suppose I see your need to be peacemaker, but I'll be frank, I'm angry that I feel ashamed for defending women. Again, it should be evident that there are other women who are supporters of the DM blog who also felt ashamed.

Brother Drug, you keep blogging about whatever floats your boat. It's called "DrugMonkey" not "IsisMonkey." I only hoped that you would move on to a new topic because this current topic has descended to a place that makes me uncomfortable.

Comrade PhysioProf said...

This is what I just commented at DrugMonkey:

I think that the reason some women are disturbed by what is going on here is that they might have considered this blog to be a space with zero tolerance for misogyny, not a misogynist encounter group/recovery session. What was intended to be a discussion of gender issues in science has been diverted into being all about the magical awakening of some random misogynist scumbag who materialized out of nowhere to tell women what to do. This shit is completely typical same-old-same-old, and deserves only the same-old-same-old response.

Stephanie Zvan said...

Juniper, no need to shut up, ever. I searched the thread yesterday for "sorry," because I also wanted to know whether he'd said it to anyone. Of course, that also means no one said it to him, but I'm firmly of the opinion he earned most of the vitriol.

Isis, I'm saying this before I've had my caffeine, so you know it may not be smooth. Know that I agree with you on most of this.

There are some patterns of behavior that have to have been seen to be recognized, in part because they're designed to manipulate. I'm not going to jump on DM, Becca, drdrA or anyone else for not seeing them the same way I do. I am, in fact, going to count it as a little blessing that they don't have that frame of reference.

I am going to let them borrow my frame, but I won't expect them to use it right away. After all, it's warped. It's seeing the world from a place where people shouldn't have to see it. It takes time to absorb and adjust, and even then, it's difficult to work with.

DM, you can put me on the list of people who think the thank you to Dave was over the top. However, I do appreciate that you can hold an unsettled opinion on this. Not everybody can do that, particularly when tempers are high.

Stephanie Zvan said...

CPP, I'm inclined to take Dave at his word about being a sociopath. What disturbed me was the abuse of a community that's working toward something good. You may well be right about others, though.

Greg Laden said...

Juniper: Am I the only one who cares that Dave didn't apologize to Dr. Isis?

No, you are not.

Greg Laden said...

PP: This shit is completely typical same-old-same-old, and deserves only the same-old-same-old response.

I was shocked (and that was not the only emotion) to see Isis suggest that DM move on from gender issues, but of course on reading down this thread I am less shocked and I think I get what both Isis and DM are saying.

I just want to add this: Hijacking a thread has more than one purpose, and one of them is to make the captives bite at each other. We are seeing this here.

PP is totally correct that this is inedible. On my blog, it is usually a racist or two emerging from the muck (Stephanie can attest to this, as by the time I find the scoundrel she has usually eviscerated him, even if sometimes subtly).

So, finally getting to my point: There is no clear guideline or ethic on how to manage a thread when this sort of argument arises. I would never want to fault a blogger for allowing a conversation to go on to the point of discomfort, and I would not want to fault the blogger if s/he banned a commenter like this and even erased that commenter's earlier comments. There are good reasons to allow this kind of conversation to keep running. There are good reasons to stop it.

I can tell you this: Were you to query Stephanie, Isis, DM, PP, me, I'm guessing Juniper, I'm thinking Becca, on key issues regarding gender, gender and science, gender and other professional areas, race and racism, and a few other key political issues, you would probably find an awful lot more in common than not in attitude and point of view, even if personal experiences may vary greatly.

In other words, we are all on the same team. If for a moment you think not, just think of Dave.

Greg Laden said...

Inedible, I say!

Stephanie Zvan said...

Uh, yeah, what Greg said. (Dude, you must have had your coffee already, although you did forget the creationist trolls that I eviscerate.)

Drugmonkey said...

Isis in that case let me offer my apologies. I clearly gave the impression that I was head-patting an assclown and thereby endorsing his right to say some stupid ass and hurtful shit.

For the record, I do not endorse the stupid ass and hurtful shit.

I also apologize for the resulting implication that I was saying that the flaming and evisceration of stupid ass and hateful comments was unwarranted. I was not. I should have preceded such words with "well justified" and "appropriate" and the like to make this clear.

okham said...

OK, honestly: haven't we all at some point wished that we had screened a certain comment, or at least asked the author to rephrase certain parts ?
I for one admit that I am not ready to have anyone (especially anonymous) write just whatever on my blog and let it pass.
If I am not comfortable with something that is said in a comment, either I am going to contact the author (if I can) and ask for revisions, or I am not going to accept the comment.

daedalus2u said...

Greg, getting reasonable people to fight with each other is something that sociopaths are quite good at. That is one of their major tactics.

drdrA said...

Ah- ok, I never gave Dave a pass- DM never gave Dave a pass.

And for the record- the discussion did need de-flaming because comment threads where people just spend 200 comments calling each other assholes are not useful. I stop paying attention, and it pisses me off when a discussion that I care about devolves into pointless mud-slinging. It might make you feel better- but it doesn't accomplish anything. If this were my kids I wouldn't care who started it. I would tell them to knock it off and move on to the important stuff.

Furthermore, in this case we had exhibit A - an actual live silliness spewing subject- to actually provide a live demo for the discussion.

Stephanie Zvan said...

drdrA, please see again the part about sociopaths splitting communities. The fact is, he set up a situation that needed to be dealt with if anything productive was going to happen.

Isis and CPP decided to attack. He reacted in a way to encourage bigger attacks. You, Becca and DM chose to engage civilly, possibly more civilly than you would have had their been no attacks. He sucked up to you in a way that made the whole thing look much cozier than it was.

He played it. He pushed to exaggerate both strategies so they came into conflict. Please don't let his created conflict become yours. Please.

And yes, I'm not just speaking to you on this.

Isis the Scientist said...

Dr. Isis is totally over this. She and DM have not kissed (he forbade it), but they have made up and are totally bff again. At the end of the day it is important to remember who your allies truly are. DrugMonkey and PhysioProf do have a track record for being advocates for women. We may have skirmished on this issue, but it was resolved fairly peacefully because that's the way adult discourse happens (in contrast the Dave-style). This is a perfect example of how two people can have a grown-up disagreement over a gender issue and have it be resolved without going nuclear.

Dave said...

Juniper said: "how hard is it to fucking apologize?

I could apologize in the way you ask, but it would be insincere. The most inflammatory things I said were poorly marked sarcasm and jokes. I've made classic newbie internet message board mistakes. I'm sorry for that in the sense that if I weren't such a dork, I no doubt would have known that my brand of sarcasm and humor completely falls flat in this type of forum. DM rightly has chastised me, but I think he can back me up based on posts he's pulled (yes, he is actively moderating) that I really am joking and deliberately pushing buttons some of the time. It doesn't work in this venue, obviously.

So I'm not going to apologize for being mean to Isis, because I really wasn't trying to be mean. What I do honestly apologize for is any undercutting of confidence my words may have given (as in 'oh crap the world really IS full of misogynist assholes'), because that doesn't help anyone and really is not anything I'd like to see happen. Toward that end, obviously, I should have said that I recognize that fathers are also responsible for child-rearing and other chores that often unfairly burden mothers or something like that instead of calling Isis' husband a loser. Etc. I am not used to being so explicit. People who know me in real life know. I assumed people could easily laugh off some corrosive internet remarks, or recognize it as the goofy playful debate I meant it to be. I recognize now that I was wrong -- not through a fault of anyone reading my words, but rather my misunderstanding of the audience and medium. So I'm sorry -- not for what I said, but in the way I said it.

Still, I do think it's an important that women break out of traditional gender barriers instead of using them as an excuse. In that regard, I am not convinced Isis has done so. She can do better.

At this point, assuming you are still reading, you may be parsing my motivation in posting this. What motivated me to finally say something here was this:

I was too embarrassed to say that in front of a bunch of PIs."

This actually shocked and hurt me and made me feel sorry. Juniper: NEVER feel embarrassed to say what you think. Especially in an anonymous venue like this. It's what the internet is best for. You can fling out crazy things and see how people respond without the worry and residue these things bring in real life. Call it sociopathic (it sort of is), but it's also liberating. What I liked, Juniper, is that you of everyone called me out in the harshest most direct way possible. It was really your words on Isis' blog that made me think "Holy crap. I've really pissed some people off. They're not just pretending." DM can unfortunately vouch for the fact that it didn't completely kill my tendency toward inflammatory jabs. But it did make me think. So say what you think. Always. That's what your brain is for. If you keep it all in, what good is it? You have a blog. Don't let the blog be an excuse to not let loose your ambition in real life too.

Stephanie Zvan said...

Dr. Isis, that makes me very happy. Sleep well tonight, please.

Comrade PhysioProf said...

Dude, I think you are missing a very important point here. No one gives a flying fuck whether you're earnest, joking, learning, growing, spurring discussion, or whathefuckever. The problem is that your long-winded masturbatory gibbering, which seems to always end with some kind of exhortation to people that they are doing whatever it is that they are doing wrong, is WASTING OTHER PEOPLE'S VALUABLE TIME. No one wants to show up at what should be an interesting discussion and have to wade through thousands of words of your inane narcissistic fuckwittitude. Get your own motherfucking blog and knock yourself out. But stop acting like such a motherfucking asshole in other people's spaces.

D. C. said...

I can totally see how one could misinterpret [...] "Of course, if this is true then the women scientists reading this must be dumber than most other women"

Hmmm. I read that as reductio ad absurdem, and looking at the context still don't see any other way to read it.

Stephanie Zvan said...

D. C., I read that as one of those statements that ultimately boils down to, "Look what I can get away with saying because it's a joke. Don't you get it? Yeesh, I said it was a joke. (No sense of humor.)" When it isn't funny, all that's left is the hostility.

ScientistMother said...

Oh gosh, I don't get why you female, colored person who has faced discrimination and judgment based solely on either your gender, cultural heritage or both don't understand a joke from poor defenseless white male like myself.

I have avoided the discussions over at DM's b/c quite frankly getting my science done was far more important then giving this guy a comment. However he seems to be moving all over the place leaving comments, giving sage advice. Sorry Dave, I don't need advice from you. I need you to learn to actually think about and how you're saying it.
Nor do I think Juniper needs your type of advice.
Why should women have to change? why don't you stop being so closed minded and judgmental

Anonymous said...

For the record, I didn't find Dave's very long rants about gender issues much fun. I don't feel like showing all my scars of injustice just so he can 'get it', and after a while I started skipping his contributions because I simply found them way too depressing. I thought it a shame he took up so much room on the blog because there are others with opinions I am much more interested in. It's nice to find a measured, thoughtful discussion (which also feels a bit safer) over here. Thanks Stephanie

Stephanie Zvan said...

Hi, ScientistMother. All you said and then some. Thanks for stopping by, and I hope the science prospered.

Anonymous, you're very welcome. I'm glad to hear this feels like a safer space.

daedalus2u said...

Wasting other people’s time is another strategy of sociopaths. Causing strife, difficulties, anxiety, worry, distress; anything that keeps good scientists who are not sociopaths from thinking about and doing science leaves more science for the mediocre scientists who are sociopaths to do.

Stephanie Zvan said...

Daedalus, remind me not to get on your bad side. :)

Silver Fox said...

Stephanie, much earlier, when I mentioned tyring to have the last word, I meant that could be an additional strategy of a hijacker - I didn't mean that you or any other of the reasonable people posting should try that - I don't think *that* game could ever be won with a hijacker (except by the blog owner deleting comments!). Sorry for getting back to that so late - I've had some trouble commenting recently (so much stuff, too little time!).

Stephanie Zvan said...

Silver Fox, I admit, I figured out what you were talking about some time after I left my comment. No worries, though.

Anonymous said...

I stopped by via a link from Dr Isis' blog (to a different post) & have some insight to offer into the Dave problem; my father interacts in exactly the same way, and it's exactly as infuriating if you don't realize what's happening.

He does the same thing -- says intentionally inflammatory things to "stir things up" (his words) and provoke a reaction -- because he doesn't do so well with normal reason-based argument, so if he can get his opponents (i.e., everyone) riled up, he can critique the high emotion. "This can be a learning experience for them," he thinks.

He preaches a lot about the importance of controlling your emotions, "sticks & stones", etc. -- partly because he wants to believe it (*he* is very easily wounded by words) but also because it absolves him of blame. If other people get upset -- and even remain upset, months later, because of the horrific things he's said -- that means *they* have something to learn about not being ruled by their emotions. They should grow up and get therapy or something.

He appeals to the importance of "facts" constantly -- demanding multiple & detailed supporting examples for any critique you might offer (though it's impossible to get through the first one without him changing the subject) but at the same time never giving actual *relevant* facts to support his own arguments -- just overwhelmingly long streams of tangential crap -- and he'll readily move the goalposts if called on it.

He seems to have an overwhelming need to be "the expert" in any discussion. If he is clearly in over his head, he will do his best to change the subject. If he at least understands part of the discussion, he assumes his place at the head of the table and starts the process of educating all present -- if you say something he doesn't grasp, he assumes it's irrelevant. If you try to offer more advanced information he will argue with you (using the techniques above) until you give him back the floor. Because every conversation is yet another opportunity for *you* to learn from *him* -- there is no situation where he will sit back and listen to you with interest -- if he listens for a moment, it's only because he's waiting for one of his keywords to pop up, so he can start another lecture. He's quite distinguished-looking, mind you, so people new to the game find themselves trapped for a very long time, too timid/respectful to have any chance at all in diverting him.

I notice quite a few behavioral overlaps with Dave's comment here, and his comments in the battle in question.

If I'm right, Dave doesn't *think* he's a troll, though he functions as one. Perhaps he wanted to spice things up a bit with some non-PC truthiness (because you need someone to be provocative to have a "real" discussion). Perhaps he didn't (and probably still doesn't) realize how obviously weak his grasp of logic is -- because he usually relies on his bag of rhetoric tricks -- and was hurt by the many strongly-worded responses. Surely he deserves more respect than that. And so the offensive defense begins. And the last-word-ism. Etc.. And even when he draws you on by seeming to concede some things... trust me, that will all be forgotten the next time the topic comes up.

And clearly he *still* doesn't understand that you are not all arrayed about his feet like little children hungry for his wisdom, but currently pouting because he phrased a few things a bit roughly.

Anyway, many of the responses in that thread and in this discussion here gave me a nice warm feeling. I wish some of you folks had been around when I was growing up!

But the solution is to notice the pattern, and stop it cold before the real escalation and 20-car pileup begins. He's not going to learn anything (I submit the comment above as exhibit A), and the wreckage is brutal, every time. If you're moderating a discussion and someone pulls a Dave, it's your choice to allow the first comment or two (and the resulting backlash) but if so I strongly recommend just inserting a polite note at that point that "the Dave" has been closed out of the remainder of the discussion, and a virtual air-freshener has been sprayed, so useful conversation may resume.

Anonymous said...

Ugh; sorry for the long rant! I hope you get something useful out of it. And be glad that Dave isn't an inextricable part of your life.

Anonymous said...

I'm still reading through that thread, and sweet jesus, this guy has whatever mental disorder my father does, exactly. Notice how many times Dave lists his own qualifications, awards, proof of his popularity, etc. etc.. How many times does he say he's a nice person? It'd be interesting to count those and then see how many self-compliments each of the other posters give themselves.

And he's definitely designated himself as the center of the discussion, as if he's participating from a wiser perspective than everyone else.

Holy fuck, this is creeping me out. I'm done now.

Stephanie Zvan said...

Anonymous, no apologies necessary. That's a lot to think about, but it's definitely worth it. Thank you.

MH said...

Anonymous wrote: "I'm still reading through that thread, and sweet jesus, this guy has whatever mental disorder my father does, exactly."

Narcissistic personality disorder, perhaps?

Stephanie Zvan said...

MH, without access and training, I'm not diagnosing anything beyond "fucked up."

Anonymous said...

imma hijack ur thread... lol!