Consequences are Good, Actually
June 21, 2022 12:40 PM   Subscribe

 
J.Fucking Christ
posted by signal at 12:51 PM on June 21


He wasn't thrown in jail for 10 years, he wasn't banned from gainful employment for life. The consequences are that a bunch of people he knows think he's an asshole. Even that is too much for some.
posted by grouse at 12:55 PM on June 21 [40 favorites]


I'm actually impressed that kids are able to shun someone socially who did something so egregious and abusive to a woman. Historically, as Jessica Valenti notes, it usually goes down the opposite way, where the victim is shamed.
posted by chaz at 1:02 PM on June 21 [37 favorites]


I'm more inclined to celebrate the girls who made the list, much like the recently viral Hoe Union post from AITA. (Apologies for linking to a reaction-gif heavy, clickbait Buzzfeed post, but the original is gone and this contains the content and some related posts/followup.)
posted by DirtyOldTown at 1:10 PM on June 21 [10 favorites]


Barf. I don't know why editors don't point out stuff like this: "You know, this could be an interesting story but I feel like we're leaving out half of it. Bring it back when you've painted the rest of the picture."

Well, actually I do know, it's because they're in harmony with the piece. Whoever approved or commissioned this piece at NY Magazine should be replaced or their decisions given strict reviews.
posted by BlackLeotardFront at 1:13 PM on June 21 [13 favorites]


Wow that is depressing.

Looks like another piece by a Gen X-er gone rotten, too. I'm not sure which is worse - scandalized Boomer takes on the youth or the cynical-sleazy revanchism of my generation.

It's like, as teenagers sharing nudes becomes very common indeed, mainstream society has decided to go from "a scandal! youth debauchery!" to "well, wouldn't any guy show naked pictures of his attractive girlfriend to other guys in order to gain status and seem cool, boys will be boys, he looks like Dondi the cartoon war orphan don't you feel sorry for him". Things pass from "only gross trashy people are involved in this" to "mainstream guys use this to hurt others, so it must be awesome and normal" at the drop of a hat.
posted by Frowner at 1:18 PM on June 21 [38 favorites]


It's playing into a lot of fears. I've had numerous discussions with "boy moms" who are terrified their kids will get cancelled "over nothing." It's a very common fear from what I can tell.

Magazines love to play into fears like this. They couldn't find an example of someone cancelled "for nothing," but that was the framing. I'm 100% sure that most of the moms I've discussed this with would agree that sharing nudes is serious and not "nothing," which is probably why it takes so long to find out what he did in the article.
posted by chaz at 1:19 PM on June 21 [17 favorites]


At best, I believe one-third to one-half of this. There's something that the journalist is leaving out here, I'd bet a shiny silver dollar. And she alludes to other sob stories about boys who barely did anything and got in so much trouble. Even as somebody who was in a dumb, punitive administrative situation in high school, I am seriously side-eying all that. Possibly, I have to admit, it was because I was the "bad girl" and the jailbait in some teenage instances, and I am glad to see that at least one school on earth doesn't automatically punish such girls. I also do think there's an issue with how white boys seem to skate out of this situation, and that the racial angle may be a genuine problem. However, with my general skepticism about the author, I don't know what the actual issue is.
posted by Countess Elena at 1:22 PM on June 21 [15 favorites]


The article actually does point out several kids who were cancelled for nothing, or more specifically, had their names included on that list mistakenly.

"A girl walked up and said hello. “She’s canceled too,” Diego said. That girl’s boyfriend’s name, he explained, had been on the bathroom wall, and she didn’t break up with him. It later came out that his name had been written entirely by mistake. His accuser meant a different kid with the same first name. But it didn’t matter. The photo spread. The story turned into he kidnapped someone and raped them at gunpoint."

I think this article actually does explore some interesting things, such as the seeming impossibility of litigating these matters from a school's perspective, the burnout the teachers and administrators go through, the burnout the organizers go through (the organizer of several successful walkouts says she's jaded and the walkouts aren't changing anything) and the tide change of parents suing on behalf of their accused kids.

It also sounds like Diego's dad was fairly hard on him when he found out what he did which is, I guess, better than I expected.

Also I thought the article could've done a way better job at showing how the school was failing everybody, not just the boys involved in the cancellations.

I think it's also foolish to think that these dynamics aren't going to be weaponized by bullies but teenagers thinking of new and varied ways to emotionally brutalize each other is nothing new and certainly not something I'd place over issues of sexual justice and so on.

Also, final edit, I think it's actually important that this article focuses on someone who got cancelled for something specifically awful that he did, because it highlights the fact that cancelling is a response to something, and specifically, a response to a perceived failure of authority to deal with the initial problem. It's not just a puff piece about how innocent little boys are getting cancelled because they tried to give their girlfriends a smooch and feminism has gone crazy and what are we going to do about it?
posted by Cpt. The Mango at 1:26 PM on June 21 [6 favorites]


The article actually does point out several kids who were cancelled for nothing, or more specifically, had their names included on that list mistakenly.

Which comes back to the point of "if you don't want victims to resort to vigilante actions, provide them the support they need." It's telling that the first reaction of many people to victims banding together to protect themselves is to demand an accounting to make sure they haven't hurt anyone "innocent".
posted by NoxAeternum at 1:34 PM on June 21 [41 favorites]


I'm 100% sure that most of the moms I've discussed this with would agree that sharing nudes is serious and not "nothing,"

I should hope so. Depending on the age of the girl in question and certain other circumstances, we literally send adults to prison for years for doing so.
posted by praemunire at 1:37 PM on June 21


It's not just a puff piece about how innocent little boys are getting cancelled because they tried to give their girlfriends a smooch and feminism has gone crazy and what are we going to do about it?

No, it's a puff piece that says "what's a little nonconsentual pornography between classmates - what's important is that he's so very sorry and his classmates thinking he's an abusive dick is unfair."
posted by NoxAeternum at 1:38 PM on June 21 [16 favorites]


Yes, NoxAeternum, I agree. However, I don't think it's totally out of order to talk about the various different ways these dynamics can play out, especially in the context of a high school (famously bloodthirsty) with an administrative team that seems unwilling or incapable of handling the situation (famously typical). The big problem here is with the school administration and whatever else is conspiring to make these kids feel like their safety is not being looked after.

Also, the piece specifically condemns his actions, and has a part where his dad feels like he fucked up as a father because of the fact his son shared his girlfriend's nude picture. To me, it seemed a far cry from downplaying what Diego did.
posted by Cpt. The Mango at 1:41 PM on June 21 [2 favorites]


Cpt. The Mango: "Also, the piece specifically condemns his actions,"

It actually asks you to not judge him because he 'agrees' he fucked up, and frames the sex crime as 'showed a nude of his beautiful girlfriend to a few kids'.
posted by signal at 1:57 PM on June 21 [29 favorites]


However, I don't think it's totally out of order to talk about the various different ways these dynamics can play out,

And I do think it very much is, because not only does it obscure the harm that these victims have suffered, it often serves to place the victims in the place of malefactor for the "crime" of looking to protect themselves. Again, it's telling that many people hear about victims banding together to protect themselves, and their first concern is how these victims could abuse others.
posted by NoxAeternum at 2:13 PM on June 21 [11 favorites]


I mean, why wouldn't you want to show a nude picture of your amazingly psychedelically beautiful teenage girlfriend to all your mates? Where's the harm if strangers are "appreciating" the nude photos of your amazingly psychedelically beautiful teenage girlfriend without her consent?
posted by Kitteh at 2:14 PM on June 21 [6 favorites]


I’ll never forget the principal telling my mother and me that it would be too traumatic for the older boys who assaulted me to receive any punishment for it.
posted by The Underpants Monster at 2:16 PM on June 21 [56 favorites]


Kids get unfairly punished for all sorts of things they didn't actually do or were totally justified in doing. My entire high school grade got harshly punished for something 2 kids did. Part of this is because it's hard to accurately assign blame for things, and partially it's because kids and adults are just naturally judgmental and vindictive.

The thing I find crazy about all of these discussions about being "canceled" is that the actual consequences are WAY less severe then people assume. Basically every comedian who has gotten "canceled" has come back and been successful, sometimes more than before. In this case the consequences were basically social exclusion and bullying, which is the exact same thing that happens to kids who happen to look a bit weird and react wrong when bullies try to instigate shit.

If we're going to write front page stories about every time a kid gets unfairly bullied and suffers psychological abuse, they should maybe start with the millions of victims of bullying that did literally nothing wrong instead of the guy who showed off naked pictures of his girlfriend without her consent.
posted by JZig at 2:32 PM on June 21 [10 favorites]


It actually asks you to not judge him because he 'agrees' he fucked up, and frames the sex crime as 'showed a nude of his beautiful girlfriend to a few kids'.

It also has Diego and his family say that he's not an abuser while ignoring that showing off nude images of someone nonconsentually is a textbook case of abuse.

Kids get unfairly punished for all sorts of things they didn't actually do or were totally justified in doing.

Diego is not being unfairly punished.

He outed himself as a predator by showing off nude images of a girl without her consent. (And spare me the "he was drunk" line - if you become abusive when drunk, then you are an abuser, and you need to not drink if it triggers your abuse.) As a result, his peers, reacting to the school administration failing to deal with a fucking predator, took matters into their own hands and excluded him.

Now, in prior threads, I've talked about contrition, and it's worth pointing out that Diego here has not shown any. Contrition is not apologizing - it is accepting the totality of one's misconduct and the harm it has done. Diego's refusal to accept that he did in fact abuse her precludes contrition, and as long as he refuses to accept that, his peers are well within their rights to treat him as a threat.
posted by NoxAeternum at 2:47 PM on June 21 [25 favorites]


I was not trying to say Diego was unfairly punished, I was responding to the discussion about the other kids on the list who may or may not have done anything clearly wrong. A lot of the arguments about how horrible cancellation are rest on the idea that it's some sort of death sentence, when far worse social consequences than this happen to millions of people all the time based on far less evidence and justification than anything described in this article.
posted by JZig at 2:55 PM on June 21 [2 favorites]


A relevant tweet.
posted by Kitteh at 3:36 PM on June 21 [11 favorites]




So to be clear, the consequences that "Diego" suffered for his very real crime are that his high school social standing took a hit and his parents were pissed. This is what the New Yorker is wringing its hands over.

Just to be, you know, entirely clear about where we're drawing the lines here.
posted by Navelgazer at 5:26 PM on June 21 [12 favorites]


Just noting that New York Magazine is not The New Yorker.
posted by minervous at 6:26 PM on June 21 [11 favorites]


There are a lot of interesting issues in this article that are completely overrun by the author’s choice to focus on a person who doesn’t appear to acknowledge or even really understand the harm they caused. I mean, yeah, the kid understands he fucked up but only in how it affects him, not in how he hurt his ex.

Which is understandable, considering how Diego’s parents seem to minimize and deflect accountability for his actions. And the reporter repeatedly returning their focus on the girlfriend’s “hardened” response to Diego’s ostracism./
posted by Big Al 8000 at 6:26 PM on June 21 [4 favorites]


So to be clear, the consequences that "Diego" suffered for his very real crime are that his high school social standing took a hit and his parents were pissed.

I noticed that his parents kicked his sister out of the car and told her to walk home after she had an argument with him, which sounds like more severe consequences than their parents gave Diego for anything he did.
posted by creepygirl at 6:42 PM on June 21 [20 favorites]


I noticed that his parents kicked his sister out of the car and told her to walk home after she had an argument with him, which sounds like more severe consequences than their parents gave Diego for anything he did.

The parents were bound and focused on treating his abuse as a "youthful indescretion", and seem shocked that many people were not willing to turn a blind eye to domestic abuse, given the correlation between it and further abuse. Which seems to be the line through this story - "isn't it horrible how everyone treated domestic abuse as domestic abuse, and not as something to laugh off?"
posted by NoxAeternum at 10:20 PM on June 21 [7 favorites]


This Twitter thread from Amanda Marcotte (first few posts below) puts it well:

“I'm anxious about driving the hate traffic they were clearly trawling for, but what struck me about Elizabeth Weil's NY Mag piece about "Diego" was how his youthful immaturity was held as exonerating of him, but the same grace was not offered to the kids who shunned him.
“The story frames the high emotions and dramatics of the girls as feminism gone wild, but boys doing stuff like showing nudes as simply boys being caught up in teenage emotions. Perhaps everyone has teenage emotions in this story? Perhaps that's what makes that age so perilous?
“The girls obviously deserve a lot more sympathy, because being a teenage girl is extremely dangerous and yet no one takes their pain and fear seriously. (Even as they use the threats against them to deny them freedom of movement.) They're reacting accordingly.
“It is dramatic and lacking nuance? Do stories get bigger as they churn through the rumor mill? Why yes! They're teenagers. The immaturity that drove Diego drives the girls, as well. But girls get no wiggle room. They are expected to come out of the box with middle aged maturity.”
posted by naoko at 5:15 AM on June 22 [38 favorites]


Meanwhile, Tucker Carlson's interns are probably desperately trying to ID Diego this afternoon, so they can get him on the show tonight.
posted by COD at 7:37 AM on June 22 [2 favorites]


And how did the nude get on his phone? If it was through coercion this needs to be taken into account too.

What also struck me is that nothing was done about the bullying. In Simon vs. the Homo Sapiens Agenda-- set in a public school-'- the kids who bully him after he's outed are reminded by the principal that they signed a contract at the beginning of the year agreeing to treat their fellow classmates with respect and are held accountable for violating it. This book was published in 2015.
posted by brujita at 8:27 AM on June 22


Just noting that New York Magazine is not The New Yorker.

Blergh. I even was thinking "New York Magazine" when I screwed that up. Mea culpa.
posted by Navelgazer at 9:23 AM on June 22 [1 favorite]


What also struck me is that nothing was done about the bullying.

But he wasn't bullied - as Valenti points out, he was facing the consequences of a) abusing his then-girlfriend and b) refusing to engage in contrition and accept that he had done so. To the school's credit, they grasp that contrition has to be at the center of any restorative justice program, and that forcing victims of abuse to participate is just compounding abuse.

And that's one of the tragedies of all this - people were willing and ready to help Diego come in from the cold - but they needed him to take the first step and admit to the totality of his actions. But he refused, and thus the community viewed him as a threat, and for good reason.
posted by NoxAeternum at 9:24 AM on June 22 [12 favorites]


. “I can’t stop kids whispering and laughing when your kid walks into the classroom.”

Gossiping about others within their earshot is bullying

the students threatening their peers with social ostracization if they talked to him.

That girl’s boyfriend’s name... had been on the bathroom wall, and she didn’t break up with him. It later came out that his name had been written entirely by mistake. His accuser meant a different kid with the same first name. But it didn’t matter.

Innocent kids are being harmed.

The article also says someone spat on him, which is an assault.

I absolutely do not condone Diego's behavior and think he should have been held accountable for displaying the nude photo.
posted by brujita at 10:00 AM on June 22


This kind of bad-faith journalism relies on the reader unconsciously assuming that there is in fact some good-quality system for resolving the problem - that the students should skip the organized shunning in favor of this other system that is assumed to exist. Thus, the reader is steered into thinking "what an unfair system, they shouldn't gossip about or point at the guy who sent the nudes, aren't they just as bad as he is, they should just do [ THIS OTHER THING THAT DEFINITELY EXISTS]".

But in reality the options are nothing, shunning and maybe some kind of victim-blame bullshit from the school, and shunning is the least bad.

Shunning is a flawed process because, obviously, you can't just neatly and tidily apply it in measured doses according to a rubric. But again, if the school tried to get to the bottom of the whole thing, would they be better equipped to decide which boys were dangerous and protect other students? Try to imagine how that would go, try to imagine how it has gone when universities with whole offices deal with stalking, harassment and assault.

Dealing with sexual harm after the fact is always going to be a matter of the least unsatisfactory method, and since so much sexual harm is ongoing, we're going to have all these least-bad situations. We as a society need to solve these problems before they happen by changing how we run schools, how we raise kids, how we support and teach kids.

How would this story have been different if it started from the standpoint of the wronged girlfriend and treated the effects on Diego as ancillary, the way this story treats the effects on the girlfriend?

Didn't Diego, like, go to four proms after graduation?
posted by Frowner at 10:11 AM on June 22 [10 favorites]


I noticed that his parents kicked his sister out of the car and told her to walk home after she had an argument with him, which sounds like more severe consequences than their parents gave Diego for anything he did.

That same principal I referenced above literally said, "Boys will be boys, but little ladies don't do that sort of thing," when I finally fought back against another boy. Sad to see the old double standard is alive and well.
posted by The Underpants Monster at 10:12 AM on June 22 [9 favorites]


Gossiping about others within their earshot is bullying

Treating an abuser with disdain is not bullying. This is the key point you are missing - Diego committed an act of domestic abuse, and then compounded that by refusing to accept that he did, with him and his family trying to force everyone to deny what he did. Given the correlation between domestic abuse and other acts of abuse and violence, why shouldn't his peers see him as a potential threat?

Innocent kids are being harmed.

Which is why schools need to take abuse seriously, and not force victims to take matters into their own hands. And again, I find it telling that when women push back against abuse, there's always a rush to press them over whether they are harming innocent people.

The article also says someone spat on him, which is an assault.

Nobody here has condoned abuse of any sort.

I absolutely do not condone Diego's behavior and think he should have been held accountable for displaying the nude photo.

No, you don't, because you are expressly arguing against his peers holding him accountable, calling them doing so bullying.
posted by NoxAeternum at 10:27 AM on June 22 [13 favorites]


“Gossip” connotes stories about people that range from exaggerated/not fully accurate to outright malicious lies. When the topic of gossip is true, the term still connotes some sort of triviality - a distinction os generally made between gossip and news, for example. Seems to me that it is a mischaracterization to describe students sharing true stories about a dangerous fellow student in their midst as gossiping. (The gendered overtones of the term, and how that ties in to the sexism that feeds the whole problem in the first place, are particularly problematic.) It would be at least as accurate to describe the bathroom list as a bit of citizen journalism.
posted by eviemath at 11:53 AM on June 22 [8 favorites]


Here’s my question: In a just world, what do we do with people who’ve committed real harm? How do we care for those who were harmed, and how do we fully acknowledge and work to repair the harm the perpetrators committed? What is the path back to community for people who’ve done bad things?

Neither of these articles addresses this question with any substance. Philly Stands Up used to, back when they were around and doing transformative justice work with perpetrators of sexual assault within the activist community.

But in public conversations about harm generally, I don’t often see any discussion of alternatives to shunning / killing / hating people forever. And honestly that shit doesn’t work for building the beloved community. “Here, let me treat you like you’re subhuman til you learn to be human!” (See: the prison system; sex offender registries.) Likewise, ignoring the harm, not having any consequences, and discounting survivors is obviously also a horrible option that solves nothing.

As a survivor of sexual assault, I am so, so tired of overly simplistic conversations that either discount and ignore survivors (we're all familiar with what that looks like), or else ignore the need for an accountability process that ultimately treats perpetrators like human beings and works towards their healthy integration into society. We can have -- and in fact need -- both things, if we want to eliminate sexual violence.
posted by cnidaria at 12:29 PM on June 22 [5 favorites]


But even if you take Weil at her word that social media, evolving social mores, and post-pandemic agita have elevated the tenor of teenage hostilities, the story fails on many levels.

For one, it strips the pursuit of extralegal justice from the context of how the Trump administration has gutted Title IX and how the school in question was ill-equipped to protect its female students. While the Biden administration recently announced plans to rollback some of those changes, they won’t take effect for several months. As Title IX attorney Alexandra Brodsky wrote in her book, Sexual Justice: “No one, I think, wants to live in a world where the Shitty Media Men list or bathroom scrawling is plausibly a top choice.” Unfortunately, that’s often how things go, and then we end up in a place where a legacy publication devotes thousands of words to the victims of cancel culture, rather than, say, administrators who ignore revenge porn.
-- Tarpley Hitt, Gawker, The Problem With New York Mag's "Canceled Teen"
posted by rewil at 12:51 PM on June 22 [10 favorites]


NoxAeturnum do NOT tell ME what MY opinions are.

I don't have an issue with abusers being shut out of social events nor being told point blank that they're not welcome to speak to or be around people they've hurt or who condemn their behavior. Whispering and giggling only exacerbates things.

I do have one with peers who haven't done anything to others and agree not to missing step being shunned.


When the staff at school dropped the ball the next step should have been to go to the board of education, then state government.
posted by brujita at 12:59 PM on June 22 [1 favorite]


Here is a pretty gristly thread by a lawyer whose firm has represented teens who were abused and harassed at school because they were the victims of revenge porn, stalking, etc. It really illustrates how atypical the response of the students at this school is and it illustrates that school administrations in general cannot be trusted to support victims and will generally defend perpetrators.
posted by Frowner at 1:28 PM on June 22 [15 favorites]


Here’s my question: In a just world, what do we do with people who’ve committed real harm? How do we care for those who were harmed, and how do we fully acknowledge and work to repair the harm the perpetrators committed? What is the path back to community for people who’ve done bad things?

Same as it's always been, as I've said in this and other threads - contrition, and through it the malefactor showing the community that they are no longer a threat. The problem is and has always been the question that doesn't get asked - what if the malefactor refuses to engage in contrition? That has always been the sticking point, because a malefactor who refuses to engage in contrition remains a threat, and communities are very much within their rights to want to exclude them. As I've pointed out in several comments above, this case is a perfect demonstration of the dynamic - the door was there for Diego, but he had to step through it by acknowledging that he had abused his ex-girlfriend. It was his refusal that kept the door closed, and the other students were right in seeing him as a threat, given how domestic abuse aligns with escalation to other forms of abuse and violence.

This is the shoal that many anti-carceral movements flounder on - the reality that there are malefactors who do not see themselves as such, and as such cannot be reformed (since to do that you need the person to accept the totality of their misconduct). And it's in handling them that it turns out that there are few good ideas.
posted by NoxAeternum at 1:30 PM on June 22 [3 favorites]


When the staff at school dropped the ball the next step should have been to go to the board of education, then state government.

Nothing would have changed. I bet the school district followed their Title IX duties to a tee and the BoE/state government have no role to play in Title IX investigations. As the Gawker piece linked by rewil notes, the Trump administration really handcuffed what schools can do (which wasn’t much to begin with). Further, even if they could do something more, FERPA rules mean any discipline must be confidential. The whole process is opaque by design, so no one ever comes out satisfied.

The shunning situation reminds me of a riot—people are acting out because a situation has become intolerable and the only outlet available is destruction. There is often collateral damage suffered by unwitting parties. Which only magnifies and spreads harm without actually getting closer to justice. The tragedy is people too often look at the secondary damage to “innocent bystanders” and don’t engage with the core issues that caused the riot.

That, I think, is the biggest problem with the original article — it focuses too much on the aftermath (and in shallow, non-constructive ways) and doesn’t dive into the root problem that is plain as day if you’re willing to see.
posted by Big Al 8000 at 1:52 PM on June 22 [12 favorites]


I don’t often see any discussion of alternatives to shunning / killing / hating people forever.

The "forever" is doing a lot of work in that sentence. In this particular case Diego is heading off to college and will be basically be moving on with a different social crowd. So it is in different ways with most of the "shunned" and "hated"--Louis CK is back and won a Grammy last year, for example.

Also, a lot of people have been asking for alternatives for a long time! No one is saying this is the best way to do it; the frustration is often explicitly tied to a formal system that often does nothing--or seems to only do something in response to massive publicity and outrage.
posted by mark k at 2:31 PM on June 22 [11 favorites]


if anyone frequents the Inside Higher Ed space, the topic of sexual assault on campuses comes up with some frequency

I no longer visit the space, but the scrutiny paid to Title IX, changes under Trump, etc was considerable. I'm no expert but if I'm weighing the frequency of sexual assaults and the harmful environment to mostly women, vs. pearl clutching discussions on whether shunning might be too harsh, I know where I'm going to focus my attention and energy.
posted by elkevelvet at 3:39 PM on June 22 [9 favorites]


Whispering and giggling only exacerbates things.

mmm yes really unforgivably feminine the both of those verbs

when you "whisper" you are choosing to keep a communication confidential between just you and the person you are whispering to, even if the guy whose abuses you are disclosing would very much like to know what you are saying and is outraged that he cannot jam his ears into your conversation simply for the wanting to. and when you "giggle" you are treating him with unbearable lightness. to laugh at a boy, as if he could be a figure of fun even after he did a grown-up sex crime--! why, it positively demeans his accomplishments
posted by queenofbithynia at 7:41 PM on June 22 [6 favorites]


also, when more than two or three people in a school are collectively "shunned" the concept of shunning loses all force. so does the idea of "collectively". what is actually happening is that they are all free to be friends with each other. they are not individual outcasts; they are simply one clique among many.

unless, for some reason, they find each other's company as undesirable as everyone else does.
posted by queenofbithynia at 7:45 PM on June 22 [4 favorites]


Dan Nguyen on twitter: Since it’s easy to figure out what school this story involves, I have to ask: is the author friends with/or related to any of the people featured in the story? It seems the best explanation for why her story fixates on Diego, and has no info on any of the other boys on that list

Assuming it's true that it's easy to identify the school, this adds an extra layer of horribleness to the weirdly-detailed physical descriptions of "Fiona" and the other teens--that makes them more identifiable as well. What an absolute shitshow of alleged journalism this article is.
posted by creepygirl at 12:28 PM on June 23 [6 favorites]




« Older I Didn’t Start Weight Lifting Because I Wanted to...   |   Queer and always here Newer »


You are not currently logged in. Log in or create a new account to post comments.