Source: at://did:plc:v2j2g5pdghrwazhbw6gvxtdp/app.bsky.feed.post/3lm3ubz4om22u
The screenshotted posts are another erratic angle on this topic by @vividfaegarden.com that doesn't add up.
2025-04-05 21:19:46.151 / 3lm3ubz4om22u
@vividfaegarden.com's posts aren't really about me or my situation, but I'm going to reference them in my detailed (and, I'm sure, according to her girlfriend @hellscapewanderer.bsky.social) 'manic' breakdown of the points:
2025-04-05 21:19:46.152 / 3lm3uc2kzys2u
Who's the 'we' that's done anything? Society? Corporations? Social media users? Who is this exactly?
2025-04-05 21:19:46.153 / 3lm3uc2tx5s2u
Also, no one 'convinced' anybody that 'existing' on the Internet was the same as being a public figure. I do not remember that ever being presented as the culmination of a cogent argument by much of anyone to any degree of significance (spread or relevancy) since the dawn of the Internet.
2025-04-05 21:19:46.154 / 3lm3uc2tx5t2u
This idea that people are 'convinced' of everything they think runs rampant in @vividfaegarden.com's frankly amateur pontifications and among the pseudo-intellectual circles they run in.
2025-04-05 21:19:46.155 / 3lm3uc2ty532u
On that note, what would make them more intellectual would be to stop pontificating and justify the conclusions they come to with *any* logic or evidence. There is a very noticeable dearth of such.
2025-04-05 21:19:46.156 / 3lm3uc35sll2u
I believe it's presented that way to get a foot in the door on the idea that it's simply a matter of 'convincing' people of the opposite and that there is no correlation to objective reality reflected in anyone's models of thought or their resultant conclusions on this.
2025-04-05 21:19:46.157 / 3lm3uc35slm2u
But, again, who's doing the convincing? Well, they're not defined, but it's clearly, by connotation ("worst") 'bad people,' so insert your preferred villain here. Isn't that handy?
2025-04-05 21:19:46.158 / 3lm3uc35tku2u
This all stems from a long line of primacy-of-consciousness trickling down in various forms of idealism, Modernism, Postmodernism, and Poststructuralism, where language is what "creates" reality in some popular Yuval Harari-esque intersubjective demesne from which we are unable to escape.
2025-04-05 21:19:46.159 / 3lm3uc35tkv2u
The latter two schools of thought are, as my good friend and professional Peer Counselor and famed YouTuber @redlianak.bsky.social once described the Jungian school of psychology, "literary theory posing as [philosophy]."
2025-04-05 21:19:46.160 / 3lm3uc35tkw2u
Second, the term 'existing on the Internet' is misdirection. It's a style of package deal built out of vagueness that must be accepted or rejected all at once.
2025-04-05 21:19:46.161 / 3lm3uc3h5g62u
The vagueness offers an umbrella for all activities that might be engaged in online, from publishing, posting, lurking, having an account, watching, commenting, and even trolling. Such obscurantism is suspect due to its obliteration of all context, nuance, or pertinent specifics.
2025-04-05 21:19:46.162 / 3lm3uc3h6fg2u
Beyond that, the verbiage is just wrong on the surface. You don't 'exist' on the Internet as the Internet is not a 'place' where you can 'exist.' It has no corporeal form; it's entirely abstract. While people construct various connectively-spoked loci, it all rests on participation, not existence.
2025-04-05 21:19:46.163 / 3lm3uc3h6fh2u
You *participate* on the Internet, whether it be in text VR, 3D VR, social media, forums, BBSs, chat rooms, publishing videos, commenting, liking, and again, trolling. It's a *participation* that always belies your true nature as existing outside of it.
2025-04-05 21:19:46.164 / 3lm3uc3h6fi2u
If I'm only 'existing' then I can be unfairly victimized for doing nothing, which means it's more about who I am or what I'm useful for by nature.
2025-04-05 21:19:46.165 / 3lm3uc3h6fj2u
But, on the Internet, we don't just 'exist,' as anything we might be responsible for being on the Internet (not something others have posted) is only there by active participation.
2025-04-05 21:19:46.166 / 3lm3uc3h6fk2u
That specific information is our responsibility because we put it up there, and so, when someone comes along and "consumes" it like an anthropomorphic lawnmower, interacts, or reacts to it (otherwise, why is it there?), then the fact that happened is *on us.*
2025-04-05 21:19:46.167 / 3lm3uc3h6fl2u
The contents of those interactions isn't necessarily on us, but the fact it was able to happen is. The Internet isn't a substratum of accidental being, it's a forum where participation is the primary signifier of 'existence.'
2025-04-05 21:19:46.168 / 3lm3uc3h7et2u
It's the only way you can 'exist' on the Internet; otherwise, no one really "knows" you *on the Internet,* almost like you don't 'exist.'
2025-04-05 21:19:46.169 / 3lm3uc3h7eu2u
Let's move on to the second-to-last bit: the *public* figure. I can tell you that @vividfaegarden.com and her girlfriend @hellscapewanderer.bsky.social both have pushed (mostly Saige, being Vivid) for this idea of the publicly private, or the privately public, which doesn't mean anything at all.
2025-04-05 21:19:46.170 / 3lm3uc3h7ev2u
I'll clear it up: it's not a notion of public or private, but a 'flattening' (as they put it) of two poles on a dichotomous spectrum to create what *I* call the originator's absolute information control. It's not a spectrum, it's an absolute.
2025-04-05 21:19:46.171 / 3lm3uc3n5sn2u
The idea is that if someone originates or is the person who the information is about, they have complete and total control of that information and its expression outside of themselves, in the broader aggregate of everyone.
2025-04-05 21:19:46.172 / 3lm3uc3n5so2u
If they say something to someone, no one is to ever repeat it (including the person they said it to) no matter 'where' it happened or how.
2025-04-05 21:19:46.173 / 3lm3uc3n5sp2u
The context isn't important since there isn't any notion of public or private anymore. If someone does something, even in what we would consider public, anything at all it seems (including say, murder), then
2025-04-05 21:19:46.174 / 3lm3uc3n5sq2u
no one should ever reveal anything about it because it's not *their* information, as if it's simply an abstraction like intellectual property. It's not abstract information, though; it's the observation of a factual deed. It's a record of reality by an observer as they viewed it.
2025-04-05 21:19:46.175 / 3lm3uc3n5sr2u
The last bit is the figure part of the "public figure." @vividfaegarden.com goes on to illustrate that she was referring to people like politicians and mainstream celebrities.
2025-04-05 21:19:46.176 / 3lm3uc3n5ss2u
She states that "we" (who?) somehow "convinced" (how?) people that "existing" (participating really) on the Internet is equivalent to being a "public figure."
2025-04-05 21:19:46.177 / 3lm3uc3txlk2u
But that didn't happen, as far as I can tell. It makes sense if the notions of public and private never really existed and there is only absolute information control, but that doesn't align with the reality of separate consciousnesses observing an objective existence.
2025-04-05 21:19:46.178 / 3lm3uc3txll2u
Comparing a BlueSky account to a public figure of "public interest" is an argument of biased hyperbole. It's an exaggeration of an argument that lacks any significant traction and a comparison that no one seriously makes.
2025-04-05 21:19:46.179 / 3lm3uc3txlm2u
I'm pretty confident that neither I nor @merrystarchild.bsky.social said anyone was just like a celebrity or politician or had acquired any level of "public interest," as @vividfaegarden.com had put it. It's *not* a matter of "public interest," it's a matter of accessibility.
2025-04-05 21:19:46.180 / 3lm3uc3tyku2u
I'm bring up *our* argument because we're the most recent people to bring up the topic (besides everything that's happened before). She only saw this, by the way, *after* she *deleted* things to show "good faith" of not wishing to ever interact with us again on any platform.
2025-04-05 21:19:46.181 / 3lm3uc44wp42u
Great? I didn't ask for any "good faith"? I didn't ask to be left alone? You're projecting that on to me? And, well, as we can see, you didn't mean it anyway, just like @ladydiabolique.bsky.social.
2025-04-05 21:19:46.182 / 3lm3uc44wp52u
Public is the default state and, historically, the primary context of acting for a very long time within tribes. It wasn't until groups of large enough populations came about due to various innovations and technologies that private became a thing.
2025-04-05 21:19:46.183 / 3lm3uc4gief2u
Not everyone could be around, *and* people could hide in houses and from other people enough that they might never know each other even though they live in the same town. Privacy resulted from liberating man from men, resulting in what we might call civilization along the lines of "civilized."
2025-04-05 21:19:46.184 / 3lm3uc4gieg2u
This continuing individuation, due to technology, has erupted now into minorities gaining a strong voice and fighting back against the oppressive pressures towards normativity brought on by everything having to be public.
2025-04-05 21:19:46.185 / 3lm3uc4gieh2u
Individualism, not collectivism, has been the driving force on this front. Privacy exists because of individualism.
2025-04-05 21:19:46.186 / 3lm3uc4giei2u
And the oppression of the constant public eye is what I believe @vividfaegarden.com is trying to combat, despite posting selfies for attention and simultaneously complaining about being "on" all the time.
2025-04-05 21:19:46.187 / 3lm3uc4giej2u
This dissonance builds a world of absolute information control as a solution, but due to its predication on a contradiction, it means nothing.
2025-04-05 21:19:46.188 / 3lm3uc4ngzj2u
The exaggeration of "public figure," an elevation of argument that I know we have never made, is predicated on a previous post of @vividfaegarden.com's where she tries to justify her stance with the idea of "public interest."
2025-04-05 21:19:46.189 / 3lm3uc4nkwj2u
This rhetorical point is another misdirection of *our* argument at the least (I can guess she's vague posting about it, but I have no idea), which is not about "public interest" at all.
2025-04-05 21:19:46.190 / 3lm3uc5ud5z2u
"Public interest" is collectivist based, where information about you is only shared because a large number of people say so (which is weird considering privacy by nature is individualist).
2025-04-05 21:19:46.191 / 3lm3uc5ue5b2u
But neither I nor @merrystarchild.bsky.social base anything on collectivism.
2025-04-05 21:19:46.192 / 3lm3uc5ue5c2u
Our argument has always remained that the notion of public (things that happen in spaces understood to be shared by everyone) and private (things that happen in places understood to *not* be shared by everyone with increasing exclusivity) is the primary, not opinions *on* it or interests *in* it.
2025-04-05 21:19:46.193 / 3lm3uc64iv22u
If you go 'somewhere' like the Internet (since we can 'exist' on it I guess) and post something that anyone can reasonably see (having to make an account is reasonable access, and only having to log out to 'evade' a block is even more public) then it's public and you are responsible for it.
2025-04-05 21:19:46.194 / 3lm3uc64iv32u
The fact it's public means anyone can disseminate it, talk about it, comment on it (particularly in their 'own' public space), and so on.
2025-04-05 21:19:46.195 / 3lm3uc64iv42u
Don't agree yet? For instance, someone might have a restraining order against me, but also take out a massive billboard and put information about themselves on it.
2025-04-05 21:19:46.196 / 3lm3uc64iv52u
It is on my way to work as part of my commute, so I'll see it daily. Is it reasonable for them to assume I will see it, or is it more reasonable for me to drive a different, longer road because I am not legally allowed to see it?
2025-04-05 21:19:46.197 / 3lm3uc64juf2u
That's the Internet when you post publicly, even if you have secretive dissenters in your midst who don't like what you're doing and send your more private postings to people you don't like who don't have access to it.
2025-04-05 21:19:46.198 / 3lm3uc64ktn2u
That's more nuanced, but, hey, if a paywall is the only thing blocking someone, and what they send is *about* the person they're sending it to, then… ?
2025-04-05 21:19:46.199 / 3lm3uc64kto2u
That's the Internet. It's a fact. And it's for a very objective reason. No one had to convince anyone of anything. People have to be convinced of privacy, actually, not the other way around.
2025-04-05 21:19:46.200 / 3lm3uc64ktp2u
The Internet doesn't impose special rules simply because it makes being public that much easier and more accessible. People couldn't do it before, but now everyone can record and publish their thoughts at the drop of a hat, sometimes for money, but they're not prepared to be public.
2025-04-05 21:19:46.201 / 3lm3uc64ktq2u
That's @vividfaegarden.com, and now she's complaining because @merrystarchild.bsky.social and I didn't let her abusively erase our context in interacting with her and showed how she and her girlfriend @hellscapewanderer.bsky.social acted towards us.
2025-04-05 21:19:46.202 / 3lm3uc64lsy2u
They were stigmatizing, aggressively dismissive, crybullied, ableist, sexist, racist, and most importantly, after telling me they *didn't* act like anything like @ladydiabolique.bsky.social (and never really did, exactly), they acted *exactly* like Poppy.
2025-04-05 21:19:46.203 / 3lm3uc6ehri2u
They're sore that someone is talking about what they did, and it's hurting their feelings, and they can't do a damn thing about it to control the narrative.
2025-04-05 21:19:46.204 / 3lm3uc6laky2u
I advise you not to buy into this contradictory, exaggerated, misdirecting nonsense and assert your rights. It's a guilt trip designed to aid abusers by obliterating the ability to examine what they did.
2025-04-05 21:19:46.205 / 3lm3uc6lakz2u
It's nonsense platforms like BlueSky have adopted (Twitter has shed it, finally) to "protect" people and "improve" things, but it's only served, in my opinion, to embolden and enable more abuse because the abuser can obscure their actions after the fact.
2025-04-05 21:19:46.206 / 3lm3uc6lal22u
Just like @vividfaegarden.com and @hellscapewanderer.bsky.social tried to do first by non-apologetic press release to everyone but us, *as if they were critical public figures* because, who are they talking to?
2025-04-05 21:19:46.207 / 3lm3uc6lt4s2u
These are highly inaccurate and biased interpretations of the events and what was said, just to note, and have already been responded to and refuted by us:
bywordofmaus.com/blog-1/the-b…
2025-04-05 21:19:46.208 / 3lm3ucazdls2u
bywordofmaus.com/blog-1/episo…
2025-04-05 21:19:46.209 / 3lm3ucbw4ik2u
Then, they tried to make it our problem, especially the consequences they faced from others, specifically my responsibility (which I refused to take on).
Folks, AIO, or is this a veiled death threat?
2025-04-05 21:19:46.210 / 3lm3ucdb3ik2u
Finally, following the abuser's escalation pattern by cue card, it was in a show of "good faith" in a vaguely legal threat of action ("exploration").
2025-04-05 21:19:46.211 / 3lm3ucesngk2u
Oh, good thing she posted it one Skeet, otherwise it could be seen as 'manic' by her girlfriend @hellscapewanderer.bsky.social and we wouldn't want that kind of abuse towards an already abused woman.
2025-04-05 21:19:46.212 / 3lm3ucgzg3c2u
Also, like, two of those are boundaries and the rest of them are clearly demands on my behavior and claims on my rights, so… yeah, gonna ignore those. I have *not* directly contacted or interacted with them since *they blocked me and my husband.*
2025-04-05 21:19:46.213 / 3lm3ucha6us2u
Writing shit like this is like breathing air to me. I've been doing it my *entire* life to varying degrees of success and finesse. If you want to show your appreciation for what I'm taking the time and interest in to post,
2025-04-05 21:19:46.214 / 3lm3ucha7u22u
the best two ways to do that are to either "engage" (like, repost, quote, post, or reply) and/or send a donation my way via ko-fi.com/asherwolfstein
2025-04-05 21:19:46.215 / 3lm3ucha7u32u
This is a reminder that my weblog, asherwolfstein.com, is coming soon. I will eventually fill it with piles of this stuff for free (I don't plan on ever having a subscription or paywall). Thanks!
2025-04-05 21:19:46.216 / 3lm3uci4dbd2u
Thank you for the supportive comments :-). I am pleased to see your list exists and, if I may, would like to propose two more candidates with references.
2025-04-06 03:18:12.876 / 3lm4icxjss32u
From my viewpoint, I have been the target of this type of behavior for the last six months when, in reality, they don't "know" what they claim about me.
2025-04-06 03:18:12.877 / 3lm4icxwmx32u
But, I don't want to tell you what conclusion to come to ahead of time too much. I'd much rather you come to your own conclusions.
2025-04-06 03:18:12.878 / 3lm4icxwnwd2u
@ladydiabolique.bsky.social is the first proposal. A confrontation between me and this user on Twitter in September/October 2024 set off this entire situation I've been posting about since.
Here is more information on that:
2025-04-06 03:18:12.879 / 3lm4icxwovl2u
I know I can be abrasive, but, at the same time, I don't think that merits elevating potentially unpleasant behavior towards full-blown mental illness, particularly conditions seen by many as inherently dangerous.
2025-04-06 03:18:12.880 / 3lm4icy7g732u
That's where @redlianak.bsky.social comes in. I've written extensively about her on my timeline because, for 5 years, my husband ( @merrystarchild.bsky.social ) and I were good friends with her (we met in real life and spent time together for an extended period twice;
2025-04-06 03:18:12.881 / 3lm4icy7h6d2u
this isn't a parasocial relationship). She is now a YouTuber and radio show host ( nottherapyshow.com ) and presents herself as a Peer Counselor.
In contrast, I'm a legally disabled adult (for mental health reasons) and considered at-risk due to the nature of some of my hospitalizations.
2025-04-06 03:18:12.882 / 3lm4icyoiml2u
This isn't a plea for guilt or pity, but a declaration of what I see the situation to be. I have been hospitalized 17 times in the last 20 years, so any sort of justification for authorities in the mental health field to institutionalize me again is a concern for me.
2025-04-06 03:18:12.883 / 3lm4iczyw232u
I was once 90-day certified in Colorado, and that stripped me of most all of my rights because I became a ward of the state. That was frightening.
2025-04-06 03:18:12.884 / 3lm4iczywzd2u
This is why I state my side. It's not 'drama' to me, and it's not about my ego (although it has also ostracized me from indie game developers as well), it's about literally being safe.
2025-04-06 03:18:12.885 / 3lm4iczywze2u
I have not been provided a reason to think that @redlianak.bsky.social risks any of those things, so they don't seem to matter.
2025-04-06 03:18:12.886 / 3lm4iczywzf2u
The major issue is, due to the previously mentioned incident, @redlianak.bsky.social, @merrystarchild.bsky.social, and I had a very volatile confrontation. This is simply what happened:
2025-04-06 03:18:12.887 / 3lm4id27tpv2u
I *never* refused to do anything and I think I did a lot to try to meet her where she was at. I was also *never* involved with her project (my husband was), and my husband *never* said our 20 year relationship was responsible for any significant delay. His employment status was.
2025-04-06 03:18:12.888 / 3lm4id2grfn2u
I succeeded in practicing empathy while maintaining boundaries (this is *my* perspective on this situation).
2025-04-06 03:18:12.889 / 3lm4id2grfo2u
But not according to @redlianak.bsky.social, hence the problem:
2025-04-06 03:18:12.890 / 3lm4id2grfp2u
@redlianak.bsky.social was never my therapist or counselor, and she's definitely not a therapist, as she says. We were friends, good friends. The things she says about my mental state are based on random details my spouse and I shared, but her interpretation lacks a lot of accuracy.
2025-04-06 03:18:12.891 / 3lm4id3c2h72u
The situation she describes and has described since is just not accurate. This is what has led to the situation I'm giving attention to with @vividfaegarden.com and @hellscapewanderer.bsky.social.
2025-04-06 03:18:12.892 / 3lm4id3iv772u
All of these individuals are connected. @redlianak.bsky.social has been building an inaccurate image of me to others over a period of time. And, unlike she claims, people *do* know who she's talking about.
Here are just a few other things she's written. I will let you judge for yourself.
2025-04-06 03:18:12.893 / 3lm4id3sxhp2u
These are in response to this article by my husband @merrystarchild.bsky.social:
2025-04-06 03:18:12.894 / 3lm4id5bnm72u
Elsewhere, in less public areas (her Patreon) my friends have shared with me (I did not go there myself) she has described me as so disturbed that it becomes *believable* that *I'm* the impersonator (Giancarlo Vanzzini) sending terrible *anonymous* messages to people.
2025-04-06 03:18:12.895 / 3lm4idamvap2u
She describes our final confrontation as me having "no empathy" at all by quoting me mimicking *her treatment of me.* And so, of course, I do not sympathize or understand when people receive these horrible messages and just see it as an "attack" on me.
It goes on and on…
And it's just not true.
2025-04-06 03:18:12.896 / 3lm4idbz77p2u
[empty post text]
2025-04-06 03:18:12.897 / 3lm4idbza6x2u
Here's a thread on the now obliterated confrontation between me, @merrystarchild.bsky.social, @vividfaegarden.com, and @hellscapewanderer.bsky.social that puts everything into my perspective, and restores my deleted context.
2025-04-06 03:18:12.898 / 3lm4idbzb672u
In that thread I show that I believe it's reasonable for me to infer that the knowledge that @vividfaegarden.com and @spicycerise.bsky.social (one of Vivid's alters) all comes from @ladydiabolique.bsky.social and @redlianak.bsky.social (the presumed expert I imagine) and the video she put out.
2025-04-06 03:18:12.899 / 3lm4idca4vh2u
This is essentially a snapshot of what I believe to be a campaign against me, especially driven in response to my not "walking away" and stating my side of things. The goal, it appears, is to get me to "go away" after throwing me under the bus and blaming *my mental illness* for
2025-04-06 03:18:12.900 / 3lm4idcjtgx2u
the cancellation of a project that @redlianak.bsky.social wanted to get rid of anyway, and every time I don't the stigmatization, ostracism, and claims of anti-social profound disturbance increase rather than address anything @merrystarchild.bsky.social and I write about it.
2025-04-06 03:18:12.901 / 3lm4idcjug72u
Thank you for your hopeful consideration.
I know I'm long-winded and it takes much more effort to whittle it all down than to type it out as it occurs to me. This is due to my now exacerbated ADHD after last year's ECT treatments finally got my chronic depression under control.
2025-04-06 03:18:12.902 / 3lm4idcqq5h2u
Please forgive the excesses. I'm making a blog where I can write more freely and in a better format.
2025-04-06 03:18:12.903 / 3lm4idcqq5i2u
ATProto root record: 3lm3ubz4om22u