You are hereby notified that your rights in relation to the contents of your profile will not in any way be legally changed from the agreement under which you signed up by any posting you put in text or otherwise form in your timeline.

The  contents of a profile hosted for public display by a company you have no shares in, or ownership of, are very much exploitable by that company, so long as you choose to share publicly using that company’s resources.

With that in mind, you possibly have a right of recourse under UCC 1-103 1-308, which is currently being widely quoted as applicable, however you would have to be prepared to test that in a court of law for it to be in any way effective. Many wise scholars have written on the effectiveness on quoting this code against a vast range of ailments.

I would recommend if you cannot abide by Facebooks TOS, don’t participate. For myself, I welcome my private information-corrupting overlords. Brand me, baby!

I lifted it to the top, and it became an island.

On the island, a tree grows.

In the tree, a tui pops, clicks and grackles its joy.

The people behind Bush were politically very intelligent. Singer identifies them, and their Neoconservative movement, as having its origins in Trotskyite theory. Whether this is true or not, certainly among their methods was a determined programme of attacks and purges against identified enemies of the programme.

It has become readily obvious that the current Government is willing to sideline and damage any and all parties that disagree with them – from beneficiaries to Crown entities. Our Prime Minister’s affable and deliberately vague language provides a vehicle to obscure the effect of that damage. Even when admitting fault for his vague language, he has to minimise and be vague – “I was probably a bit sloppy”.  As if sloppiness gets one homes in Hawai’i.

At every step, our governing team has been ignoring advice from those we (the taxed citizenry) pay to give the best advice possible. Public services can create inefficiencies, it is true, but they also give opportunities for kinds of excellence not needed or found universally in business. We may wish to tar our top advisors with the same tarry brush we apply to road workers leaning on shovels (1), however they are there due to combinations of ferocious intelligence and breathtaking breadth and depth of experience.

How is it, then, when a civil servant has made such a horrendously dangerous error do I see this as good news?

Mr. Key’s tone. Here’s NBR’s article on the matter. This is not a glib John Key. Nothing here is sloppy in the least – he is very carefully saying exactly what he has been asked to say. This is a government realising the dream end run planned in the last electoral term is turning into a tooth and claw battle, and that their practise has undermined their own programme. Key’s only error in communication came when he was asked if he took responsibility for the error, and responded in the negative. A Minister takes responsibility for their portfolio regardless of misdeeds at staff level, and in conducting an investigation Mr. Key is acting within that responsibility. Possibly he thought he was being asked if he was culpable, which would be a different matter. A pity that particular question was not asked.

Mr. Key people behind him have taken this country through a radical set of changes which will create constitutional implications for decades to come. They have been following the dictates of the assassin master Hassan i Sabah, as quoted by Burroughs: “Nothing is true, everything is permitted“. The master’s advice was that this phrase, said before sleeping, would deliver the answer to any question in a dream.

Whatever question the National Goverment is asking, this nation isn’t dreaming, and the roomful of clocks are going off.

(1) Not that I personally believe people who work in extreme conditions season after season are in any way lazy.

For me, this ethic arose out of a need to protect damaged parts of my psyche from others. I have very big buttons that are very easy to push, and I react wonderfully to that pushing. A strategy to keep my true nature and identity unavailable to others felt safer than a strategy of openness.

“Hack me” assumes that I am an information system, which is true, but it also assumes intent to invade. It is a paranoid construct, with “Bro” in this case appended as a challenge. Where perceived hacking is taking place, systems must be continually be developed and redevloped in order to maintain the a feeling of safety. A blog called “Discourse Analysis Overdose” is needed not to communicate but to moderate increasing levels of internal stress and distress.

The key weakness in this system is that all information must be processed and made sense of, particularly in relation to others who show signs, or outright state, that they are also proceeding from similar assumptions. Hacking with intent can be blocked, but I had no tool to respond to noninvasive sharing of nonetheless potentially damaging information.

Last year I was recommended a book by a friend, and I chose to read it. I was unware of and unprepared for the impact it would have on me. This weekend I realised the nature and extent of that impact, and as a result  I lost control of myself –  I had an episode, which has already had serious consequences and will continue to do so.

The book contained descriptions of nonconsensual lifestyle BDSM in a romantic frame. It made me realise the fantasy lives of others could be markedly different than my own, and I wished to understand how nonconsenual and romantic could possibly apply.

I applied my analytical engine to these matters, and the conflicts in this appalling construct tore me apart. As far as I am concerned, it is up to people how they love one another and fantasise, however I did not previously have the ability to separate fantasy from reality simply because I was working so very hard to keep reality at bay.

Yesterday I was talking to my case worker. As usual after a crisis, we were working through some version of the social anxiety/mood disorder checklist. Her manner, and her questions changed sharply after I described the book in question.

Was I feeling anger? Yes.

Was it for particular people? Yes.

Did I feel a wish to harm people? No.

Did I feel a wish to harm the particular person I was feeling anger towards? No.

Time and time again these points were checked. Time and time again I considered, and calmly responded, knowing the answers were very important – that it was safe in this relationship to say whether I wished to harm other people or myself, if that was actually the case. I clarified that after two years of mindfulness work I had found that I was starting to be able to connect with feelings I had suppressed for decades, and that I was learning how to release trauma constructively, and continued to learn from situations. I acknowledged the huge risks implied by connecting with the more damaged parts of myself.

What are the risks? If that connection isn’t via growing and healing, I will be driven towards towards the antisocial spectrum of mental illness. I will be in touch with very dark and damaged parts of myself, and if I do not also have compassion I will be a risk to myself and all those around me. I can be a very effective person, so I would readily be able to protect myself from risk in that scenario.

I have the opportunity to become a complete person, or to lose all, having lived a life in the half-light.

I must state from my experience that antibranding as a stated personal position in a public space is a nonsense. A stated position in a public space is a brand. “Antibranding” is a brand.

It is also potentially an extremely dangerous one.

I am no longer anti-branding. I am renaming this blog simply seanfish. I will protect confidences of others, but be open about myself, and let that be my personal brand.

I will start with a request: I need help, for I need to connect with darkness to heal, and I will not allow that darkness to reclaim me. I already have many helpers, but I will always need more.

I will follow with a stipulation: To grow, I cannot only take. I must be allowed to give too. I can only accept help from people who are able to own their own needs in clear ways. In this way I will not risk erroneously giving that which has not been asked for.

Nobody lied today.

Sir,

As a whiteskinned New Zealander of Maori and European descent, I have been privileged during my time in the Helensville and surrounding community.

I have witnessed many of the instances of genteel racism that fill this community. I have heard my people referred to as “they”, and our habits described as lazy in public forums. I have heard names in my precious language deliberately mangled for lighthearted amusement, even when the name in question is of a personage of national importance.

I am a generous and tolerant person, and I have done the middle class thing and allowed that some of my friends were brought up in different times. I am unable to do so any further.

This morning, I received an unsolicited email on an undisclosed distribution list. This email was sent by a prominent member of the Helensville community who seemingly views themselves as an unappointed political organiser and authority.

This email used rhetoric that alarmed me. Like an earlier document, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the email described Māori as controlling the government through conspiratorial manipulation of power balances.

It is very easy to survey the institutions of Helensville. Looking at local group memberships and compositions at directorial level, the European face is in still comfortably in control. There is no Māori power elite, and it is both wrong and malicious to suggest otherwise.

For the first time, I am ashamed to live here.

Sean Murgatroyd

Awaroa Road

That night I checked my email, twitter, facebook, the usual. My usual pattern is to be social for a bit, then play videogames as a way to wind down for sleep. In between those two acts, I decided to quickly check for comments. I don’t post often, so the thought there might be something to respond to was exciting.

Shortly thereafter I had to talk myself out of posting a somewhat scathing comment and found myself instead writing an email to the President of InternetNZ. The email itself was respectful, but I had also appended my comment to illustrate the impact the situation had had on me.

I was worried about the possible damage done to my reputation and possible employment consequences, given I was not attending the event to represent the mental health community.

Who’s to blame?

Not the commenter. I’m saying that right up front. I know we have a finger-pointing culture in New Zealand, but I’m not a part of it. The commenter made a well-considered response. They missed the point, sure, and I’ll describe how they did below, but it wasn’t because they intentionally disrespected me, or other people with my disability.

Not me, either. My initial reaction could have certainly been damaging to myself, and possibly to others. I didn’t have full control over myself, however I was able to address matters so my reactions didn’t harm others, and over the next 24 hours continued to manage the situation to a positive outcome for all parties. In the perspective of my life’s history, this is a positive result of a lot of work. While I don’t wish to have crises of any sort  and they feature less and less frequently in my life, I’m glad to know how quickly my faculties return. I used to spend months out of step with reality after upsets. A couple of hours is frankly a wonderful sign.

What set me off?

Three things, really.

The first is personal to me. The commenter gave considered and kind advice as to how I can seek help and support in a conference setting. What they weren’t to know is that I have attended, presented workshops, delivered keynote addresses and all-round networked at a number of conferences over the course of my career, and that I had been negotiating my personal disability while doing so quite successfully. I have been exploring advocacy issues around disability and access for a number of years (starting perhaps with my contribution to this excellent book) and felt proud that I had given my own feedback in clear terms that were recognised as worthwhile by trusted others working in access. Realising that someone had seen my well-reasoned thoughts and interpreted them as a plea for help left me feeling humiliated.

The second was organisational. The commenter was Lance Wiggs. A little research let me know that he was one of the councillors of InternetNZ. As my post was commenting on an InternetNZ event, it needed to be clarified whether he was responding as some internet guy (in which case his error was a little upsetting but minor, understandable and forgivable) or on behalf of the organisation (in which case some research really should have been done first). Yes, I really do care about things like this. Good organisational practise is one strong plank on which progress can be built. I’d just joined the organisation and I was frustrated that I felt a duty to give feedback to the council over something that should have been standard operating procedure.

The third factor was the preconditions.

What were the preconditions?

Everything. My abuse history. Organisational change. Dealing that afternoon with a truck driver arriving with a 300kg piece of equipment and no means of getting it off his truck, let alone to its destination inside my workplace and one floor up. The fact that the post itself was based on a careful analysis of my upset over comments made at the conference. The fact that upset happened not because I mind every word people say, but because I find it harder to let go what is said when I am also dealing with the extreme stress of being in such a densely-packed, stimulating environment for three days on end. Having a life where the most clearly written roadmap says “take your pills and keep your head down”.

What could have done differently?

It would have been easiest for Lance not to have bothered. He didn’t create the preconditions. He didn’t need some guy going off at him. This is the sad thing about mental health. When things go wrong, trying to help can cause a seemingly inexplicable reaction.

I suspect Lance would bother anyway. We’ve had a bit of offline talk, and it’s clear to me he really wished to offer support, and took quality time to consider how.

There are no clear answers here, as I’m still exploring ways to think about it. I’m used to pretending I don’t have my disability (or rather that is somehow is present but simultaneously doesn’t affect me) because I get sick of finding out the people who stop talking to me, or start talking to me like I’m dangerous, a child, or an idiot as a result. I find Philip Patston‘s article provides some useful thoughts.

As with other disabilities, the help I require is different from the help required by another person, even one with the same label. There’s no universal design for sufferers of PTSD. There’s no act of inclusivity a person suffering from depression can’t find a way to isolate themselves from.

What do I want? I want my thoughts to be heard first and foremost, and for people to be blind to my illness in the same way as they wouldn’t stare at someone’s wheelchair. It doesn’t mean we can’t be honest about it, but it does mean if you wish to talk about it you should find out where I’m at first. Perhaps the best thing to do is listen if I feel like talking, and let me ask if I feel I need advice of any sort. If you think I have triggered and are concerned, wait for me to collect myself and ask me what happened. If I feel comfortable around you I’ll let you know it’s ok, or what went on. If I’m not, it’s most likely not about you unless you’re a particularly terrible person – some of my best friends are simply awful.

What about InternetNZ/Nethui?

I guess one thing I’d ask is to be a bit more active in shouldertapping relevant members of the mental health community. I’d particularly like to see patient advocates (who are often former patients themselves) involved – practitioners often take the lead in talking about the experience of mental health in this country, which is a little like battery farmers talking about the experiences of chickens.

Sympathetic and helpful battery farmers, of course.

I responded to the brouhaha, suggesting that the MC was a distraction and not to let upset over his faux pas get in the way of the real business. I had to clarify that I wasn’t saying “let’s support gendered and racial speech”, and I now feel a need to explain what I was really getting at.

The real discourse happens after the MC stops joking. The real discourse is made by the session conveners, and the participants, particularly those who are viewed as experts.

Here are some snippets of phrases I heard variously from people conducting sessions, and personages of importance contributing:

“People who are mentally ill…”

“People who are mentally ill are…”

“You’ve got to be mentally ill to…”

When someone spoke to demean women, there was an uproar.

When someone made light of race, there was an uproar.

If someone had been foolish enough to make generalisations about the capabilities, limitations, features and characteristics of blind people, wheelchair-using people, deaf people, any kind of differently-abled person, of non-normative sexual and gender selves – there would have been an uproar.

The term “mental illness” came up a number of times in the context of the “trolling” discussion, for example. It seems that anytime someone is behaving antisocially, they must have a mental illness. Now, I’m not here to justify antisocial behaviour – there are some interesting works which explore the social constructions we put around “antisocial”, and the differing constructions we create when we wish to make use of antisocial behaviour for societal ends.

I didn’t make an uproar. Other people I know for a fact manage mental illness as part of their lives didn’t make an uproar. In my case, the “forever angry and unwell” Sean discussed matters with the “healed and well” Sean, and we agreed my (to reunite my two halves, as I must do every day to function(2)) planned outcomes from attending Nethui might be disrupted if I started laying into people who so casually prodded my deepest pain. Why? Because every time I expend emotional energy, I have to factor in the risk that I am misperceiving matters, and that my efforts to address a problem I see will make things worse. That it’s not going to change things anyway.

I want to make an uproar now. I’ve spent the last few days increasingly triggered, and I suspect there’s more to come if I maintain silence.

I’m here to say – you’re tarring a lot of good people with the same brush. That’s right – I’m not blasting anyone. My anger, as always, is my own. I’m going to speak, and hope some people listen. I’ll stick with the troll example.

Some people with mental illness troll.

Some people with mental illness experience frustration, bewilderment and an inability to understand the rules that govern interpersonal connection.

Some people with mental illness express frustration through attention-seeking antisocial behaviours at some times.

Some people with mental illness act to seek attention in online communities. In some ways, longlasting online communities are function as economies of attention, and sometimes some people with mental illness use the wrong strategies. What does that say about the other trolls – who don’t wrestle constantly with demons, who are simply choosing to seek amusement? Much easier to blame the loonies.(3)

We are not some people. We are your family, colleagues, and friends. We grit our teeth while people construct a world in which all of the otherness is laid at our doorsteps. How are we to reach out to you when you dismiss us in a way isn’t allowed for any other group in society? Can’t we come inside the PC circle, at long last? Can’t you see I’ve got a headful of bad wiring, and I’m still a good, caring and compassionate person? I know some sane, or at least stable, people who are real pricks.

Most of us mentals(3) don’t bother speaking up, because it’s too hard.

Most of us feel like we’ve failed before we open our mouths, or put hands to keyboards.

Most of us are trying to connect, however badly. Some are doing so pretty well, thank you.

I’m sitting right here. I’m next to you, wishing to work with you. Don’t say we need to stop talking about access and start talking about inclusion when you’re still leaving me out.

(1) Pornography would be vastly less problematic in some ways were this so.

(2) As Paul Simon said: “From what I can see of the people like me/We get better/But we never get well”.

(3) I will take these words back, and I’ll use it any time you want. Don’t you dare.

I’m smiling at that last joke. I sometimes think that my humour and love of wordplay was somehow developed by my solitary nature – that I had to come up with ideas that amused me even though I came up with them.

I believe words have power, too – another reason I joke. I’m learning lately how to be more clear when I am serious. Some use the “safe” channel of shared humour to deliver hidden barbs and set downs. A clear categorical denial is a wondrous thing.

These are my thoughts pre rising. I ponder language and myself, and rehearse social strategies. Not much has changed about me.

I’ve used it for just over a week now. I’d like to give you a nutshell, and then explain my experience of it. Hopefully that will support me in explaining why I want you to use it.

The nutshell

The concept: Tumblr, but just for music. Industry experts can correct me.

Signup: Easy, as usual. Link your social profiles, emails etc. Follow people you know who are on there, expand as your other friends join.

You start on the “My Jam” page. You have the option to search for a jam, and your search gives results from soundcloud and youtube. Once you choose your jam and optionally add a little comment, it is set for a week.

There’s some design options for you people who care about that stuff. I don’t think they’re that complex, more a kind of flavours thing.

Embed-on-request rights are respected. As a consumer of a service, I assume the provider(s) of that service are vigilant to protect me from inadvertent rights misuse. I’ll happily discuss that (1) in the comments should anyone be interested.

Your jam and those of your follows are displayed in reverse chronological order on the site home page. If you click the play button on an individual jam you will start the list playing in reverse order until the one week event horizon is reached.

Developing of your network occurs virally, and through the discovery tools. I’ll discuss them under:

My experience of it

The social discovery tools are very interesting – I’ve just linked through to my last.fm profile, which should give me some crunchy recommendations for random follows.

Social Recomendations are categorised three ways that I’ve found so far:

Derived from my jams – I’m introduced to people who are jamming similarly.

Trending jammers – not necessarily so fond of that.

Friend-of-friend recommendations via likes – I saw a jammer (into the lingo already!) recommended as “most liked by your follows”.

If you want things to change on your jam, throw down some records

It’s ok to change one’s jam anytime – you’ll remove your previous one, so you won’t be spamming in terms of “post count”. I’m not sure if I’d get annoyed at someone who continually threw out new tunes. Sure they’d stay at the top of the list, but if they were sharing good songs I’d go with it.

Your playlist isn’t evolving the way you’d like? Add people to it. Prune it. Throw out tracks. Most importantly: Respond to the community you’ve created.

I don’t use TiMJ constantly – I check in on it. I give the people on it time to surprise me. My favourite kinds of surprises are new songs, which is

Why I Want You To Join

The limitation – music only – is where the victory lies.  It’s a perfect answer to my issues around sociality – sometimes words don’t work at all for me, but sound always does.

Yep, it’s all about me

It’s good therapeutic practise to ask for what you want, in an honest and respectful way. Anyhow,

Bowtie it with a story seanfish

Someone laid down a remix of Blue Jay Way, which I liked.(2)

I threw out Fiona Apple singing Across the Universe.

Someone #2 shared “You’ve Got to Hide Your Love Away” by Eddie Vedder (which wasn’t to my taste).

Someone #3 rolled out “Creep” by Radiohead – the acoustic version, which I “liked” and love,

@wilwheaton stepped up with Massive Attack – Protection, and

I got all the squee

This is My Jam.

(1) At nauseating length.

(2) In airquotes and simultaneously not in airquotes. Please view this as standard practise.