This conversation demonstrates how defenders of FRSO engage in motivated reasoning when confronting evidence of institutional failure. The participant, Kyra, a mid-level cadre defending FRSO leadership’s handling of sexual assault allegations, progressively constructs elaborate hypothetical scenarios to maintain a predetermined conclusion. This conversation captures that process in real-time: treating speculation as fact, pathologizing dissent, and constructing increasingly elaborate scenarios under pressure.
Sparrow: Imma be real, the night all of you were talking about Tequila Sunset being crazy and all of that kind of rubbed me the wrong way. I know I haven’t been in the org long but i couldn’t dismiss him based on that alone
Kyra: Fair enough. He’s just been stubbornly pursuing various things before this that fit into a trend. I hope the center is able to provide clarity for everyone’s doubts but it isn’t my place to do so
Kyra characterizes disagreement with the leadership clique as “stubbornly pursuing various things.” Like in Rick’s attempted character assassination of me, Kyra recasts disagreement as evidence of a “trend” of bad faith.
Kyra: Or actually i should be self critical for speaking uncomradely about him as i have done because it felt like he had done so to whoever but that doesn’t make it right. And also that is separate from the groundlessness of the speculation.
Kyra presents the act of criticism of the leadership itself as “speaking uncomradely,” and further, minimizes weaponizing her knowledge of my ADHD and calling me crazy to other cadre as simply the same “speaking uncomradely.”
Sparrow: Maybe I’m sensitive to being called crazy, but I had to look into the claims myself to make sure it was as circumstantial as everyone was saying it was. Regardless, the responses I’ve heard from Rick and others doesn’t make me feel confident in being able to raise criticism without being called insane
Sparrow: If it is a pattern with Tequila Sunset, and I’m not claiming it isn’t, I would have no idea, because I do think this district has a problem with transparency of information
Kyra: He was fixated on the remote work thing, some other stuff in various contexts not sure how the org would report that but its true the org isn’t fully transparent its ML. Time and resources are the main blockers to reporting more
The “remote work thing” that I was “fixated” on refers to a proposal I wrote to the center to encourage them to consider remote work instead of committing hundreds of thousands of dollars to an office space. The references to transparency relate to me suggesting the Center and local leadership are a black box and ought to be far more transparent with the membership. Kyra says she’s “not sure how the org would report that”; I wrote a local resolution she voted in favor of that articulates exactly how.
Kyra: Yeah i am brash when talking with/about my friends, and crazy is a word i am close to so i throw it around inappropriately when i shouldn’t
This deflects from the specific harm. She was using ableist language to dismiss concerns about sexual assault, not casually joking with friends. She also told multiple people I was “taking too much adderall” - weaponizing knowledge of my ADHD medication.
Kyra: But its the fixation and aggressiveness over a long time and various things that comes off as not interested in unity
Kyra pathologizes criticism of the leadership clique as “fixation and aggressiveness” and weaponizes the “unity” language to imply that “unity” means not disagreeing with the leadership clique. In fact, unity and criticism exist in a dialectical relationship.
Kyra: Conclusion comes first, then everything else
Projection. The Center concluded I was operating in bad faith when challenging Dan before seeking any deeper understanding of the conflict - Kyra told me this (see here). They immediately concluded I was a wrecker for wanting an explanation on Dustin Ponder (see here). Kyra herself had already come to the conclusion that the Center did not cover up for Dustin (see here), and justifies it with increasing leaps of logic.
Sparrow: And I’m not saying that in some virtuous crusade against ableism or something, it was just in proximity to an alleged cover up of a rape case that I think needed to be treated with more tact
Kyra: Yeah i was being insensitive. I’m sorry. To me i know more info so i know i am going off of that, but to everyone else it looks like we don’t care about the issue
Kyra: The investigation happened, its moreso whether to disclose a bunch of stuff that isn’t our business. Like if i made an allegation, or if a false one was made against me, how many times and how many eyes should be able to just drudge that up?
The investigation did not happen. Steff’s emails show she made determinations about which statements were true or false without ever speaking to the victim, and attempted to downgrade the allegation from rape to abuse based on social media analysis. Two years after those emails, she confirmed that the investigation had been stalled:
- The VA: Why is Dustin Ponder still in the organization? Camera-person: Why is he still in it? I want to know too. Steff: Dustin Ponder is still in the organization because I’m still waiting for a complaint from the person you’re representing.
Further, Kyra deploys the same cynical privacy shield that Mick attempted to use to deflect scrutiny of FRSO leadership’s handling of Dustin Ponder.
Kyra: But which criticisms do you mean were in private?
Sparrow: Nova brought the same concern to Rick, who said that any further discussion of the issue would be crushed
Kyra: Ugh, that’s crazy I mean He’s so indelicate and has been criticized for that on other things He tried to claim a cultural thing which might be true
Sparrow: And that Tequila Sunset’s loyalty was in question And to have faith or whatever
Sparrow: Extremely undialectical
Sparrow: So I think he’s straight up lying when he said that there’s no hostile environment to criticism
Kyra: Yeah, worth having major CSC over that
Sparrow: So, I personally don’t think the issue is resolved. I don’t think you can prove a negative but the center could at least either say they didn’t have enough evidence to do anything about Dustin, or admit they fucked up in handling him
Sparrow: But mick also said “you know how young men and women are” This was actually Tom Burke, in reference to Mantak Singh.
Sparrow: As a way to dismiss the allegations entirely
Sparrow: And I personally wouldn’t want a guy like that to handle my rape case lol
Sparrow: There’s contradictory stories
Kyra: Yes but the person who the people stirring it up said is the victim
Kyra: What contradicts?
Sparrow: [shares cryptpad link] This is the doc that was shared with me
Kyra: Ok I’ll review
Sparrow shared a document I wrote outlining the contradictions between narratives we had been given.
Kyra immediately leaked this document to the leadership clique, confirming Sparrow’s concern that raising criticism results in hostile responses rather than good-faith engagement.
Kyra: the sanctions seems like the major link but those could be sanctions for the investigation at hand?
Sparrow: The sanctions were placed during the first accusation iirc
Kyra: Im asking is that an assumption or else how do we know that Dustin admitted it via email.
Document text: “Mick said that despite being unable to speak with the victim, they were able to work around them and prove Dustin’s innocence - contradicting the historical narrative that the investigation was stalled due to a lack of cooperation from the victim.”
Kyra: can’t they both have happened? And if there were other parties present it seems a third-party account of the evening is possible.
Sparrow: The sanctions from the student unit were placed in 2013, Dustin violated the sanctions and then sometime in 2014 all the information leaked
Sparrow: There’s a difference between an inconclusive investigation and proving his innocence
Sparrow: So I think that’s where the contradiction lies
Kyra: So they could’ve been investigating when it actually happened and had the sanctions during the stalled investigation, and then they got in touch with other people present?
Kyra generates hypothetical scenarios (’they could’ve’, ‘it’s possible’) to defend a conclusion she’s already committed to, rather than following evidence to a conclusion.
Sparrow: You’re saying they were able to prove his innocence after the investigation was stalled
Kyra: It was stalled until they found the third party it sounds like From that description
When Kyra’s theory is pressed, she doubles down by elaborating on the fantasy scenario she is developing.
Kyra constructs an entire narrative: the investigation was stalled, then they found the third party, interviewed them, and proved innocence. None of this appears in any account we were given. When we explicitly asked Mick how they reached their conclusion, he didn’t mention any third-party witness - instead he invoked privacy and demanded we trust him. If such testimony existed, why wouldn’t that be the answer?
Sparrow: In the video with steff, she confirms the first allegations were truthful, which is weird.
Sparrow: It would be clearer if dustin wasnt accused of assault prior to the confrontation, then a stalled investigation would make more sense
Sparrow: steff admits that the accusations were truthful in the video, but didn’t remove dustin because they couldnt get a statement from the victim
Sparrow: so its contradictory how the accusations are truthful but not, but also were able to prove his innocence later on