Systematized abuse and incredulity

[OP ED]

(that epecially seems like a strange request AD, coming as it does with a backhanded insult)

[American Dream]

OP ED-

I'm simply pointing out that it would be good to respect this thread, which is still entitled "Systematized abuse and incredulity", by starting another thread which is more germane to the issues that you're ignoring:

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.

Easy enough to start a separate thread, what could be wrong with that?

[OP ED]

the only thing i'm ignoring, or leastways trying to ignore, is your continued, and rather transparent, attempts at agitation.

why don't you start another thread?

you're pretty good at calling out other posters after all.

[OP ED]

as for me, i reserve the right to comment when i am named in a thread.

[American Dream]

OP ED-

I'm inviting you to start a new thread. It would be a very concrete way to show the respect and solidarity you say you feel for abuse survivors.

That way, nobody would be "calling you out" either.

It seems like a pretty much of a no-brainer: continue with what really is a digression from the topic to your heart's content, but also show real respect for the significant topic at hand here: "Systematized abuse and incredulity".

That doesn't mean don't post here, it just means choosing to post here on topic, since it's a very important subject, which you're saying you do respect.

.

[OP ED]

nonsense. i don't have anything else to say wrt your imaginary conflict of interest here. my comments were very much on topic as i see the topic, although our opinions clearly may differ on this. the topic is incredulity, both in general and in specific, and my comments relate to my own insofar as it exists to any extent at all, and also relates to the root causes of my own issues with communicating on this subject. so i decline your "invitation". an "invitation", as it were, to start an attack thread for you? ha, thanks, but no, i see your comments as nothing more than another insult from you, and i'm not the least bit interested in entertaining your notions of what is or is not on topic here. that you've decided to make such an issue of it, however, shows me where your own interest lies.

feel free to comment further on the topic as you will.

[American Dream]

OP ED, I looked over your comments on the previous page, they seem to be centered on an apologia for you and why your current modus operandi is OK, as is.

In so doing not only are you in effect ignoring the topic of the thread but you are also ignoring the key logical fallacy in that part of your argument, which I have roughly paraphrased as follows:

"I know I can't be picking on anybody, despite what anyone else might say, because I know my own mind"

You are still ignoring how twisted the logic of this is, through the present.

The implications of your statement really are staggering in light of the topic of this thread.


.

[OP ED]

the implications of my logic aren't that astounding, as i apply the same logic to everyone here. that is, my default position is that of assuming that others' intentions and motivations are what they say they are, because they know themselves and their opinions better than i do. it is part and parcel of this issue wrt dealing with people on their own terms and not concluding that someone has hidden motivations behind their words. i am not certain how this is difficult to understand.

and as far as ignoring the topic of the thread: hello pot, kettle here, can you read your own words?

you made a decision to insult me and then "invited" me to answer your misrepresentations of my position in another thread. really?

You are still ignoring how twisted the logic of this is, through the present

i assure you my logic here is quite consistent. that i afford you this same benefit of the doubt is surely the only reason i still consider your statements worth addressing at all, given your habit of turning threads into a justification for suggesting i am somehow unclean or that i have suspect motives.

Are you suggesting that it should be otherwise than to assume someone's motives are what they say they are?

(and do you not see how this is related to issues of incredulity?)

...

either admit that you think it is okay to publically question other posters' motivations or refrain from making such insinuations.

or continue to engage in endless sophistry.

[American Dream]

OP ED wrote:

you made a decision to insult me and then "invited" me to answer your misrepresentations of my position in another thread. really?

I really don't agree at all. I did invite you to start a thread where you could represent your own position and continue with your own line of thought.

Your logic in this thread is the logic of someone who is both insensitive and abusive (the two go hand in hand) and doesn't really care if they are.

Quite the contradiction, given what this thread is supposed to be about.

Therefore if this is going to continue, looks like I am going to have to be the one to start that thread...

[LilyPatToo]

A post was made on page 3 that I don't want us to lose sight of, so I'll repost part of it. It was made by operator kos and directly addresses the issue:

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.

I too believe that there is a stance that can be taken by anyone who's sincerely interested in RA and mind control that's "neither cynical nor gullible." But what I see happening here way too often is that posters come across to me as having "coolness to protect" and are hyper-vigilant about being "taken in." And I do understand that reaction--it's damn scary to place one's ego on the line in a public forum.

So perhaps if people here worked on developing that sort of agnosticism, survivors would find it easier to speak up. Most of us are painfully aware of how weird our stories sound to anyone who's not experienced anything like covert systematized abuse. At this stage in my own life, I don't expect to be believed and am very deeply grateful when people simply are willing to hear me out.

To put aside ego and the need to protect coolness isn't an easy thing at all. For most anyone. When someone takes on the task of trying to do so, I think they deserve to be commended, whether they're successful 100% of the time or not. Just to be *heard* is an amazing thing for me, after 5 years of online skirmishes (and a few major battles) in my dogged attempt to report these abuses and wake people up.

LilyPat

[OP ED]

A post was made on page 3 that I don't want us to lose sight of, so I'll repost part of it. It was made by operator kos and directly addresses the issue:

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.

I too believe that there is a stance that can be taken by anyone who's sincerely interested in RA and mind control that's "neither cynical nor gullible." But what I see happening here way too often is that posters come across to me as having "coolness to protect" and are hyper-vigilant about being "taken in." And I do understand that reaction--it's damn scary to place one's ego on the line in a public forum.

So perhaps if people here worked on developing that sort of agnosticism, survivors would find it easier to speak up. Most of us are painfully aware of how weird our stories sound to anyone who's not experienced anything like covert systematized abuse. At this stage in my own life, I don't expect to be believed and am very deeply grateful when people simply are willing to hear me out.

To put aside ego and the need to protect coolness isn't an easy thing at all. For most anyone. When someone takes on the task of trying to do so, I think they deserve to be commended, whether they're successful 100% of the time or not. Just to be *heard* is an amazing thing for me, after 5 years of online skirmishes (and a few major battles) in my dogged attempt to report these abuses and wake people up.

LilyPat

agreed. also, those that maintain the courage to tell their stories in the face of skepticism or outright denial should be commended for their efforts. without such efforts we'd all still be in the dark. for myself i was only marginally aware of these things before approaching this board, and it has a dangerous learning curve insofar as these issues are concerned. Without the narratives [bad word] provided by the kind and brave folks here, it is likely i'd still be agnostic wrt the mere existence of organized systemic abuse in its myriad forms.

the actual content of the stories told is only very rarely something i'm well informed enough about to comment on at all. my interests before coming to this place were only peripherally related, and there is a great deal of information i'd not have at my disposal if not for the survivors and their advocates here. This includes all of you, especially Mr. Wells, but, and i feel i should make it clear, that it also includes even those people with whom i may disagree on those peripheral issues, specifcally American Dream, who posts often on this topic and has provided much invaluable information to the formerly blind. yeah i said that.

(especially his bibliography on MPD and child abuse in the data dump[which is where i spend a lot of my time here] as it is literally filled with useful information for those newer to the subject and needing of a good introduction)

speaking of which...

(sigh)

Your logic in this thread is the logic of someone who is both insensitive and abusive (the two go hand in hand) and doesn't really care if they are.

more abusive language and insinuation. it wouldn't bother me so much if i didn't know for a fact that you can do better.

my logic is the logic of someone who resents your accusations. i find them distasteful and disruptive at best.

feel free to start your attack thread, AD. you officially have my permission to start the "OP ED is evil and abusive" thread. i'll get to you when i have both time and inclination to deal with your slimy little commentaries. but i personally do not feel that my logic is lacking in any way, especially in this area wherein i have been frightfully clear about my motives and intentions [goals] and i find your constant attacks to be rather tedious and infantile and composed almost entirely of nitpickery and sophistry.

[i notice you didn't answer any of my direct questions]

but i'm going to try not to talk to you anymore in this thread.

[blanc]

LP2, as I think LBO pointed out, accounts of systemetised abuse sound weird mainly because they are nearly always partial accounts. It takes maybe 80,000 words or so to give anything like a reasonable account of events which took place over many years, with many repetitions. Most survivors are trying to communicate a synopsis in a couple of paragraphs. The material is such that it gives rise to many questions - to which there are usually complete answers, but unless the person giving the account is in the same room as the questioner, the dialogue doesn't take place. Online acounts suffer a further difficulties - should the account name names or not? who will be unintentionally hurt if it does? is it safe? without specifics is it credible?

Quite why some people should be so very afraid of being taken for a ride by a false account is unclear to me. Personal accounts of experiences which aren't about systemetised abuse get heard and accepted without question, claims taken at face value.

[lightningBugout]

Fwiw I don't see any problem with referring anyone's bio as a "story" or as a "narrative." All bio is inherently selective and imperfect.

[American Dream]

I agree lBo- doesn't need to imply that it's "fictional" in any way.

In a certain sense, everything we experience, perceive and/or express is a story...

[sw]

Before I was more advocacy oriented....I was trying to be education oriented. So, I contacted ISSD and submitted my booklets asking if they might be of use because I noticed they had some type of training program.

The head of the training program sent my books back with a note saying he had many problems with my therapy. He slammed me. I thought...man, what an idiot, dork.

And, it makes me sick sick sick to my stomach that they are all so jazzed about the Tara show on DID which sucks. I think LP said it best or someone else summed it up well how they could make a sitcom out of such a serious issue. Their upcoming ISSD conference has a whole slot dedicated to the United States of Tara show with people from the show there doing a panel.

Maybe some good comes out of the ISSD but I really was put off by this Chefetz guy and then the whole cheering for the Tara show.