It’s been almost five months since the FM event went down (if you know, you know), and I have had many thoughts over the last few months. If you don’t know what I’m talking about, I linked the first post above, and if you google the author, you’ll find plenty of info about what went down. This is less about them and more about how the writing community can create the [toxic] environment that led to this person doing so well and how we can recognize these sorts of conditions going forward in order to stop them before they start.

While I hate when my students do this, let me spell out my thesis for this post: Abusive and/or manipulative people cannot flourish in a community without support from those around them. No matter who is at the center of the mess, for a person to continue doing this for any length of time, those around them have to ignore bad behavior, explain it away, or join in. There are red flags to pay attention to or things we can do to avoid enabling this sort of behavior within our communities.

No Questioning Authority

Manipulative people, in order to manipulate efficiently, must hold a position of power. Grifters and other ne’er do wells often take up a niche and start posting authoritatively. It doesn’t matter if they are spouting nonsense about crystals or saying things about queer people that negate any and all nuance because if they say it in such a way where they posit themselves as an authority, people will believe them. This authority is hammered home by jumping on others who disagree. When others see them go after people with righteous indignation, they see that as confidence rather than weakness. By doing this repeatedly, they establish a hierarchy with them at the top OR they create a persecution narrative around disagreement from others in their community, which they can leverage for more attention and ultimately more authority as more people come in to support them.

From there, they rely on social compliance and herd mentality from those who surround them. Once a few people start saying they are an authority on x or y, others will agree and comply. Even if they don’t always agree, seeing many other people agree with the authority figure makes them either question their beliefs or default to what the authority said just in case or to maintain the peace. They might even create sock-puppet accounts that act as their supporters. Other people see the sock-puppet defending them and join in. Their marks are usually people who are less outwardly confident, those with less social capital (though they often end up as bullying victims later), and those who are seeking community protection. The fake authority figure appears larger than life and attracts people who want to do better or know more.

If you get involved with an authority figure who doesn’t like it when people disagree with them or they squash any discussion or dissent from people within the group, it’s a red flag. People who are secure in their authority don’t do this. They don’t worry people are going to usurp their position because they know where they stand and what they know and are confident in that. They can also handle criticism and altering their position with new information. Insecure people feel the need to put others down and make them look stupid in order to maintain their position in the hierarchy. A true “authority” or leader should be able to field questions and meaningful disagreement in order to have a discussion.

Group Think Vibes (aka it’s getting culty)

I remember being part of a queer writing Discord server once where the main person/owner of the server mentioned they hated Our Flag Means Death. Now, if you don’t know, A TON of queer people LOVE that show. This person said that in an online room full of queers, and not a single person disagreed with them. I remember sitting there like wtf is going on?? It was my first inkling that something was not right. I put the server on mute and backed away. Disagreement, discussion, and friendly arguments are normal in a business casual server like that. To see zero people disagreeing with the main person is bizarre and made me think that person must do something that makes others afraid to disagree with them, whether it’s anger, kicking people out, or using passive aggression to get them to do or say what they want.

This behavior gets worse when those in a position of power, like a beloved author, cultivate parasocial relationships with people in their Discord servers or Facebook groups, especially readers. Those readers are often following them on social media as well, and no matter what, the author is in a position of power within those groups. What begins as a mention of “drama” on a private server or Facebook group can become a swarm of readers and other writers attacking someone at the subtle behest of the person in power. The person in power has plausible deniability as they never named names or told their followers to go after them. On the contrary, they explicitly stated not to, but they wouldn’t bring it up there unless the unspoken message was to do their bidding. Bringing it up to a best friend or author friend who is also on par with you is one thing. To say it to people who look up to you is leveraging your power, especially if the group is substantially large.

The worst thing is that these readers get trained over time to become enablers by the person in power. If you do my bidding, you will get rewarded by being given attention, being treated like a white knight, or by thinking they are part of some larger social justice crusade (depending on how the disagreement is being spun). In reality, they are being used because they don’t see the larger context of the “drama,” how it started, or what role the person they like has played in instigating it. All they know is what they’ve been told, and because they trust and like this person, they don’t look deeper. People who go against the person in power or who don’t pull their weight are often booted from the group. This once again reinforces the enabler dynamic.

No Evidence or an Evidence-less Crime

I have mixed feelings about demanding proof from a victim as it can be traumatizing or impossible to prove. At the same time, I do think we need to be at least a little critical when someone starts shit with someone else on the internet, especially if they are trying to instigate a pile-on or harassment campaign. If someone is saying someone else is bullying, stalking, or harassing them, there should be proof somewhere. If someone is being accused of ableism, racism, transphobia, etc., there should be proof somewhere. People aren’t usually good at hiding that kind of stuff, and asking someone to show a post or two that prove they have done what someone said isn’t out of line.

One of the things that happened with the person mentioned at the top of the post is that they repeatedly leveled accusations against other people with zero proof. When people asked to see proof they offered to freely show, they never got it and received only excuses. The people who asked for proof weren’t part of the inner circle, so when they pointed it out, they either got hate from the in-group or were ignored. Later, it was revealed that there was no proof because those things didn’t happen. Whenever someone tried to point out they were being a bully, they would accuse the other person of something worse. Leveraging their following, they were able to quickly get public opinion on their side and silence the other person by playing the victim loudly for a crowd (it boils down to classic DARVO tactics).

It puts the other person in a very hard spot because if they react, they look angry, which can be used against them. If they don’t react, they look guilty. But how do you prove you didn’t do something? When I was dealing with *that person*, that was where I got stuck. How do I prove I didn’t harass them? How did I prove I hadn’t spoken to or about them in months? I couldn’t prove what didn’t happen, and they knew it. People who use these tactics know this and use it to their advantage. The worst part is that once it works and they see they can leverage their following and others to shut down the people who point out their bad behavior, they’ll do it over and over again.

Critical thinking? Don’t know her.

Something you may have noticed in all of the situations is people stopped thinking critically. When someone acted like an authority, they didn’t question that they might be wrong or they might be purposely ignoring nuance in a situation that needed it. When someone asked them to get involved in a fight that wasn’t their own, they did it. When someone was attacked for disagreeing, no one stepped out of line to stop them. When they accused someone else of wronging them, no one pointed out there was no evidence. As mentioned in the first section, grifters and bullies rely on herd mentality and compliance in order to get away with the bad things they do for as long as possible. People within their orbit stopped thinking for themselves and relied on someone else to tell them what to think or do, and this behavior had a social pay off for them.

The worst part is that grifters and manipulative people rely on “good people” to do their bidding. Good people want to help their friends or stand up for what is right. Good people don’t question that what they’re doing might not be the right thing because surely their friend wouldn’t do that to them. Unfortunately, good people are easy marks because they aren’t nearly as suspicious of those close to them as they should be. On top of that, they can gain social capital by participating in the harming of others. It feels good to stand up to someone they think is wronging a friend. They also often feel they will lose social capital if they don’t stand up for this person as they might throw it in their face later that they didn’t say anything in their defense, and thus they would lose standing within the group. The most loyal followers get the most social capital within the group.

Being an autistic person who tries to see the best in people, I have been burned a lot, and because of that, I have become suspicious and standoffish. I don’t wish that on others, but I do think it’s a good thing to have a healthy amount of skepticism and to remember that you don’t truly know the people you meet, online or in-person. Are they actually your friend? Is the relationship reciprocal or are you always coming to their aid? Would they drop you like a hot potato or go off on you if you disagreed with something they did? Are you afraid to distance yourself from them because you think they’ll call you out or go after you? If you answered yes to any of these, that is a major red flag, especially the last one.

Where Do We Go From Here?

I wanted to include this as one post, but it’s getting quite lengthy. Next week I’m going to discuss what can possibly be done to deal with this sort of behavior before it goes out of control. I also want to discuss the impact it has on those who the authority/bully turns against because these aren’t victimless crimes, and in online spaces, those victims are usually ignored or forgotten. Check back next week for more on community and bad author behavior.