Opinion: CA Chair Publicly Humiliates Constituent in Reprehensible Character Assassination


Opinion: CA Chair Publicly Humiliates Constituent in Reprehensible Character Assassination
By Deepest House
​


(Europeia – September 25, 2017) - The Citizens’ Assembly (CA) is Europeia’s lower legislature, the lawmaking body closest to the citizens. By law, every Europeian is a member of the CA. It is often where new citizens get their first start in lawmaking and serving in elected office. The body as a whole is highly regarded among the population, serves an integral role in our noble republic, and serving as its Chair is a moderately prestigious position within the region. Current CA Chair GraVandius recently publicly humiliated Aditya Republic and cast aside his opinion as unworthy of being considered. For an elected official charged with representing and considering the opinions of all citizens, this is unacceptable behavior.

Aditya Republic participated in the recent debate encompassing the split of the EBC into forum and sub-forum, stating his agreement that the creation of a sub-forum was not necessary. GraVandius, in an attempt to minimize the support for the opinions stated in the EBC piece, immediately disregarded Aditya Republic as unable to grasp the issue at hand.

“First of all you counted Adyita (sic), which I think can fairly be chalked up with the same amount of understanding and involvement as every other one of his "nice" comments,” the CA Chair snarked incredulously. This unprovoked attack on Aditya Republic’s intellectual capabilities began a string of attacks on the CA Chair’s constituent.

When challenged that he simply cast aside the valid opinion of a citizen, GraVandius doubled down on his public embarrassment of Aditya in a manner unbecoming the position he holds.

“Your (sic) telling me that you honestly believe that Adytia (sic) has a complete understanding of the issue and formed his own comprehensive opinion on the topic?”

The egregious grammar and spelling mistakes aside, the second quote is absolutely horrible and offensive to Aditya Republic. Together, these two assaults on Aditya Republic illustrate GraVandius’ willingness and ability to publicly marginalize and embarrass his constituents, and displays a hubris unfit for the office of CA Chair. The CA Chair should be the elected official most willing to legitimately entertain the opinions of the electorate, and the CA Chair certainly shouldn’t publicly discount his constituents as unworthy of even having an opinion. In another post in another thread, GraVandius chalked up Aditya’s behavior in the region to “stupidity.”

Aditya Republic is as deserving of having the CA Chair listen to and respect his opinions as is every other member of our region. He certainly does not deserve the public humiliation and shaming for merely holding an opinion. Extrapolating from this incident, it is clear that any opinion stated by Aditya Republic within the CA will likely be summarily dismissed without consideration by the current chair. GraVandius made clear he does not believe Aditya Republic has the intellectual capabilities to form his own opinion about current events. Moving beyond Aditya Republic, the CA Chair has also demonstrated an ability to disregard an opinion simply based on whose it is, rather than its merits. That is not behavior that we should expect, nor accept, from our CA Chair.

It is the responsibility of the CA Chair to faithfully represent the electorate that put him in office. A significant part of that is an honest ear to listen to, and consider, their opinions. Aditya Republic is only one person, but how many other citizens does GraVandius think is unworthy of having an opinion? How many citizens won’t have their interests even heard, let alone represented, by the CA Chair if he is willing to completely marginalize and humiliate them in a very public manner for stating them?

The bottom line is that GraVandius should not have publicly embarassed Aditya Republic in an attempt to advance his argument. It was not necessary, and a low blow that is demonstrative of the depths to which GraVandius will go to advance his agenda. Given his position as an elected official, GraVandius must conduct himself in a more appropriate manner and treat all citizens with the respect they deserve. We as citizens should evaluate whether GraVandius represents the values we desire in an elected official. Finally, he owes Aditya Republic an apology for the unprovoked character assassination.
 
Click to expand...
An interesting read. I think all of us fall into the pitfall of being overly dismissive from time to time, particularly in an online setting, so it can't hurt to have it called out when appropriate, even if this article is a fair amount more accusatory than what I would have written. To each their own, though. It's important to remember why we're all here, and what this game means to us, and articles like this can help remind us how people matter.
 
Good piece, and there's definitely some valid concerns raised.

I think it's important that we do all remember this is only a game, with players from around the world - all of whom have differing levels of ability. We have a responsibility to be cognisant of that fact, particularly those of us in leadership positions.

And even if that wasn't the case, treating each other with basic respect and common decency should also be important.
 
I would consider this a much more appropriate level of snark if Aditya was commenting on a CA Bill.
 
PhDre said:
I would consider this a much more appropriate level of snark if Aditya was commenting on a CA Bill.
Click to expand...
I have to agree. Being elected doesnt mean you have to listen to everyone on everything or give everyone a chance on everything. He wasnt dismissing his opinion in relation to anything having to do with the position to which he was elected. And in exchange a fairly long opinion piece was written about how horrible he is as an elected official and person. If anything the person that comes out of this the worst, in my opinion, is the author.
 
Being an elected official means not dismissing people outright, and at least having a willingness to listen. That’s the most basic responsibility. It doesn’t mean publicly criticizing their perceived intellectual capabilities.

It’s a sad day if we are now in a place where publicly ridiculing someone’s perceived intellectual ability is seen as appropriate behavior in Europeia. That’s exactly what GraVandius did, and that’s why I called him out on it. The egregiousness of the offense is compounded by the fact that he serves as an elected official, who are rightfully held to a higher standard of behavior than others.

Anyway, I’ve said my piece. It’s not a huge deal, but it something that deserved attention.
 
Deepest House said:
It’s a sad day if we are now in a place where publicly ridiculing someone’s perceived intellectual ability is seen as appropriate behavior in Europeia.
Click to expand...
Agreed.

I know that weeding out harassment is a priority for Europeia, and the Harassment Policy pinned in the Palatium Manor also speaks about bullying.

So when GraV is called out for bullying someone for their perceived intellectual ability - as DH pointed out - it's actually disheartening to see a VC respond with such a lax attitude, particularly when he is a signatory to the Policy.
 
Not bullying is not the same as being perfectly nice to everyone all the time. GraV made an offhand comment in which he characterizes a person as usually, or often, making replies which do not have any heft to them specifically for the purpose of the post and not to advance any opinion or agenda. Specifically that Aditya often replies to threads by stating "nice" or something in that direction and that that doesnt mean he actually engages with the topic at hand. Aditya is so famous for it that legislation (legislation I oppose for what its worth) was introduced specifically with the intent of stopping him and anyone who would act like him. GraV did this while defending his opinion opposite the author of this opinion piece, who then wrote this in response calling GraVs actions reprehensible right in the title and goes on to say that GraV acted horrible and offensive and that this is only the latest in a string. GraV stated a widely held opinion in opposition to DH to which DH responded with insults in our regionwide newspaper. If anything the person who is attempting to bully someone here is DH. So, I guess what Im saying is, its a sad day when people forget not to throw stones when they are sitting in a glass house.
 
Interesting perspective on me being the bully. Don't agree with it, but it's interesting.

And your remarks about Grav making an offhand comment would be true enough, except that he did it twice, in back to back posts. One off-handed remark about Aditya's intellectual ability? Sure let it slide and take note. Back to back comments amounting to "you can't count his opinion because he is an idiot" is something else entirely.

At least that's my opinion.


remark
 
This is the second post you've made defending the op Ed which also comes across as bullying to me. At least, much more than grav's remarks. At the very least, this is the worst and least appropriate op Ed the EBC has seen in quite some time. But hey, at least we're talking about the ebc right?
 
I see. So:
Person who writes detailed, in depth, long opinion piece insulting person who disagreed with him? Cant be a bully!
Person who characterizes someone who habitually responds to every topic with a short affirmative post regardless of actual content as uninvolved with the actual content? Absolutely a bully!
Thank you for teaching me the difference, DH. Ill make sure to only insult you after long careful thought in 700 word essays in the future.

Edit: By the way, youve repeatedly characterized Aditya (or stated that GraV characterized Aditya) as an idiot, in this thread. GraV has only ever said he, according to your own opinion piece, lacks "understanding", "involvement", and a "comprehensive opinion". Who is more insulting to Aditya here? GraV or you?
 
Should I not address comments made?

Anyway, if people want to fault me for the op-ed, I take full responsibility. You put your name on it, you have to own it 100 percent. The good with the bad.

I'll admit I have a soft spot for Aditya, and that's what made me want to write this. I'll admit it is over the top, and hyperbolic, perhaps to a fault. That said, I do feel that Grav's comments were inappropriate. That's the focus here. Maybe some don't find them inappropriate, and that is fine too.
 
Drecq, I anticipated that response, and as such you'll notice that I used the qualifier "perceived" and in the context prescribed the perception to Grav.
 
My point is that your bullying of grav and your defense of that bullying started off as and now has an insurmountable lead over what you frame as Grav's bullying. Before you ask whether the regions values can be reflected by Grav's continued service as CA chair you should ask whether your article which attacks the character of another Europeian exhaustively, is in line with Europeian values and EBC content guidelines. If you want to keep writing this kind of content I recommend getting your own news outlet so I don't go into an EBC article expecting something of substance and end up disappointed.
 
Good article DH. I agree completely; the CA Chair ought to work as a facilitator.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top