Systematized abuse and incredulity

[blanc]

Stefano wrote in response to my question about whether its too hard to believe bad things about the famous
"Yes, absolutely it is. Also more difficult to believe that the Bushes are corrupt that it is to believe that the Borgias were, or the Saudis are. This emotional attachment to the belief that "our" ruling class is essentially benign is a very important subject, because as we all know (in slightly different but often overlapping areas of interest), it very often resists evidence"

So is our emotional attachment to those who represent our nation state and its institutions so deeply dyed in the wool that we're unable to accept that they may be involved in wrong doing? Does an allegation against someone who is in the public eye become automatically less credible, or is it rather that the nature of the allegation is unacceptable?

The wealthy and powerful have more opportunity for successful crime surely?

Since being concerned with survivors, many assumptions about evidence have been thrown out of the window. Those who plan crime in a systematic way, plan to destroy material evidence.

Is the fundamental problem with survivor accounts and credibility that our emotional attachment is with human values which are trashed by perpetrators. That most of us so need to believe in 'goodness', that we can't accept that some people deliberately reject it.

[Project Willow]

Op Ed said:

try this:

it's isn't logical to expect people NOT living under threat of bodily harm to perceive human interactions from the same NON-neutral base point as people who feel relatively UNsafe and INsecure in their persons

No, you are wrong, I require that you make the assumption about my viewpoint being different from yours because I DO make the assumption that yours is different from mine, and I will treat you with that consideration.

That is the true equation, that is the REAL it-goes-both-ways. It's called compassion, it is called empathy, and you, sir, apparently have striking deficits in those capacities.

OK, I've had enough of this for a very long time.

[OP ED]

It's called compassion, it is called empathy, and you, sir, apparently have striking deficits in those capacities.

but see, i've never said anything like that about you. never called you "evil" either.

I will treat you with that consideration

let me know when you plan to start.

[OP ED]

that was my point, btw. that it is difficult to have a two way conversation if any disagreement equals "you're barely human".

the first reaction is to insult, not to consider the difference of opinion.

saying otherwise proves nothing.

[sw]

blanc: well captured. I think those are the main reasons.

We cling to false truths because it is just easier for so many reasons.

Everything we see in life is colored by our experiences. I was watching my dogs play yesterday and it reminded me of how people decide to deal with the unknown or scary.

My older 12 year old dog is the alpha. She is the wise one who knows all to this new two year old rescue I got about three weeks ago when the 12 year old's sister passed away from cancer. So, the little doggie I call Junebug saw three squirrels chasing each other in the trees in the front yard. I doubt she had ever seen squirrels as she had been a puppy mill dog.

I think she was a little afraid or maybe startled by the squirrels so she immediately looked to the older dog to see what the reaction would be to this situation. Should she be scared? Should she run and hide? Should a full chase begin? Would these things attack her? (she is a very small doggie). The older 12 year old dog is very old. She looked at the wild chasing squirrels and just walked away with little interest. So, Junebug followed her lead and turned and walked away.

Given my history, I laughed and said, you guys are just like the masses. Gauge your reaction by your respected buds beside you.

Thanks for your posts, blanc. I've never heard of the reactions of advocacy in other countries besides Hava, but I don't read enough so maybe others here have and I missed it. But, thanks.

[LilyPatToo]

This is turning out to be a great thread And a timely one for me, personally, since I just had 2 experiences with my HMO (Kaiser Permanente) that really hurt. I was seeing 2 therapists simultaneously, one in Oakland and one in San Francisco, for 2 different problems related to my abuse from childhood through my early 30's. Kaiser doesn't provide long-term therapy, but both therapists had decided to give me some extra visits beyond the standard 4, due to the severity of my problems.

Things were going well until I decided to answer some questions they were asking about perps. Without mentioning the words "mind control" or "cult" at all, I carefully replied that I had reason to believe that the men had been part of a sort of "club" of abusers/slave owners who were fully aware of DID/MPD and how to exploit it.

And I was dropped by both therapists like a hot potato.

I guess it's OK to have abusers who know each other, but NOT OK to mention that they share very secret information about methods of control and exploitation.

And the same negative reaction has happened each time I've tried to connect with activists working to expose human trafficking--because I'm American, Caucasian and middle class, I don't fit into their victim parameters and (I suspect) they're afraid that their movement will be harmed by my odd, unprovable case.

My opinion at the moment is that the mass mind control campaign to invalidate and marginalize survivors of systematized abuse is a roaring success. Which sucks.

LilyPat

[operator kos]

I don't have much to add to the good points that have been raised so far in this thread, but just wanted to give a word of support for those who are battling with this stuff first-hand. I can only vaguely imagine the horrors you've been though, so you get lots of respect for holding it together.

As far as skepticism goes about RA, etc., the folks on this board are all pretty far down the rabbit hole, and when you get so far in your research and truth-seeking, there is a fine line that has to be walked between skepticism and open-mindedness. I describe myself with a phrase Robert Anton Wilson may have coined, a "model agnostic" who is neither cynical nor gullible about not just spiritual topics but all things in life. FWIW, questions I might put to survivors are definitely not meant as attacks, but purely for my own further education. Hang in there.

[blanc]

LilyPat2 the experience you had with finding therapists willing to confront this is one particularly harmful spin off of the climate of disbelief. Therapists who do work with those recovering from organised abuse themselves can come in for attacks, both of the scary stalking kind and the professional assassination kind. So, in defense of those who back off, its not surprising. Likewise it becomes much easier to duck down behind a diagnosis which doesn't need to deal with real dangers and pass out the pills.

It occurred to me that around twenty five years ago, child abuse was almost not talked about, and now becomes mediatised regularly in, for example, tv police series. In the context of organised abuse sytems, the coverup has had to move from complete blackout to a limited exposure because of the numbers of allegations, and because a limited and controlled prosecution of selected offenders allows blackmail to continue.

[Project Willow]

It's called compassion, it is called empathy, and you, sir, apparently have striking deficits in those capacities.

but see, i've never said anything like that about you. never called you "evil" either.

I will treat you with that consideration

let me know when you plan to start.

No, you let me know when you plan to give it a slight try.

Listen, honey, since your brain is having such a hard time figuring this out. The two positions in your example, those being subjected to threats of bodily harm and those generally safe and secure within their persons, those are NOT equivalent states of being, unless of course you're willing to throw out the concepts of the bonds of community, citizenship, and the rule of law, just to mention a few. Sorta like owning a home and being homeless are not equivalent states of being. One is in advantaged state, one is a disadvantaged state. The onus, dear, is on those in the advantaged state. IOW, if you pick on people in a disadvantaged state or refuse to try to see why or how they might react differentially to the same social rules that you do, yeah, that's usually considered to be sort of ass-holish behavior. Nobody ever explained that to you?

You've told me several times now in a number of ways that you lack the ability to be sensitive to the points of view of other people. Damn, I wish I could quote you here, I should go through all those old posts and quote you. In all honesty, that's the main reason why I avoid you. It's a red flag for me, as it's a sign of pathology. However, lots of people here seem to think you're nice guy, and I respect that. They must be seeing things I don't see.

[lightningBugout]

One of the wisest things I've ever heard -- in any situation look at all sides but always look over the shoulder of the person who is most vulnerable

[compared2what?]

One of the wisest things I've ever heard -- in any situation look at all sides but always look over the shoulder of the person who is most vulnerable

I always try to assume that all people are as vulnerable as I am, which is not something I care to go into detail about, other than to say that it's not necessarily a sure thing to assume that everyone is physically safe, secure and free from threat and harm unless they say otherwise. But that's not even the point. Even when it wasn't a personal issue for me, I knew enough to know that there are many more people living in real or perceived fear for their lives than the eye can see, and that most of them show no direct sign of it. If anything, they appear frightening more often than they appear frightened. In any event, even a whole and untraumatized human soul is a very fragile, very vulnerable being, and probably a suffering one in some way, as well. So I say err on the side of sensitivity when you know yourself to be in a position in which your words or actions will have much of an impact on anyone at all, to the best of your ability. Which is pretty limited. I mean, one's ability to know with what seriousness other people might receive one's words and actions.

Looks off-topic, I know. However...I have something to say that's not inherently RA-survivor-doubting in any general sense, or even McMartin-doubting in any general sense, but is an RI-unorthodox perspective on McMartin, which, as far as I know, has never been expressed anywhere by anyone. Or if it has, I've never seen it. So in the past, I've always chosen to err on the side of sensitivity and kept it to myself. Because it's just a detail, really, it's not like it's at "Newsflash! Puzzle solved" level or anything. But it does go to the issue of systematized abuse and incredulity. So if not now, when?

Anyway. I wanted to issue a tentative little buffer post making it clear that I come in peace, and get a formal go-ahead before going ahead. Which it's fine with me not to get, btw. Because although it is on-topic, other than that, it's not really all that major. In fact, it's gonna be a total disappointing let-down after this build up, no matter what. Assuming that it's safe to proceed. So don't say I never warned you.

[lightningBugout]

Most people are vulnerable. Probably not all. Or at least that is to say there are those who've converted their vulnerability into its converse. Bullying and such.

But for those of us who are -- while it may not always be apparent, most situations are constellations of differential power in which the vulnerabilities of involved parties are distributed unequally. We can't always know who and why. But we can listen with generosity.

[OP ED]

It's called compassion, it is called empathy, and you, sir, apparently have striking deficits in those capacities.

but see, i've never said anything like that about you. never called you "evil" either.

I will treat you with that consideration

let me know when you plan to start.

No, you let me know when you plan to give it a slight try.

ok. but you don't seem to see, if i wasn't already trying, we wouldn't be having this conversation. perhaps it is unfair of me not to acknowledge your efforts as well. sometimes the hostility i sense makes this difficult. but frankly, i don't come here to get called names and have people talk down to me about my lack of humanity. i could go to church for that.

if i wasn't interested in changing your perceptions of me, and of better understanding you as well, i'd be doing something more enjoyable with my time. Something like, i dunno, maybe talking 'bout weedsmoke w/Joe H or discussing Gnosticism with LBO, or arguing semantical minutiae with thee barracuda, etc.

which is to say: i've been trying and i'll keep trying even if you quit.

cause i'm stubborn.

Listen, honey, since your brain is having such a hard time figuring this out. The two positions in your example, those being subjected to threats of bodily harm and those generally safe and secure within their persons, those are NOT equivalent states of being, unless of course you're willing to throw out the concepts of the bonds of community, citizenship, and the rule of law, just to mention a few.

For starters, condescension is NOT coeval with consideration. Its not even close. If you'd like to have a conversation with me, you could first eliminate at least the more overt insults. I am not an idiot. I do not need to be spoken to as one, and i have an awful hard time showing mutual respect for anyone who cannot at least show that minimum level of consideration which most of us afford even children.

Which is to say, as i've said at least twice in this thread already: i am well aware that the positions under discussion are not socially equal in the traditional senses. This is not in question. It is the implied and assumed reason for this discussion to begin with. If it were not true, we would not be where we are now having said discussion. obviously.

Sorta like owning a home and being homeless are not equivalent states of being. One is in advantaged state, one is a disadvantaged state. The onus, dear, is on those in the advantaged state.

i agree, with the understanding that advantage and disadvantage in the instance we are actually discussing is not as cut and dried as it is in the comparison you've made. which is to say, it has degrees and is not simply an either/or question. that is, we're not really talking about houses. and such a description has limited value if carried to extremes.

IOW, if you pick on people in a disadvantaged state or refuse to try to see why or how they might react differentially to the same social rules that you do, yeah, that's usually considered to be sort of ass-holish behavior. Nobody ever explained that to you?

no, no one ever needed to explain that to me. This empathy is actually innate in most primates and is learned more by example than by verbal teaching for most of us. and as i said before, my offense is taken on your presumption that you are "explaining" the way of the world to me.

which is based on your preconceived notion that i am or have been trying to "pick on people" or that i refuse to try to see their points of view.

which i disagree with, because unlike you, i know my mind and intentions and i also know damned well when i am trying to understand and when i am trying to pick on someone or not.

i object to having someone make themselves judge, jury and executioner on my motivations. especially someone who only knows me on the internet and has further had but extremely limited interactions with me.

i'm sure it should be easy for anyone to understand that we would have negative reactions to having someone decide, without consult or involved consideration, that is without recourse to conversation, that we are evilly trying to harm people. yes?

that we might be upset that we're called names?

or that someone has decided to diagnose us as lacking empathy and compassion?

btw, anger at these sorts of indignations is a classic sign of emotional affect. in case you didn't know. empathy, that is, makes us care whether people mistake our innocent moves as agressive. its in the first year psych texts. it is the natural response of concerned people when their motives are questioned on what seems to them to be very shaky grounds. police are even trained in this.

You've told me several times now in a number of ways that you lack the ability to be sensitive to the points of view of other people. Damn, I wish I could quote you here, I should go through all those old posts and quote you. In all honesty, that's the main reason why I avoid you. It's a red flag for me, as it's a sign of pathology.

no, it isn't. it is a sign of being human.

and you're misquoting me too, but that isn't really relevant to the context here anyway.

if a disconnect between humans wasn't natural, there'd be almost no locked threads, because most of the people here, i'm convinced, mean well, but they get emotional when things get personal. that is normal.

i'd be more worried if it didn't happen sometimes.

you should abandon this strategy anyhow, as attempts to label another poster as mentally ill is not only insulting, but probably a violation of the posting guidelines. not to mention its an ad hominem attack which achieves little other than pissing off the subject being degraded in such a way. [me]

However, lots of people here seem to think you're nice guy, and I respect that. They must be seeing things I don't see.

i would suggest that rather they're not seeing things that you seem to be seeing. things that i'd suggest are illusory. for example, the notion that i'm "picking" on anyone. or that i do not show compassion or empathy.

which is to say that my conversations with those people don't begin with them insulting my intelligence, empathy, and compassion nor with suggestions that i am pathological or "evil" or whatever.

i suggest you see these things because you have already decided that they are there and have come to this conversation with a pre-formed idea of what my positions and motivations are, and as such, you're unable to see what they really are.

...

i was, am, and will be fully aware that the self-identifying survivor types here come at this from a disadvantaged social position which is inclined to view otherwise innocent behavior as hostile.

[how could i not be aware of this, have you missed the shit i get subjected to?]

i struggle not to react to this in an overly hostile manner, but this is difficult precisely because it is not natural. it is hard to get used to, because no one i encounter in the real world levels these sorts of base and degrading insults in my direction on a regular schedule. whereas here, i could almost set my watch to them. [you alone have told me how inhuman/insane i apparently am, five or six times already, in this very thread, and that's not to even count the implied insults]

...

what is the expected reaction to this behavior in your view?

i mean, really, what are my options?

cause i'd really rather not have to listen to you degrade my humanity on a daily basis and it'd be nice to know how to go about making that happen.

[American Dream]

I'd like to say only that OP ED's comments above to the effect of "I know I can't be picking on anybody, despite what anyone else might say, because I know my own mind" seems like a very dangerous sort of logic in that it has the potential for excusing all manner of abuse.

However, I do think that further comments on this topic deserve their own thread, as we really should respect the topic here in this thread, which of course is named "Systematized abuse and incredulity".

Not to respect that subject here would be itself a statement and not the kind that I personally want to make. So please, let's try to stay on topic here, and make new threads as needed.


.

[OP ED]

no. i refuse to be called out in threads and not permitted to answer.

besides, it very much is on topic as it deals with both my incredulity, and yours, btw.

not that anyone ever made you the thread warden around these parts...