#but that is so manipulative!!!! she then puts the onus on us to reassure her that she is not!!!! But that is not what she wants!!!!

[wavesoutbeingtossed]

.

[lrambling]

I’m not a natural grudge holder, and I’ve always talked about how easy it is to get sucked into Larrie and how hard it is to escape and the importance of showing understanding towards ex-larries who manage to leave and show a true grasp of what they did that was wrong. But what do you do when the person leaving is one of the people who made it so easy to get sucked in and so difficult to leave?

I think redemption and forgiveness are pretty personal subjects, I don’t think you can apply strict rules or standards. But emmie aka worshippedlove aka iftheresnolove aka thatsactuallystarlight made an explanation post about her time as a larrie that provides an interesting starting point to think about these things.

Before I put more detailed thoughts below a cut, let me say that I am happy for Emmie. She confirms how unhealthy the Larrie community is, and what an unhealthy entrance into the LGBTQ+ community it is, and I hope a much happier online (and offline) life is ahead for her. I hope she is telling the truth when she says she won’t repeat her actions in a future fandom. I think she has done some of the hard work of acknowledging her past behavior and is in a much better position to continue in fandom safely than people who just slip away from Larrie and start over again somewhere else. But I am still not fully confident that she has a complete grasp of what made her behavior so harmful. I do not think she acknowledges the full extent of both the manipulativeness and invasiveness of her posts as a Larrie.

It seems like in the first 20 or so questions, she’s addressing concerns from non-Larries, and in the last part, she’s addressing accusations that seem to come from other Larries about behavior they didn’t like from her when she was a Larrie. The first part has a lot to like from the perspective of evaluating whether someone is “redeemed”, understands what they did wrong, and is unlikely to do it again. She acknowledges that the theorizing and tumblr posts can encourage people to harass, there’s an understanding of the importance of accepting people’s identities, and a grasp of how inaccurate and deception-based the larrie perspective was. She understands how much she was lying to herself and doesn’t seem to cling to many larrie illusions.

However, in the second part particularly, when she talks more about other larries, I think she does excuse and minimize her actions to a certain extent. She tends to emphasize “look how much worse these other larries are,” which tbh is absolutely true. But it doesn’t make her actions ok. She’s very concerned about distinguishing her behavior from “actual stalking” without fully acknowledging how incredibly invasive it actually was.

I summed up a lot of my problems with her larrie blogging in this post. You’ll note that my concerns are not based on the things she says she’s falsely accused of (I think mostly she’s responding to accusations from other larries but I still wanted to point this out). I acknowledge that she’s not as virulently hateful or misogynist as many larries. I don’t make shit up about what she’s done, I don’t even accuse her of being a liar. Often, when I talk about Larrie manipulators, I point out that they can either be lying to their followers, or lying to themselves. Emmie confirms, if you choose to believe her, that she was lying to herself. 

But not being an outright liar, not being guilty of everything she’s been accused of, doesn’t mean that being “extra” is the worst thing she did. What Emmie did, over and over, was present speculation as fact and guesses as knowledge. This is perhaps the most harmful behavior she exhibited. And I don’t say that to minimize her actions as a Larrie. This is INCREDIBLY harmful and dangerous behavior. This is what allows anti-vaxxers and climate change deniers to speak with confidence and then convince others. If someone WANTS to believe something, and they’re told they’re correct in an authoritative manner, then it gives them an excuse.

Emmie acknowledges this behavior to an extent:

“So I found myself having the urge to (also constantly) put those thoughts down in writing to make them go away and filled all the (little and big) doubts with reassurances: circumstantial “evidence”, social media interactions that painted the picture I wanted to see, reaching (a lot of reaching), timelines that proved nothing but made me feel better. I ignored a lot of “evidence” that proved me wrong as well, and that’s how I kept myself afloat.”

But it’s the presentation of that circumstantial evidence that makes this so particularly harmful. She presented analysis and assumption as fact. And presented those facts in a way that suggested her knowledge as a journalist or someone with insider info made her conclusions authoritative and reliable.

I always got particularly frustrated by Emmie’s posts, and blogged about her a lot (as you can tell from all the links in that summary post which I’m linking to again just because this has gotten so long - btw if you want to read deleted posts, sometimes you can google “worshippedlove” and the portion of the text visible in the link and find a reblog). I always felt that she was smart enough that she should have been able to recognize what she was doing. I felt that she was too smart to be writing confidently about Cristiano Ronaldo and his manager being in a relationship when she clearly didn’t even know enough about his life to even keep track of who gay tabloid rumors were supposed to be about.

And I think she does get at why she pretended to have this confidence when she talks about how she was trying to silence her own doubts, something I’ve often assumed about many of the more aggressive “theorizing” larries. But the post doesn’t indicate that she’s confronted just how manipulative and harmful and dangerous this is. This is lying. Acting as if you know something when you don’t, acting as if you have good reason to believe something when you don’t - this is lying. And the danger of false claims to knowledge are particularly relevant now, in this age of conspiracy theorist thinking.

There is one additional piece of troublesome behavior that she doesn’t address in her post. She presents herself as uncomfortable discussing Jay’s passing, and I believe her. But less than 2 weeks after Jay died, she made a post in which she tried to analyze and justify why Louis would perform a tribute to his mother on Simon Cowell’s tv show. 

She deleted the post quickly, and because it was under a cut, we can’t tell what was said from reblogs of it. So we can only guess at the contents by anti responses such as this: “a post using this time in Louis’s life as data points to explain why he would, according to Larries, allow Simon Cowell to profit off the song he wrote in honor of Jay. Without rethinking any of their theories about what a terrible person Simon is, and without ever thinking that maybe they just don’t know what is happening in Louis’s life or how he feels and they should STOP. ANALYZING. IT.” There’s some other mentions here and I believe here.

I mention this because it shows the way being a larrie can normalize, encourage, or even require invasive behavior, even against someone’s better instincts. Emmie was clearly uncomfortable with the post from the start, and in her memory of her behavior, she has remembered herself as someone who didn’t talk about Jay’s death. But actually, she was the author of a post with 400 notes that helped people justify continuing to believe that Louis was engaging in stunts during and after the death of his mother.

What does any of this mean in terms of how we as a fandom should treat Emmie or anyone else in her position? I don’t know what to say, beyond that obviously I would hope people won’t be assholes, won’t harass her about her Larrie past. I don’t think there’s an onus on anyone to make a space for her in the fandom and I absolutely understand if people don’t trust her, but i also don’t think there’s necessarily a need to be constantly warning people away from her. I don’t know. *shrug*

[ciaran-nyc]

Beyond iCelebrity Week 3 Assignment

How can we heal as a nation from these twin viruses: COVID19 and The Big Lie/QAnon Conspiracy Contagion? What are some of your proposed antidotes?

Subjectivity and personal experience must be removed from the acknowledgment and understanding of objective facts. With politicians serving as interpreters of complex information for vast swaths of the nation, they must be held to a higher standard beyond personal political aspirations. Facts and real life events cannot be questioned and must simply be agreed upon as a base level in establishing common ground. Disagreement can exist in how to respond to reality but the first step is getting all to choose to exist in a world guided by the truth. There is no moving forward or healing as a nation, when some experience two contrasting realities when under the same circumstances. Alternative news sources and forums will always pop-up under stricter regulations, so if civilians can’t be trusted then the onus must be placed on politicians.

What are your thoughts on Eugene Goodman's actions the day on Jan 6th?

Officer Goodman’s actions on the day of January 6th exemplified extreme bravery in the face of insurmountable odds. He is a true patriot, for he put himself at risk for the safety of our country and the protection of democracy. Goodman’s identity as a black man cannot be overlooked in the context of the video and adds a great weight to his presence as a uniformed officer. Many of the same lawmakers Goodman sought to protect refuse to even acknowledge racism in America and further demonize efforts that seek equal rights for minorities. Watching Eugene Goodman be put in such a dangerous position for the sake of many who won’t truly appreciate his sacrifice is deeply troubling and difficult to reconcile. There is no question he is a hero, but it is a tragedy that his bravery won’t be recognized by the same people that claim to support the police.

Do you think AOC demonstrated bravery in telling her story? How does such a narrative redefine power? How do her relationships with other staff members provide solace and assist with collective healing?

Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez demonstrated great strength and perseverance in her vulnerability and openness on such a public platform as Instagram live. Unlike a well crafted political speech, her live performance eliminated the middle man of a television broadcast as she directly spoke to her following. Her candor and honesty challenges much of the secrecy in politics that has sowed great mistrust for the government. By choosing to tell her own story she is taking the power back from the Capitol rioters and giving it to the people. This move certainly had political implications, as it is on brand for her to connect with fans and potential future voters in such a manner, but beyond that, she is refusing to be silenced by threats and violence, proving that American democracy was triumphant. Her symbolic survival of the siege and refusal to concede on her beliefs is meant to provide comfort and inspiration that despite the tough times America is experiencing, we will survive. By invoking her relationships with other staff members, Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez creates a picture of a united government and demonstrates that despite the stark divisions in this country, progress can be made by coming together.

What is the difference between Fame and Infamy? What does the insurrection say about the shadow side of celebrityhood and false idolatry?

I think it is difficult to separate fame and infamy because rooted within fame and fandom is a desire to see behind the mask of celebrity into the messy and often traumatic lives of well known figures. A celebrity’s failures and shortcomings make for a far more compelling story than highlighting accomplishments. When a famous person makes a mistake and falls from grace, there is a feeling of reassurance for civilians because it proves that all people are flawed, allowing for normal people to feel more secure in their own failures. Celebrities that openly embrace their flaws can attain a different level of trust with fans, as it mimics an equal dynamic although the power distribution still remains greatly skewed. For many, a significant component of Donald Trump’s appeal was his public struggles in the spotlight, for his fallibility was misinterpreted as a relatable normalcy in rebuke of formality and political maneuvering. Although Donald Trump openly made mistakes, he refused to ever acknowledge them as such, and this resistance to facts was born out of an innate confidence that his supporters sought to mimic. Trump’s fame and infamy are one in the same, for his actions have propelled him to be both revered and reviled by millions. Perhaps Donald Trump’s most significant impact as president will be as a result of his influence as a celebrity and not from his power as president. Donald Trump was able to inspire an insurrection because he is famous; he didn’t have the power to command those civilians to act like he does with the army, he had to rely on his celebrity.

The social media, live-streamed insurrection: what does it mean that the perpetrators of the Capitol siege provided photographic and video evidence of their crimes? Was this more evidence of delusion? Of white privilege?

I believe privilege and delusion are indistinguishable. Privilege affords certain people a life that other’s are not privy to experience, thus creating intense delusions that simply become reality for the privileged. From an outside perspective, the rioters may have seemed delusional, but if in their lives the sum of their experiences has indicated a minimal expectation of resistance or repercussions to their actions, then it is simply a fact of their lives – why would they expect anything different when upping the stakes? The timid response from capitol officers and the delayed arrival of the national guard further maintain the privilege-born delusions that enabled the attempted insurrection in the first place, as it has been reinforced that white people can act with impunity. While the concept of a civilian-led government raid sounds outlandish and delusional, their boldness and total disregard for American customs indicated an inherent confidence that allowed these people to overlook the absurdity of their plots. Although many of the rioters have been arrested after the fact, they were still extremely successful in their motives. Although Joe Biden has been inaugurated, the impact of the siege will be long lasting. The rioters disrupted the world and made history, shaking the very foundation of the country. The widespread documentation of the insurrection led to the arrest and capture of many of the individuals, but also drastically impacted they way all who witnessed the events comprehend American politics and the culture at large. The visual evidence of the insurrection will be manipulated and used for a host of unimaginable reasons for years to come. Although many have ascribed negative attributes to the perpetrators of the Capitol siege, others have glorified them, transforming their image and likeness into a representation of resistance and strength. Without social media, the insurrection would have been far less effective and the long term affect would have been minimal.

Discuss the role of citizen sleuths and the anonymous creator of Faces of the Riot in this ongoing collaboration with the FBI. How does the hive mind serve as a corrective?

The work of “Faces of the Riot” in this situation is extremely important and well intentioned; however, working with the FBI and any government body is a slippery slope. There is no question the Capitol rioters need to be brought to justice, but with civilians aiding the investigation efforts, civilians in opposition will likely feel more emboldened to act. Many of those that stormed the Capital would likely self-describe as internet sleuths that are “fighting to uncover the truth.” Civilian cooperation is essential in solving any crime, but allowing civilians that are driven by no structure or regulations other than their own morals and partiality risks a wide margin of error rooted in personal bias/interest. The concept of a hive mind is potentially scary because of the lack of control once a large body of people are driven by a single directive in accomplishing a shared goal. Although the hive mind’s intentions may be pure, the means of accomplishing said goal will vary based on the individual. Further, those that appear most committed to a cause will likely become one of many leaders for their determination and intensity. Without a means of proper checks and balances of power, the direction of a a hive mind can switch swiftly and without thorough cause. Such switches can be inspired by a charismatic leader, or the desire of a well-connected government agency manipulating information in favor of those with the most social/political power at the time.

With the rise of McCarthyism in the 1950’s, hyperbole and gross over-exaggeration was utilized to manipulate United States civilians into equating communism with an attack on American values, which resulted in an intense national paranoia. Those that were accused of being communists were shunned, expelled from the country, and regarded as anti-American. The FBI’s director J. Edgar Hoover played a pivotal role in this campaign by sowing fear and division within the country as a means of maintaining political influence. The fervor of many Trump supporters and those that ultimately stormed the capital were rooted in misplaced trust in others, which created mob mentality singularly motivated by chaos. While those working to combat the hate witnessed at the Capitol siege can view their work as corrective, there are scores of Americans that fully supported the initial attack. Correction is entirely subjective and can be attempted, but it also entirely depends on access, privilege, and power.