fuzzy post-it

it has come to my attention that there is a post going around

if you don’t know what i’m talking about then just move along, probably

what is even the protocol here? i’m well aware that dismantling a poor argument is a bad idea — the mere act of paying so much attention to it can lend it credibility.

so instead, i ask this of you: if you have read the post in question, read it again. the long version.

and this time, consider some things.

consider that five times, the author says he has problems with paranoia. thirteen times, he apologizes for things that happened.

consider that there are several paragraphs regarding whether mel knew about a serious car accident that wrecked the only car and lost a family member, and the provided proof is a chat log where he says only “her mom got into an accident”.

consider that a friend of a friend of the author suspects an ex is being manipulated based (i assume) purely on seeing the ex hang around us, and this is presented as evidence of a pattern of abuse.

consider that there are some serious accusations about gaslighting, in the same post as “i may not remember a lot of the con…”. consider that the post unavoidably suggests mel’s memory is the one faulty, wherever the two disagree on what happened.

consider that for all the mentions of the author’s issues and accusations of ableism, it is left unmentioned that mel’s mom gaslighted her constantly as a kid, leaving her particularly sensitive to it.

consider that there are several screenfuls devoted to a laptop purchased as a gift, which seem to imply the author is resentful for being put in the awkward position of keeping it, after no one asked for it back.

consider that for all the provided chatlogs, few of them are “evidence” of anything mel didn’t basically say in her public tumblr post.

consider that many of the people reblogging see this as an excuse to “finally” believe their own preconceived notions. yet strangely, none of them have anything concrete to add themselves.

i am sorry to have seen this not work out, and believe me when i say it took its toll on mel. she tried very hard, but the two of them were too distant, and the gap could not be bridged. it was a shame all around.

fwiw, i bought the laptop before the con and mailed it afterwards, as, i don’t know, a nice sendoff. sorry everything blew up, but here’s the thing i got you anyway, go make cool stuff with it. i was well and truly sad to see some half a dozen posts complaining about it, as though i had only brought more grief into his life, despite what a burden his old laptop had been.

i don’t think mel should’ve written the con post she did. but she did. and she will next time, too. oh well.

this “callout” is ludicrous.

i ask that you read it again, because i suspect many people jumping on this bandwagon have not read it at all. what in here paints mel as abusive, manipulative? which of these 86 pages? i see complaints about how the con went, and how mel portrayed it afterwards. i see complaints about mistakes that have long since been rectified and apologized for. i see examples of how the two of them are fundamentally incompatible, which is why they broke up over a year ago and have barely spoken since. where is the cruelty, the damning evidence, the point?

let me tell you about mel. mel is a huge pain in the ass — because she works really hard for the people and ideas she cares about, and she expects the people around her to do the same. because she doesn’t put up with weasely excuses or people being needless dickholes. because she says what she thinks and she stands by it. that’s why people “knew it” or “got bad vibes” or “thought she was disrespectful”: she is brash and passionate, whereas many artists keep their heads down to avoid offending their audiences with, i don’t know, thoughts.

so yes, mel would have asked for a lot of songs, from someone she thought was collaborating with her, while she was pouring her entire life into the corresponding art. yes, mel would have expected helpers to make an active effort to help. yes, mel would have drawn constantly while at a convention, because otherwise she sees it as time lost that she could’ve spent working even more. yes, mel would have expected someone with issues to own them and discuss them and work at them. like she does for me, for us.

it seems the author expected mel to compensate for, or maybe just plain ignore, all of his problems. but they are called “problems” for a reason. i am truly sorry for the hand life has dealt for him, and i hope he finds help someday. because right now it appears he wishes to blame anyone who cannot immediately intuit how his thought process works.

he does not understand that asking someone for a favor for another friend is frowned upon because it’s hard to say no to. he does not understand that when he himself says he doesn’t remember the better part of a week, his memory may not be completely reliable. he does not understand that he is not the only one who feels he has airtight reasons behind all of his actions.

i don’t doubt that he believes everything in his post. which leaves me at a loss. what am i to do? be angry? for what? he believes he is telling the truth. he believes he is warning the internet about a monster. but i know he is chasing phantoms.

i don’t know. if you didn’t believe the post, you still don’t now; if you did believe it, you still do. either way, you probably won’t go back and reread it like i asked, because your mind is already made up. perhaps i’ve just wasted my time here. but leaving it completely unanswered didn’t seem right, either.

whatever you do, don’t give the author a hard time. if he already believes he is a victim, what is to be gained by making him more of one? i wish we weren’t all so eager to dogpile, to leave our mark as part of the righteous cause, for the few minutes that it burns most brightly. i do it, you do it, a thousand people have done it to mel this day.

i wish him well in his future endeavors.