Personal Woes and Advice 5

[lio45]

To be clear, lio45 is both of those things, hence him following me from thread to thread to yet other thread to tell me "I don't hate you, but..."

I'm not "following you from thread to thread". I've been on this forum for a decade and have been a participant in the various iterations of the RWA and PWA threads since before you joined.

Though, just for lio45' sake: they were clear enough what they were banning me for, and my attitude didn't come into it. They outright stated that they were banning me for who I am, and the staff member went on his tirade explicitly because of who I am, not because of anything I'd done. That explicit enough, compadre?

Actually, no, it's not clear enough, because "who you are" can very well be "a problematic troublemaker who imagines that everyone hates them and keeps escalating barely perceptible slights into huge issues, single-handedly generating very public fusses in the store that wouldn't have needed happen at all".

Again, I'm just floating the idea, based on my own observations. Obviously it's just a theory; maybe you're right and they're horrible people and you did absolutely nothing to cause any trouble.

But of course, lio45's right and I just have a major victim complex here.

Maybe, maybe not, though in any case, I honestly think it's more helpful than harmful to bring this hypothesis up for your consideration.

[lio45]

REALLY? You've never met managers or owners who are prejudiced or even just a jerk?

Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of good people working as managers and plenty of good people who own stores. But to say such good people are so overwhelmingly in the majority that we can take their side without further evidence is a bit much.

Well, that's the thing: we do have further evidence, gathered over the years on this forum. It really, really, really doesn't take much to make Jormengand very angry and (verbally at least) aggressive. I wouldn't be surprised to see them pick a fight with the well-meaning, business-oriented average store manager (who wouldn't ban a paying customer from the premises unless they gave them a really good reason to).

[Jormengand]

Actually, no, it's not clear enough, because "who you are" can very well be "a problematic troublemaker who imagines that everyone hates them and keeps escalating barely perceptible slights into huge issues, single-handedly generating very public fusses in the store that wouldn't have needed happen at all".

No, they were clear that it was because I was a member of the minority group that I'm talking about. The staff member was clear that the reason that he believed that I was a "Defective human being" and should be "Ostracised from society" - his words, not mine - because I was a member of the group in question. The manager was clear that the reason he was asking me to leave was because I was a member of the minority group in question. My conduct was never called into question (probably because I'm not actually the troublemaker you like to believe I am). The only thing that I was banned for was having the temerity to have a certain quality which is not at all tied to any action I have ever undertaken.

Of course, you knew that, because I said "Not for anything I'd done" in the post you just quoted, but yet you chose to continue insinuating that it was my fault. Let me be clear: it was not, I am certain it was not, I don't for one moment believe that you believe it is, and I quite frankly won't brook any further rhetorical sleight of hand to the effect of trying to imply or outright state that it might have been.

Stop trying to cause further trouble. Who, exactly, do you think you're helping?

[lio45]

No, they were clear that it was because I was a member of the minority group that I'm talking about.

Yeah, I know that's clear to you. I can read. But it's still self-diagnosed. It's like when Bartmanhomer says that "it's clear" that this customer service girl wants to go on a date with him and probably marry him too, because she smiled at him once. When dispensing advice on this forum, we always have to account for the possibility that the poster's interpretation might not be a neutral, factual analysis of their situation.

The staff member was clear that the reason that he believed that I was a "Defective human being" and should be "Ostracised from society" - his words, not mine - because I was a member of the group in question. The manager was clear that the reason he was asking me to leave was because I was a member of the minority group in question. My conduct was never called into question (probably because I'm not actually the troublemaker you like to believe I am). The only thing that I was banned for was having the temerity to have a certain quality which is not at all tied to any action I have ever undertaken.

Okay, I suppose I could consider granting you the point at this time, if you're that sure... Just curious though: you've been a customer there for how long exactly? Why did they suddenly wake up one morning out of nowhere with the firm idea you should be ostracized from society, if that store employee used to be a friend of yours as you said? Makes little sense, and frankly the general situation, from what you posted, still (to me) kind of points to you making a fuss without you thinking you made a fuss.

Who, exactly, do you think you're helping?

You. Who else?

[lio45]

Alternatively, if you think dehro's idea might work for you (stop shaking with fury, decide that those two are irredeemable total idiots, forget that their store even exists, find a new gaming store where you'll be welcome, and immediately put all of this behind you once and for all), then yeah, that's a possibility too.

[Jormengand]

Yeah, I know that's clear to you. I can read. But it's still self-diagnosed. It's like when Bartmanhomer says that "it's clear" that this customer service girl wants to go on a date with him and probably marry him too, because she smiled at him once. When dispensing advice on this forum, we always have to account for the possibility that the poster's interpretation might not be a neutral, factual analysis of their situation.

The difference is that Bartmanhomer is making pathologically incompetent leaps of logic and I am repeating word-for-word what was actually said.

Okay, I suppose I could consider granting you the point at this time, if you're that sure... Just curious though: you've been a customer there for how long exactly?

About nine years.

Why did they suddenly wake up one morning out of nowhere with the firm idea you should be ostracized from society, if that store employee used to be a friend of yours as you said?

Because. He. Found. Out. That. I. Was. In. The. Minority. Group. In. Question. And yes, yes he was explicit about the fact that that was the reason why.

Makes little sense

Welcome to prejudice and discrimination. Making little sense is sorta one of the salient features.

and frankly the general situation, from what you posted, still (to me) kind of points to you making a fuss without you thinking you made a fuss.

That's because you are making pathologically incompetent leaps of logic.

You. Who else?

If you think that this is what qualifies as "Helping" then you are under a very grave misapprehension indeed.

[lio45]

The difference is that Bartmanhomer is making pathologically incompetent leaps of logic and I am repeating word-for-word what was actually said.



About nine years.


Because. He. Found. Out. That. I. Was. In. The. Minority. Group. In. Question. And yes, yes he was explicit about the fact that that was the reason why.



Welcome to prejudice and discrimination. Making little sense is sorta one of the salient features.



That's because you are making pathologically incompetent leaps of logic.



If you think that this is what qualifies as "Helping" then you are under a very grave misapprehension indeed.

Yeah, you've managed to convince me now - though I really had to read between the lines. (BTW, the only reason I could connect the dots was that I still recalled now-deleted exchanges; anyone else reading who didn't get to see those will probably have to stay in the dark.)

To be on the safe side, I'd suggest keeping it totally under wraps to anyone you're not 100% sure you can trust with it, unfortunately.

[Bartmanhomer]

The difference is that Bartmanhomer is making pathologically incompetent leaps of logic and I am repeating word-for-word what was actually said.



About nine years.


Because. He. Found. Out. That. I. Was. In. The. Minority. Group. In. Question. And yes, yes he was explicit about the fact that that was the reason why.



Welcome to prejudice and discrimination. Making little sense is sorta one of the salient features.



That's because you are making pathologically incompetent leaps of logic.



If you think that this is what qualifies as "Helping" then you are under a very grave misapprehension indeed.

Did someone My name?

[Jormengand]

Yeah, you've managed to convince me now - though I really had to read between the lines. (BTW, the only reason I could connect the dots was that I still recalled now-deleted exchanges; anyone else reading who didn't get to see those will probably have to stay in the dark.)

To be on the safe side, I'd suggest keeping it totally under wraps to anyone you're not 100% sure you can trust with it, unfortunately.

Oh, yes, you were there when that conversation occurred. But I'm impressed you managed to work it out. No, really, that's genuinely impressive.

To be clear, they only knew that I was, as mentioned, part of the group in question, and I've been quite clear to them that I haven't done anything untoward, illegal or abusive - in fact, they haven't a clue what I have or haven't done.

I would say you should probably cut out the bit that makes it obvious, but this post also probably makes it obvious. Oh well. Just as well I'm sick of hiding it, no?

[lio45]

- in fact, they haven't a clue what I have or haven't done.

Which is probably why they went ahead and imagined the worst... or even just the average, which I suppose to them was already morally repugnant enough.

BTW, I edited out my post to cut it precisely where you had stopped your quote.

[Jormengand]

Which is probably why they went ahead and imagined the worst... or even just the average, which I suppose to them was already morally repugnant enough.

BTW, I edited out my post to cut it precisely where you had stopped your quote.

Oh no, it's not that they think that I have done anything wrong, they think that I will do something wrong, because you know that all people like me do that kind of terrible thing. Obviously. I hope I don't need blue text here, especially since that's practically a statistical impossibility. I'm a threat, you see.

On an unrelated note, the Disclosure and Barring Service has cleared me as fit to work with children and adults at risk of harm, but I'm sure the manager of this store knows better than the people whose job it is to make this kind of decision, right? Riiiiiiiiight?

Maybe I really should just hide it, it's true. But then, if everyone just hid things that would get them oppressed, then they'd never stop being oppressed. There's something to be said for standing up and being counted.

[Chen]

@Jormengand even if you’re not a member of a federal or state recognized protected class businesses still need to provide a legitimate reason for refusing service. Arbitrary refusal of service like “Im not serving you because I dont like your face” is in fact not legal despite having a pretty (or ugly) face not being a protected characteristic.

[WarKitty]

@Jormengand even if you’re not a member of a federal or state recognized protected class businesses still need to provide a legitimate reason for refusing service. Arbitrary refusal of service like “Im not serving you because I dont like your face” is in fact not legal despite having a pretty (or ugly) face not being a protected characteristic.

I'm not sure this is accurate? I've always been told that refusal of service because "I don't like you" is legal - it's just not a good idea from a business perspective because it opens you up to liability (because refusal for "no reason" is a common cover for refusal due to a protected class).

That aside, even if it is illegal, there's almost certainly no way to challenge it without the matter given becoming publicized, which would probably not help anything.

Jormengand, don't have much to say other than that sucks.

[Jormengand]

This is the UK, and you're talking about federal and state law, so we're probably not on the same page here; in the UK, people have the right to refuse service on the basis of anything that isn't a protected characteristic.

[HalfTangible]

@Jormengand even if you’re not a member of a federal or state recognized protected class businesses still need to provide a legitimate reason for refusing service. Arbitrary refusal of service like “Im not serving you because I dont like your face” is in fact not legal despite having a pretty (or ugly) face not being a protected characteristic.

This isn't the case, at least not in the US. While there are exceptions (around where I live you have to give someone a free glass of water if they ask) you can legally refuse service to anyone for any reason. It's just a really stupid business decision, because not only are you turning THAT customer away, but also everyone who thinks you shouldn't refuse service to the person in question. Which, if your reason is so arbitrary as "I don't like your face", is gonna be a TON of people.

[Liquor Box]

This is the UK, and you're talking about federal and state law, so we're probably not on the same page here; in the UK, people have the right to refuse service on the basis of anything that isn't a protected characteristic.

Sex, sexual orientation and gender reassignment are all protected ground in UK under the Equality Act 2010. I presume you know that, and it is not one of these things (I only mention them because I think you have been open on this forum about not identifying as binary/straight/cis before)?

On the face of what you are saying, it does sound abhorrent that you have been banned. I don't think I can say much more without knowing what happened and what you are talking about.

[Jormengand]

Sex, sexual orientation and gender reassignment are all protected ground in UK under the Equality Act 2010. I presume you know that, and it is not one of these things (I only mention them because I think you have been open on this forum about not identifying as binary/straight/cis before)?

It is indeed not one of those things, unfortunately. I'm aware of what the laws are on this; I've checked them thoroughly.

[lio45]

This isn't the case, at least not in the US. While there are exceptions (around where I live you have to give someone a free glass of water if they ask) you can legally refuse service to anyone for any reason.

That seems ridiculously incorrect. I have a hard time believing that in your neck of the woods you can, say, legally refuse service to someone solely because they're black. You'd need some kind of exemption from Federal law for that...

[lio45]

On an unrelated note, the Disclosure and Barring Service has cleared me as fit to work with children and adults at risk of harm, but I'm sure the manager of this store knows better than the people whose job it is to make this kind of decision, right? Riiiiiiiiight?

That's on a related note, not an unrelated one. This (compelling) argument didn't work on them? (I'm assuming you tried.)

Maybe I really should just hide it, it's true. But then, if everyone just hid things that would get them oppressed, then they'd never stop being oppressed. There's something to be said for standing up and being counted.

Honestly, your best approach would be to hide it, while working privately - if you want - on a personal crusade to have the laws slightly updated so they're less black-and-white and open to the possibility of case-by-case. Do you have a network of other people who are in the same situation as you...?

Seems to me the risk/reward balance for you is totally in favor of you just hiding it for the time being. I think you can work on the oppression angle from behind the curtain while still having a strict policy of not "coming out" to acquaintances you're not sure you can trust about it.

[WarKitty]

That seems ridiculously incorrect. I have a hard time believing that in your neck of the woods you can, say, legally refuse service to someone solely because they're black. You'd need some kind of exemption from Federal law for that...

Technically, it should be you can legally refuse service to anyone for any reason that isn't specifically a reason listed in the law that you can't refuse service to someone.

[HalfTangible]

That seems ridiculously incorrect. I have a hard time believing that in your neck of the woods you can, say, legally refuse service to someone solely because they're black. You'd need some kind of exemption from Federal law for that...

We are not slaves, lio. Unless we're talking very specific companies and/or circumstances (aforementioned water, or a hospital) you are not obligated to be served just because you want to be. Yes, you can refuse service to someone solely because they're black. I know this because of recent cases where people can be refused service on religious grounds and the customers' political affiliations.

Your business will immediately tank, you'll be sued out the ass and no one will ever work with you again, but you can do it. Ya know, if you're stupid.

[Chen]

We are not slaves, lio. Unless we're talking very specific companies and/or circumstances (aforementioned water, or a hospital) you are not obligated to be served just because you want to be. Yes, you can refuse service to someone solely because they're black. I know this because of recent cases where people can be refused service on religious grounds and the customers' political affiliations.

Your business will immediately tank, you'll be sued out the ass and no one will ever work with you again, but you can do it. Ya know, if you're stupid.

You definitely cant refuse service in the US based on protected characteristics. Race is one of those. The “lack of arbitrary reasons” I found in a number of articles but I’ll grant they weren’t direct quotes from the law so perhaps I’m mistaken there.

Those were all US articles. It does seem that arbitrary reasons bit doesnt appear in any articles when searching about UK laws so I guess its not a thing there. Odd since the UK tends to be a bit more progressive on these things than the US.

[HalfTangible]

You definitely cant refuse service in the US based on protected characteristics. Race is one of those. The “lack of arbitrary reasons” I found in a number of articles but I’ll grant they weren’t direct quotes from the law so perhaps I’m mistaken there.

Those were all US articles. It does seem that arbitrary reasons bit doesnt appear in any articles when searching about UK laws so I guess its not a thing there. Odd since the UK tends to be a bit more progressive on these things than the US.

I was referring to two specific court cases in recent memory (as in the last year or two) in which service was refused due to political disagreements. One of them was specifically related to religion and homosexuality. The court ruled in the business' favor. You're wrong.

I will say no more despite my desire to, because we're skirting dangerously close to forum rules.

[lio45]

you can legally refuse service to anyone for any reason.

[but] you'll be [non-frivolously] sued out the ass [if you do it.]

Let me just say you're totally contradicting yourself there.

The keyword is "legally", obviously. One can kill their neighbor because they annoyed them; one cannot do that "legally" though. Similarly, you can refuse to serve black customers in the America of 2018, but you can't do that legally, and you're bound to have (justified) legal trouble sooner or later.

[lio45]

I was referring to two specific court cases in recent memory (as in the last year or two) in which service was refused due to political disagreements. One of them was specifically related to religion and homosexuality. The court ruled in the business' favor. You're wrong.

I will say no more despite my desire to, because we're skirting dangerously close to forum rules.

That's probably because it wasn't "service" in these case, but rather something much closer to an artist getting commissioned for custom work.

If I'm a famous painter, and you come to me asking me to paint your wife in this or that particular setting, I can legally say I don't feel like it (because she's ugly or whatever, or I don't like your choice of setting, etc.)

Refusing "service" works in those cases because it's not defined as "service".

[WarKitty]

I'm pretty sure we're like a post or two from getting a threadlock.

@Some Android, reading back up, how are things going? I wanted to mention if APS doesn't help, I know the St Vincent society around here does some of what you're after (connecting people with the services that are out there). There's probably others but I'm less familiar.

[HalfTangible]

Let me just say you're totally contradicting yourself there.

I'm with Warkitty here; stopping. Period. Now.

[Jormengand]

The thing in question isn't a protected characteristic anyway, so none of the above conversation would help anyway.

[FinnLassie]

Oh yeah. For sure.

Brains try to justify things, make them match what they think "should" be correct. It's completely normal, I think. Especially as the memories get further away and more foggy.

The thing is... I actually didn't find out until 2016, two years ago, that my parents had absolutely no clue as to how severe this was. They remember the bickering and they put it down as "regular sibling kerfuffle" and a lot of my fits as "normal teenage stuff" - I was the last of 4, and at least my mother has admitted that I was widely neglected not just regarding my sibling violence, but all of the turmoils I had. And due to being ignored everytime I protested, I started bottling up everything.

Another factor is that my eldest sister refuses to believe that I'm serious when I say that I don't want to be in contact with someone that abused me for years. My eldest sister, she... she's quite something. She's in her mid-30s now, but still throws literal toddler tantrums, throwing herself on the sofa sobbing. It's hindering when it comes to processing all of this. It's so hurtful that my own sister has decided to go to her crazy over controlled world where she tries to keep up a face that doesn't even exist. ... she is in dire need of therapy, but cannot admit she needs it.

I'm sometimes terrified that my sibling reads what I write on this forum and recognises it; I know that he's in the RPG circles, but I mean, not all of those know of GitP or come to the forums...

I wonder if he denies all of this. Well, I personally believe that he does. I've never gotten an apology. For anything. For the times I was slapped, hit, mentally tortured, ridiculed, controlled, given very sincere sounding death threats and made to believe that I was really worth nothing and everything I made was garbage.

[lio45]

The thing in question isn't a protected characteristic anyway, so none of the above conversation would help anyway.

True, we just went on a tangent that was unrelated to you. (BTW, Chen's last post on the subject is 100% correct.)

On a discussion forum, that kind of thing happens occasionally. :p