Instead of having my hopes raised by Anthony putting up a post, which is promptly pulled down at the request of "leadership". Yeah, I meant the quotes, because I don't know that changes are going to happen. In fact, Amos appears to be the only specifically Superversive voice to have read my last post. I state this based on his comment, but the fact is, from now on, I'll archive anything from there first, because they're controlling their message strongly, and might delete ANY post if they decide to.
What got put in its place? Brian's initial post that started the conversation. While it's a good post, I don't get why that should be added there. Maybe it's the only part their leaders think is worth reading. Maybe they don't get what the PulpRev crew(at least part of it) actually gets out of arguments.
The arguments they have(I'm on the periphery as I'm just a blogger/reviewer right now, and who reads those guys, anyway?) are both for working through points, convincing others, and teaching themselves how to think about writing. And while the arguments might get heated, that's not out of enmity, but rather the fact that they recognize that fun is serious stuff, far more serious than most things in life.
What's this mean for how I interact with Superversive itself now? Until I see changes, I'm going to be a lot more wary. I'm friends with a few of them, and that won't be affected on my part, but this whole controlling nature really hurts my ability to trust the "movement", and to an extent, the Press.
The whole keeping the rest of the world in the dark gets me down. I can't support something where there's literally no info on it, and since the group won't communicate publicly as a corporate body or individually, there's nothing to be found.
I don't even wanna type it.
When you play Social Justice, the world loses.