Talk:Enablers

Sections

I still believe the sections "Why you shouldn't be enabling Chris" and "Motives" should be their own section, as they were primarily meant to be for enablers of all creeds. PsychoNerd054 (talk) 18:58, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

There are different types of enablers, though. It's murky if motives/criticism for them are mixed together into one section. Like in the current article, all but two of the sections extensively reference manipulating Chris's fantasies, and the only reference to financial enabling is in one standalone section. Also, I feel that the article could be more neutral in tone and shouldn't directly refer to readers (like with the "you" in section titles), that's why I renamed it to Criticism. Hurtful Truth Level (talk) 03:39, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

The article was meant to have the same format as the other Unholy Tetrad articles, which gives a definition of the act, provides examples, gives common justifications, and then provides arguments against them. Those articles also speak directly to the reader. And besides, if we have those sections for each type, I can't imagine providing reasons that have already showed up in the page. Arguments like "You will always assumed to be under bad faith" applies to every type, not just Fantasy Enablers. Furthermore, any the more general arguments are more useful for the page then just giving each type their own justifications and arguements.PsychoNerd054 (talk) 04:27, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Fair point on the same format, I didn't realize that the related articles were also written that way. But I think one difference between Enablers and the others is Enablers has different types while A-Logs/Weens/White Knights don't, so Justifications/arguments fit well for those but not as well for Enablers. Maybe we could split the difference and make a Justification/arguments against section "In General" - something like https://i.imgur.com/pGJ9FGZ.png Hurtful Truth Level (talk) 13:31, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Are the Guard Dogs and Region Ten psychiatrist enablers?

The Guard Dogs tried to protect Chris, but their actions could be described as enabling. From the examples in this list, they took on more than their share of responsibilities, and ignored problematic behavior (in Guard Dog chats where they ignored Chris's attempts to steer the topic to his fantasyland). The Region Ten psychiatrist similarly ignored Chris's ranting about his fantasyland and handwaved him through the program instead of intervening. Hurtful Truth Level (talk) 04:06, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Maybe. I always thought of an enabler as a wannabee troll who tries to get a page on here by using the outdated technique of manipulating Chris, but perhaps we could expand the definition a bit if needed. I think we could potentially cover those in the article, using them as examples for why there is very little use in enabling Chris, even for a good cause. The Guard Dogs are briefly discussed in the article anyway. PsychoNerd054 (talk) 04:15, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Warning the autistic

Many of Chris's noteworthy enablers in the last year, besides failtrolls, have been autistic. The gullible language interpretation is obvious from their doomed battles on Kiwi Farms, and given the disability's nature, they may well seriously believe that the internet is playing Kick the Autistic and/or that Chris's nonsense is real. While it is obvious for the rest of us what is going on, should we have a section aimed specifically at autists to explain this plainly and how easily they can find themselves in over their heads? These people are evidently less likely to listen to normal reasons not to enable. ChanOfTartary (talk) 14:19, 12 April 2020 (UTC)