The- so far as we can tell- true story of Mz. Ziz LaSota

The Postman Always Rings Twice

We woke up this morning w/ 🙄 many chores to do. So imagine our delight when the mailman came knocking! We thanked him many times for the letter, ripped it open right there on the lawn, & read:
***
Dear Drosselmeyer, 
I must warn you. You are en route to make a lot of ppl v. upset at you, w/ no benefit to anyone whatsoever. Your behavior has bull-in-a-china-shop written all over it. If you continue down this road, you will become an easy mark for very bad ppl. Also, you are not a Rationalist so why write abt this to begin with? I think you are simply a drama-monger. 
p.s. Why have you developed an obsessive hate boner for Jessica Taylor— who, btw, is Ophelia’s ex? 
p.p.s. It’s w/ no small amt of joy that I draw an equal sign b/w you & Andy Ngo. You are two dumbfuck culture warriors trying to force this case in your preconceived ideas. Also, neither of you has bothered to interview a single loved one of the dead and indicted. 
p.p.p.s. I reiterate that you have a throbbing, raging hate boner for Miss Jessica. 
p.p.p.p.s. You are looking to harass Suri’s defense team, aren’t you?
— A Concerned Citizen
***
Dear A Concerned Citizen, 
Our apologies: we read your letter upside-down, & responded to it from the bottom up 🤷🏻‍♀️
Your wording is vivid, but no; we don’t have an obsessive hate boner for Jessica Taylor 🤭 We find it ridiculous that the press interviews her so often, typically presenting her as a “friend of the group”, which is inaccurate. This is esp. unfortunate, bc Jessica’s widely-quoted opinions have a way of being groundless yet apparently damning. 
Your note that she is Ophelia’s ex is surprising— but sthng to be joyful for. We’d previously expressed skepticism for USA Today’s framing of their relationship. If what you say is true, tho, we will be thrilled to welcome Jessica to the sisterhood 🤗
😮‍💨 We wish we were mongering drama. It is much easier to monger than counter-narratives. While this story is, at many turns, dramatic, it, at least to us, reads as a tragedy. 
It is a tragedy for those involved ofc, & a tragedy for those of us who read the press’s coldly sinister misinformation as if watching a slow-motion train-wreck. You know, we have heard from 2 separate ppl that the press interviewed them, took their quotes out of context, & warped those quotes to fit a more convenient press narrative. This is, incidentally, part of our half-joking exasperation at seeing Jessica Taylor interviewed so often: her perspectives are not counterbalanced, either bc the press avoids balancing them, or bc ppl w/ diff. perspectives avoid the public spotlight— reasonably wary, we’re sure, of how the press will warp them. 
We come now to a series of questions: will this project piss a lot of ppl off? Will it be of no benefit to anyone whatsoever? Will it make us an easy mark for genuinely bad ppl? 
The answer to the first is ofc yes. The answer to the second is still up in the air. Many have been kind enough to reach out & let us know that this project has been beneficial to their blood-pressure & sense of inner stability, which was our hope to begin w/. The answer to the third is unknown. We will have to wait & see.
Finally, your bull-in-a-china-shop metaphor: we like parts of it. Both the press’s narrative &, we believe, the Rationalists’ self-projections, are china-like. They are thin, lightweight, & delicate. 
One often overlooked feature of good china: it is, for all its delicacy, quite difficult to chip. It is deceptively strong, & can last generations w/ good care. This is our fear, & this is why we try to break as many of these press heirlooms as we can. We do not want them passed down; we want them, eventually, to be looked down upon as an example of yesterday’s madness & ignorance. 
Are we like a bull in the china-shop of press narratives & Rationalist self-mythologizing? In many ways, no. Unlike bulls, we are not territorial: we would like many others to join us in our eccentric territory of counter-narratives. We enjoy a good fight, but do not like dominating others, or lashing out in aggression. We prefer to let ppl’s own words work against them; this saves energy, & we think it’s more entertaining to watch. Unlike bulls, we don’t challenge ppl simply bc we see them as threats or rivals. We challenge those whom we see, mainly, bending the truth & performing a lot of rhetorical flim-flam in defense of their personal opinions. 
In other ways, we suppose we are quite bull-like. When not challenging others on their published flim-flam, we’re fairly calm. We’re also not easily trainable. We are not eager to please; we are willful, & can become uncooperative when given orders.
All in all, this might make us like a goat in their china-shop of a narrative, or maybe a donkey. Goats ofc like to play around, when not being oppositional, & when not prodding you w/ their horns. 
Donkeys are surprisingly loyal: they look out for their companions, & are willing to act in their defense. They are not quick to panic; &, notoriously, they do not take orders— esp. unsafe or pointless ones. 
We wonder what animal you’d be in their narrative. We would be delighted to hear all abt it. 
Thanks for writing, & all the best— Drosselmeyer 
p.s. In terms of making an equal sign b/w us & Andy Ngo… in some cases, we wish this were true. 
Andy, god knows how, has managed to convince ppl that he is a “journalist”. Andy gets paid to write claptrap, & gets legitimated thru interview after interview. Andy has $ to travel to places like Sonoma County. Oh how we wish we were more like Andy! 
On the other hand… ofc you could not pay us to be more like Andy. You could not pay us to simp for neo-fascists, & to express horror over our queer subjects. 
You’re right that we have yet to interview a single loved one of the dead or indicted. There are 2 reasons for this: we don’t know them, & they are grieving. 
We doubt very much that they’d want to talk to us. 
If you know any of them, & if they would, for some reason, love to speak w/ an independent, credential-free, anonymous writer— you ofc may direct them to us. We would give them the final word on what gets posted. 
We’ve never heard the term “culture warrior” used in conversation before. We assume from your tone that you’re not one. While we don’t self-identify as a culture warrior— while we believe our so-called “culture war” is a distraction from our ongoing class war— we see where you’re coming from. 
As we said earlier: we’re a bit donkey-ish. We feel v. protective of fellow queer community members. We would like to chase off the Andy Ngos of this world when they menace others in our herd. 
Now your most serious claim: are we trying to force this story to match our preconceived opinions? 
We spend a lot of time kvetching abt journalists attempting to do this in their articles, & spend no small amount of time asking ourself if we’re not guilty of the same. If we were a cynic, we’d say that all humans are guilty of this, to some extent— that it is inescapable. We try not to be a cynic. 
We’ll also let you in on sthng: our preconceived notions were to believe the press. All our life, we have admired, adored, & depended upon the press. We first read abt this story in Wired’s dreadful article, thought it was a pretty good article, & liked the depth of research which its journalist proudly said went into it. 
This inspired us to do some research ourself— into the blogs of Gwen & then of Ziz, which utterly shattered our preconceived notions. This experience taught us to approach this story by first throwing most of our preconceived notions out the window, & by expecting the unexpected. 
If— when?— the press publishes something we agree w/, we will be delighted to reverse our dim opinion of them. If someone personally involved comes forth &— of their own free will, not due to pressure from feds or the legal system— says Ziz is a monster, we will listen to them seriously. What more can any of us do? 
p.p.s. God forbid we harass the defense team! They need all the strength they can get. No, we do not know the defense team, & have no interest in sticking our fingers in any legal battles. We have no legal expertise. We only stick our fingers in the battle of public opinion— that is the one arena we have training in. 
p.p.s. See above for a recap of the intense non-boner which Miss Jessica inspires in us. 
***
We stuck the letter in our mailbox, & returned to washing dishes, when who should knock again but the mailman! We excused our sudsy hands, & opened the letter, fingers trembling.
***
Dear Drosselmeyer,
“If what you say is true, tho, we will be thrilled to welcome Jessica to the sisterhood". Drosselmeyer, this is nonsense. This is nonsense which discredits everything else you have to say. It makes clear that you have watched no interviews w/ Jessica— if you had, you would have noticed she has not done voice training. 
"We wish we were mongering drama". Drosselmeyer, your site is pastel pink! You write in the tone of a stereotypical catfighty Tumblr cisgirl. Your lack of methodological rigor & seriousness (MRAS) do, I’m afraid, align you w/ Andy Ngo— you are nowhere near the MRAS of Kenny Jones. 
— A Kenny Jones-Admiring Citizen
***
Dear A Kenny Jones-Admiring Citizen, 
🤭 Our apologies again: we should have expanded that as “the sapphic sisterhood”. That was the original phrase. 
Jessica’s interviews 🥱 have unfortunately been watched. They have strengthened, rather than changed, our opinion that she talks quite frequently to the press. 
We encourage you to share passages that have a “stereotypical catfighty tumblr cisgirl tone” w/ us. Then we can go over them together.
Please also share passages you feel lack methodological rigor or seriousness. These indeed we would take v. seriously, if you have notes for where we’ve treated grave subjects lightly, or where we’ve been shoddy in our research. We are always open to helpful advice. 
Is a lover of pastel pink obligated to love drama? 🤷🏻‍♀️ If so, there are certain news outlets & certain “journalists”— Andy ofc included— whom we’d advise to change their branding immediately! 
We like pink bc it is often underestimated. It is also disarming. It is, incidentally, inspired by the paper of a few early queer zines in the ‘70s. We’re not on tumblr, we dk what aesthetics they’re getting up to 🤷🏻‍♀️ We’ve had some suggest that our style is “camp”, & we have enthusiastically thanked these ppl. That is just what we’re going for. 
We could talk & talk abt the finer points of camp style: the liberties it grants one; the problems it solves. It is, we believe, an excellent style for talking abt heartbreaking things— & abt dry things, both of which this case has in abundance. What is your fav writing style? 
On that point…
We’ve been penpals for some time now, & we still know almost nothing abt you. What, we wonder, is a detail that we could coax you to reveal w/out compromising your anonymity, which we expect you’d like to maintain? We’re still eager to hear all abt your stance on this case, & how you have come to care so deeply abt it. But let’s maybe start w/ sthng less loaded: what is the nicest thing you’ve seen this week? What’s sthng you saw that sparked joy? 
We’ll tell you ours: just yesterday, we were on a sunny hill w/ our gf, overlooking a museum. On a tall pole, this museum had a kinetic sculpture which looked like a boatless boat: a boat w/ no hull. 
It had “flags” which turned in the wind, a propeller on the back, pinwheels on the sides, & gear-like structures at the bow. It was completely charming. What has charmed you from the past week? 
XX- D
***
We were back to scrubbing the pots & pans, when what do you think we heard! Our mailman was red-faced & panting: he had run all the way to our little apt from the post office. We gave him an early Christmas tip for his efforts, & took the letter back into our kitchen.
***
Dear Drosselmeyer, 
If you couldn't tell by how I told you not to bother the defense team, I am acquainted with one of the indicted. I don't like a total stranger making a "fun camp" website about the violent cult my acquaintance was sucked into. At all.
— A Concerned Acquaintance
***
Dear A Concerned Acquaintance,
Ah, we see, thanks for sharing the real meat of this conversation. You are acquainted w/ one of the indicted. You believe that Ziz’s friend group was a violent cult. These are both v. heavy burdens to carry, & we’re sorry they’re on your— on anyone’s— shoulders. 
We used to believe Ziz’s friend group was a violent cult. We no longer do. 
We realize that, for someone who is in a state of worry & mourning for an acquaintance, long counter-arguments are not helpful or desired, & the quick explanation— that Ziz was the leader of a deranged cult; that violent deeds were thus practically required to occur— likely contains much comfort. We are not asking you to shift your perspective now or in the future— we just hope you take care of yourself.
*
This is not the time for digressions on genre— we apologize for the shift in both content & tone. But we want to dig a little deeper into what you call “fun camp”. 
On one level, camp is fun: its goal is to draw ppl in, & to keep them engaged. On another level, camp is deadly serious. It is a means of delivering long, complex, painful, traumatizing, horrifying, & enraging stories. Like this one. 
Camp ideally punches up, not down. It does not “make fun” of those struck by tragedy. It is a system for rehabilitating the narratives of those who have been publicly smeared, for insisting on their worth— not on their perfection: we are all human beings, & “perfection” is a dishonest thing to claim. It insists on their worth as human beings. 
It does ofc enjoy making fun of, for ex., pompous journalists 🤭 It enjoys showing how their arguments collapse under the slightest pressure. 
It may do this in a humorous way— the goal, again, is to engage ppl, not to get accepted by an academic journal. But it does not do this for the sake of “fun” alone: it does this out of a belief that fibs & bad-faith rhetorical strategies should be revealed, & should made to look ridiculous if indeed they are ridiculous. It does this out of a belief that authority is earned thru actions, not thru job titles at fancy institutions. 
If a journalist at a fancy institution claims authority, then shows nothing in their article but shoddy readings & bad-faith rhetoric, they should be cut down to size— but not w/ attempts to shout louder than them, or to become even more pompous than they are. Camp provides a different style w/ which to cut ppl down to size. 
Where did such a style originate? As we’re sure you know: in the trenches of 20th-century queerphobia. Then & now, it serves a number of purposes. Perhaps most importantly, it is one of many coping strategies for feeling devastated, overwhelmed, & outgunned. 
Paradoxically, it reifies the weight of its true convictions: typically, convictions that involve protection of the disempowered. It allows one to say the serious things that need to get said w/out resorting to rants & lectures. 
It also allows one to maintain one’s sanity: it believes that, esp. in the darkest times, we need to find joy where we can. Joy is essential to survival— it is not a luxury, & need not be a distraction from the serious topics at hand (TSTAH). It instead allows one to engage w/ TSTAH, w/out becoming overwhelmed & burnt-out. 
Joy in what? Joy in another’s tragedy? No! That is not joy, that is schadenfreude; that is poison to the soul. Often, creativity is needed to find joy— to conjure it out of thin air, if necessary. The purpose of this, again, is not to diminish the weight of serious things, but to make those serious things bearable in all our minds.
*
Thank you again for sharing w/ us the most important thing abt yourself: how all of this affects you. We are, again, deeply sorry for your acquaintance, for you, & for all involved. Thanks also for taking the time to have this conversation. You seem like a sincere & heartfelt person. We wish you all the best, & we wish your acquaintance the best of luck. 
XX— D
***
We sighed. We were in no mood for any more pots & pans. We petted our cat, & watered our plants, but no sooner had we finished than another letter slipped under our door. Through the window, we saw the mailman staggering through our garden, sweat making a kind of Rorschach blot on his blue shirt-back.
***
Dear Drosselmeyer, 
Stop playing dumb! In the largest-ever LessWrong survey, no trans woman was straight. Admit it: you had no idea Jessica was trans bc you're simply that incapable of reading the room.
"Is she perhaps fearful of coming out"— said about someone who transitioned in a 50%-queer community? These are the deranged outbursts of someone who has no idea what they are talking about, yet insists on writing a bizarrely large website about it.
— An Incredulous Citizen
***
Dear An Incredulous Citizen,
Our apologies once more: we have not heard of this survey by LessWrong. We personally have many trans-&-straight friends, & trans-&-gay friends 🤷🏻‍♀️ 
We were, once more, referring to her “coming out” in the context of disclosing what you say was a romance w/ Ophelia. That 50%-queer stat is many points higher than the stat we’ve heard, but in any case: it doesn’t seem to have stopped this group from maintaining its biases & phobias (BAP). If we were Jessica, these BAP might indeed dissuade us from disclosing a queer relationship. 
We’ll admit this website is large, but is it bizarrely so? This is a v. long & complex story, made even longer & more complex by its press coverage. 
Was our reluctance to take the word of USA Today a “deranged outburst”? We don’t know if it’s deranged to hesitate over believing a source which:
a) has written an otherwise 🙄 article; 
b) has revealed news which no one else has covered, & 
c) has not backed up their news w/, say, a direct quote from their source 🤷🏻‍♀️ 
Is that asking too much? Perhaps. In any case, you may have noticed that we put their relationship in the ¿Dubious News bucket, not the Fake News bucket. You may have also noticed that we put it in the ¿DN bucket w/ reluctance & some sorrow— & we will be thrilled to retrieve it from the ¿DN bucket if you will swear that this is what you fully know to be true. We don’t like retrieving things from the ¿DN bucket only to drop them in once more. 
Looking back over this post you’ve quoted from, we also don’t see an “outburst”. That word, incidentally, has come to be irrevocably paired in our mind w/ poor Somni, whose v. serious announcements in court are repeatedly minimized by the press as “outbursts”, as if she were nothing but a threatening storm-cloud on their horizon. 
Her announcements invariably cause long & sometimes tearful discussions w/ our gf. In that sense, maybe we are happy to join her in the club of those who provide “outbursts”.
— Drosselmeyer
***
We dropped our letter in the mailbox, & had just walked back in when another letter came zooming down our chimney, almost giving our legs a paper-cut. We sat down on the floor, brushed soot off its envelope, & opened it slowly w/ wonder & amazement.
***
Dear Drosselmeyer,
DMs are free, you're just unwilling to actually proactively ask any question to any loved one of the dead and indicted bc you know every single one of us would tell you to stop with your antics when you have zero connection to the case and do not understand any of the social dynamics or ideas at hand. You have simply developed a parasocial hate boner against Jessica Taylor for not fitting in your narrative.
— An Anti-Antics Citizen
***
Dear An Anti-Antics Citizen, 
As said previously: you are right that we have not interviewed a single loved one of the dead or indicted. There are 2 reasons for this: we don’t know them, & they are grieving. 
There is a 3rd reason for this: we would consider it in v. bad taste to make a post asking the world: “Do you know the handles of the loved ones of the dead & indicted? Can you send them to us? We would love to drop into their DMs & beg for a quote.” 
We would not like to beg for a quote. We would like them to have a peaceful day free of pestering. 
Yet in fact: we do not know that “every single one of them” would disagree w/ our little project. We have spoken to several ppl who are associated to some degree w/ Rationalism, & they have been kind enough to share their encouragement. 🤷🏻‍♀️
We’re again unsure what specific “social dynamics & ideas” you’re talking abt. We always like concrete examples. 
“Hate boner” is again a v. vivid description, but it still doesn’t capture the impressions we’ve gained of Miss Jessica. We disagree w/ Jessica’s framing, & w/ virtually every opinion that she has shared publicly. That does not mean we “hate” her— that simply means we don’t think the two of us would be the best of friends. We would be thrilled if she talked less to the media, & if we never had to mention her again. In the meantime, we will continue to unpack & explore the quotes she gives on this story, as we unpack & explore the rest of this story’s press coverage. If we think there are critiques to be made, we’ll keep making those too.
Be well— Drosselmeyer
***
This, we figured, would be the end of it— surely we had cleared our name of secret Jessica boners! Triumphantly we slapped our stamp on the envelope, ran all the way to the mailbox & back, then prepared to take a shower. As steam rose around us, we pressed the top of our favorite lavender shampoo, only to see squeeze out of it— the corner of another letter! Ink trickled down our palms as we opened it. 
***
Dear Drosselmeyer,
Kenny Jones is an example of a relative stranger who managed to reach out to a significant number of persons of interest simply by acting normally, taking the subject seriously, actually seeking to understand the social dynamics and ideas at hand free from any personal prejudice and generally just... not being you.
Here is a "concrete example" of you completely misunderstanding the basic social dynamics of the community: you failed to take USA Today at their word that Jessica & Ophelia were in a relationship.
And in term of ideas... you pretend to be a comparative literature scholar? You're a fucking dogshit one. Your interpretation of Ziz's ideology is about as credible as portraying Scientology as a group of activists against psychiatric abuses. If you really wanted to understand Ziz's ideology… have you bothered to read her own comment sections? Her Twitter account? Her comments elsewhere on the blogs of Gwen, Jamie, etc.?
Ultimately, there is little need to go full comparative literature on what she used to justify her actions to understand what is going on.
— Back to Being a Kenny Jones Enthusiast
***
Dear Back to Being a Kenny Jones Enthusiast (BTBAKJE),
We personally disagree w/ many of Kenny’s opinions. We’re sure he takes the subject seriously— we admire that abt him— we are simply writing from different angles. Which is good: it is good for different ppl to have differing opinions.
We won’t pretend we’re not surprised to find you reading zizians.co w/ some thoroughness— why would you invest that time into sthng that only seems to make you upset? You’ve at least read abt our background; which, to be fair, is in the first post under “Bonus Content”. You’re too kind when you call us a “scholar” ☺️ We said only that our training is in comp lit. 
Indeed, this story does benefit from the tools of comp lit. It benefits from close reading, intertextual analysis, historical contextualization, genre & form analysis, thematic & formal comparison, ethical & political critique, archival & paratextual work, &— yes— “translation”, in a sense. In the specific sense of Ziz’s wordy, neologism-filled & self-referential blog. 
Believe it or not, even literary theory & philosophy can be useful tools for dealing w/ this subject matter. They are at least handy to have in the back of one’s mind. 
One maxim of comp lit is that everything is a “text”— even things that get called “low culture”— like blogs, for ex., or trashy articles. Here are some other maxims we enjoy:
• Meaning is constructed thru language choices, & ofc thru frames of cultural reference. 
• Power operates in language. 
• Silenced stories— stories left out— are just as important as the stories which a text retains. 
We're curious what personal prejudice you think we have. We are, as you have noted, not personally connected w/ the Rationalists— only w/ ppl who have been personally connected. We’ve formed our opinions in response to the material itself— to blogs, to comments, to social media accounts, to press coverage, & to personal conversations w/ our own more-knowledgable acquaintances. These opinions are always changing, as we believe opinions should be. If you see bias in our perspective, pls say precisely what it is & we will listen. 
Does Kenny win your approval by “just… not being” us? 🤭 This is a v. interesting idea. On one level, we can’t argue w/ it. You are free to dislike us as much as you want! On another level, we’ve never thought abt the writers we admire in quite this way before. 
We admire our fav writers bc we admire their opinions— we don’t admire them bc they are unlike other writers whom we dislike. We admire their opinions when they rest on substance— not on the dazzle of their personalities. Here we can imagine you poking us in the ribs & saying, “But Drosselmeyer, your opinions don’t rest on substance!” Again, we will ask which opinions you mean specifically, & then we can, at some point, explore their substance or lack thereof. 
We can’t help but wonder: why have you sent so many letters to a writer you dislike? You are v. persistent. On the other hand, so are we. We are currently shirking many tasks from our busy day in order to write this. 
W/ an eye towards that temptation to shirk: we suggest, BTBAKJE, that we call this whole thing off. You have our full permission to dislike us. You have our full permission to disagree w/ what we say, to distrust our motives, & generally to shudder when you think of us. We have nothing connecting us. We are like two strangers on a train. We may each go our separate ways w/ nothing gained, but nothing lost either. 
We hope you enjoy the rest of your journey— safe travels, Drosselmeyer
***
In fact, we did not want to admit this to our penpal, but we were out of stamps 😞 We spritzed our letter w/ some perfume to distract from its soggy edges, & left it in the mailbox on our way to get Chinese food w/ our gf. She asked us: “Is it weird that LessWrong is collecting data on everyone’s sexual orientations?” “Maybe?” we said, “They are a data-loving crew.” “I think it’s weird,” said our gf, & then we turned into the restaurant & left the matter at that. 
*****
Next: An Open Letter to Our Concerned Citizen
↑Back to Top