To: Sean DeButts, Smear Campaigner
|
|
Smear Campaigners Expose Themselves
|
Four men join forces in cowardly acts of malevolence with the intent to assassinate the character of an individual who stands up to an antagonist.
The bullies underestimate the intelligence and perceptiveness of the person to whom they direct their slander, the meetup organizer, and overestimate their ability to manipulate him. The plot backfires and the organizer responds to the four smear campaigners, questioning their character and integrity, in the email, below.
The subject line provides an example of the bullies’ use of rhetoric, in the absence of substance, to vilify their target and implicate her as the problem. Role reversal tactics (DARVO) are typical of personality disordered abusers. They will always portray their target as the aggressor and make themselves out to be victims.
From: [The Organizer] Dear Sean, Scott, Bob and Jerry, Sean, I am asking you not to attend future meetups of this group when I am presenting. [Victim] will likely be there if I am and she does not want you there as she indicated to you before the last meetup. I don’t want any scenes like the one last Thursday. She is a core member of this club and I believe her when she says she was traumatized by the events involving you four years ago. I met her not long after those events and have gotten to know her quite well in the time since. The correct reaction on your part after receiving [Victim’s] message asking you not to come, if you wished to contest it, should have been to contact the presenter, me, and explain the situation as you saw it—beforehand and with time to consider. [Victim] has no record of anything but rational and constructive contributions to this club in the nearly four years she has been a member. I have to believe that whatever caused her to have the reaction she did to you and your attendance must have been quite distressing for her. Reading the blogs you sent me, some of which I already knew about, only confirms that. Sean, I don’t say this is fair to you. You may well have a genuine interest in the topics we discuss. I am sorry about that. But you attended knowing full well that [Victim] didn’t want you there. It appears you were baiting her. She reacted in a way that was at least as humiliating to her as it may have been for you—and for some of the rest of us. She, after all, is a well-established member of this club and has more invested here than you. Your friends, of course, all say they “can attest to your character and integrity.” But their attestations are only as good as their character and integrity, which doesn’t shine forth in the material you and they sent me. And quite frankly since this is not a court of law and I am not sentencing you to any grave inconvenience, I could not care less about anybody’s character and integrity outside the specific facts at the heart of this case. What exactly justified Gayatri’s malicious behavior and provocations followed by stonewalling? In our group, getting at the brass tacks of a disagreement requires almost always asking uncomfortable and probing questions. In fact, that is how real philosophy distinguishes itself from mere bullshit. I know [Victim] well enough to know that she can be assertive, spirited, and quite capable of defending herself when she feels misunderstood or, worse, targeted for disrespectful treatment by a group. She is also highly self-aware and capable of great generosity. But she doesn’t take abuse lying down. These are all admirable traits in my book. The degree of trauma in this case is particularly acute due to the group character of it. There may be safety in numbers, but cowardice runs rampant there, too. There are a lot of people out there who behave crappily and deserve being bitten back sometimes. One such person from what I can tell is Gayatri Salunke. She is the one I would most like to hear from since she seems to have been a principal in this affair. You and your friends seem to have been suckered into sticking up for her. Put me in touch with her. I would like to ask her the same question [Victim] never got answered. What is it that caused her to initiate the bad form that is still having repercussions four years later? Maybe she will stick up for you guys as you, I think, unwisely stuck up for her. As I was reading the messages [Victim] documented, the question occurred to me: did you guys really read what she quoted? One exchange, in particular, I found especially emblematic of a certain kind of callousness specific to males, in packs, who suffer from inordinately high self-regard. Bob Seidensticker overstepped the bounds of respect by trying to get [Victim’s] partner, [spouse], to essentially reign her in as though she were an unruly child. Bob comes out looking like—there is no kinder way to put it—a clueless jerk. What magical powers must Gayatri have had over you guys? You should all have either stayed out of the dispute—or, daring to get involved, done it right, and seriously sought an accurate picture of each side’s claims. From what I can see, you guys took your marching orders from Gayatri as though she were a goddess—rather peculiarly given the stated theme of your group. When a dispute does not directly involve us, such an understanding may not be easy, but I saw no effort in this case. Instead, you guys appeared ready to stomp with the delicacy of stormtroopers where you had no business going. I respect [Victim’s] instincts and judgment. I am inclined to believe that the “acerbic dispute,” as Scott describes it, that got things started was not initiated by her. But I would still like to get to the source: Gayatri. I’m serious about that. I would like to hear from her. I promise I will beg your forgiveness if I have misjudged you and Gayatri turns out to have been innocent and you guys turn out to be only a cohort of well-meaning knights in gleaming armor defending a damsel—not from a dragon, but from another damsel. The Organizer
[We are still waiting to hear from Gayatri … but we won’t hold our breath.] |
See also: The Smear Campaign—Trademark of the Sociopath
Deceit
Psychopaths don’t just tell “white lies.” They tell harmful lies to hurt others and to disguise their malicious actions and evil ambitions. A psychopath who is deprived of his mask of sanity lacks the means to fool and use others.
Gloria’s Public Persona
Gloria introduces herself:
“I love to meet people, and to share and learn others viewpoints. I find meeting on the Eastside a fun and easy way to meet fellow Freethinkers.”
See Agree or be Banned
and Joyously shunned
- Who Am I? Personality vs Persona. (upsidedownchronicles.com)
Why doesn’t anyone stop them?
There are reasons for our failure to act when action is appropriate.
We don’t acknowledge, or even recognize, that evil exists. We’re told that “there’s good in everyone,” “deep down we’re all the same,” “everyone makes mistakes,” “everyone deserves a second chance” and “we all just want to be loved.” We are not told that there are exceptions to these platitudes. As many as 12 percent of the population are sociopaths—social predators who live their lives exploiting others. Their aggression is typically covert and most of us don’t know anything about sociopaths until we are personally targeted.
Taking action against bad behavior usually requires confrontation. Confrontation is, at best, uncomfortable, and at worst, dangerous. Most of us would much rather avoid confrontation. In fact, probably the only people who enjoy confrontation are sociopaths. They, of course, are the ones causing the problems.
There are other reasons why we don’t act. We may feel that the problem is too big, and we’re too small to change anything. We may believe that someone else ought to take action. We may fear—legitimately—repercussions or retaliation. We may believe that the problem will “go away” or not impact us if we ignore it and focus on the positive.
What is “The Bystander Effect”?
(PsychopathResistance.com)
The “Do’s” and “Don’ts” of Conflict Resolution
(anyaworksmart.com)
Lazy Brain and the Narcissistic Sociopath (beingabeautifulmess.wordpress.com)
Being with a Narcissistic Sociopath – Part 1 (beingabeautifulmess.wordpress.com)
Confrontation or Communication
(lifefitnessbydane.wordpress.com)
Joyously shunned
Gloria: “Anyone who knows me well, knows how much I treasure and value every member of our community, and that I would never capriciously, or with anger, ban anyone.”
Message to those who have been banned:
Isn’t that good to know that it was not with anger you were banned? No, you were banned with joy as a treasured and valued member.
That is so wonderful.
Mindless, Hypocritical Moralizing
Wow, okay since this is becoming really serious. I will say a few things here. I care and hence this email.
I think it is unfair to blame any one person all the time and hold one person responsible for what is going on.
… I agree with Matthew and think these are petty squabbles and best stopped by being reasonable.
Why not agree to disagree and let go and make peace?
Okay guys, I think it is not fair to attack any one person from our group. We are all humans here and we all make mistakes. The best way to get over situations like these is by being reasonable. I think both parties involved can learn a little something from what happened. Instead of taking sides and hurling accusations at people, how about both Gloria and Keith resolve this issue between themselves? They are not babies and do not need to be defended! No one is a victim here and for crying out loud STOP WHINING!
Gloria banned Keith from his social group. Is no one a victim? How can the issue be resolved fairly between them when there is a power imbalance and no empathy? Stop whining. Good idea, Gayatri. Why don’t you start?
Sean: evil-spirited grandiosity and hypocrisy
Sean’s persona (how he presents himself):
“I am a young skeptic who wants to understand the world and who cherishes sound logic, intellectually honesty, intellectual humility, straightforward language and many other virtues I want to increase in this world.”
Sean accepts Gayatri’s vague “faux-pology” to the group without a second thought. A hints that Gayatri’s “act of good will” may not be straightforward or honest and that there is reason to be skeptical about her motives.
Aug 24, 2011, at 11:37, Sean DeButts wrote:
Act of good will accepted!
Aug 24, 2011 at 11:48 PM, A wrote:
Act of good will or request for a carte blanche?
Aug 24, 2011, at 11:51 , Sean DeButts wrote:
A, I don’t entirely understand what you meant by that, but it sounded snide. I will ignore all such future emails from you.
“I want to be consistently skeptical about everything. Before asserting that I believe a statement is true, I want evidence and undergone reasoning strong enough to allay my doubts.”
Aug 24, 2011, at 11:59 , A wrote:
You don’t understand, yet you are ready to judge. That is disappointing.
Aug 25, 2011 at 1:32 AM, A wrote:
Actually, Sean, there is nothing insulting or “snide” in my question to you. Your email to me, on the other hand, is most definitely rude.
Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 1:43 AM, Sean DeButts wrote:
A, stop spamming my email account. This is called me sticking up for myself.
Aug 25, 2011, at 1:51, A wrote:
Call it whatever you want. Anyone else would call it rude.
To penalize A for her doubts and her straightforward responses to his hostile provocations, Sean broadcasts her private correspondence.
Aug 25, 2011, at 2:18 , Sean DeButts wrote:
I apologize for forwarding your emails to everyone as I did; that I shouldn’t have done, but I did perceive your first email as being rude. However, if that wasn’t your intent, I take back what I said.
It is not possible to “take back” actions once committed, of course. Now aware that A has expressed doubt about her “act of good will” to Sean, Gayatri erupts in narcissistic rage and spews out her unexplained hatred and malevolence without inhibitions; thereby blatantly confirming that her disingenuous “faux-pology” indeed was a manipulative act of pretense.
Aug 25, 2011 2:51 AM, A wrote:
To: Sean DeButts
Cc: The group
Sean,
Would you mind explaining why you sent my personal correspondence to the list? That is ALWAYS wrong, in my view.
Critical thinking takes much time and practice to master. If it is something that you aspire to, and if you care about truthfulness, then taking responsibility for your perceptions, withholding judgment, and civility, are of paramount importance.
Gayatri calls upon a group of unquestioning personality disordered male enablers for support. She addresses these ‘useful idiots’ as “real men” and treats them as heroes for protecting her … from accountability for her abusive behavior. They bully Gayatri’s target and perpetuate her smear campaign. When A asks for a reason, she is accused of harassment. The unexplained, open hostility towards A ends as the callous contempt of stonewalling begins. A is socially rejected and isolated—without explanation. She asks why she is treated this way but no one will speak with her. The group has become a self-validating sociopathic alliance. People who lack empathy feel no reason to explain their abusive behavior.
Questions: Where, in this exchange or elsewhere, does Sean seek understanding or lean on evidence? Where is the skepticism, the intellectual honesty and humility, the logic and directness, or any other virtues he claims to cherish? Gandhi’s famous words come to mind: Be the change you want to see in the world. People who are deep in denial probably aren’t capable of doing that.
About apologies: Is an ‘apology’ containing a but or an if really sincere? No. How about an ‘apology’ without any recognition of the harm done? No. Without empathy for the victim and a sense of responsibility for the consequences of misconduct, “I apologize.” are empty words, or worse, a method of evading responsibility and deterring criticism. If empty gestures are unsatisfactory for the victim, she may meet strong criticism and be silenced by peer pressure. “Everyone knows that everyone is supposed to accept an apology and act as if whatever happened never happened.” The abuser is off the hook as his evil deeds fade from the bystanders’ memories, and instead, the spotlight is on the victim, who is made to look like the bad guy if she doesn’t conform to the rules of the mob. It happens all the time.
More food for thought: The Fake Apology
Who are they?
An unsavory mix of mediocre minds, moral majority confidence, and mob mentality on a witch burning rampage. Narrow minded individuals lacking morals call themselves atheists and freethinkers, maybe even humanists, are ruthlessly asserting self assigned authority and self-righteousness through contemptuous conning and manipulating; callously without remorse, reject responsibility for their actions and blame others. Where reason and moral standards are absent, witch burning brings to the group a satisfying sense of power, moral superiority, and invincibility.
Arrogance is ignorance
Hans Holbein d. J. – The Arrogance of Rehoboam (Wikipedia)
“Where the understanding that understanding is lacking, bigotry and narrow-mindedness prevail supreme and unconquerable.”
|
Moral Superiority
“Huh? I’ve never heard an atheist unafraid to criticize a
sufficiently bad moral error in another person or group.”
To: Bob Seidensticker
We saw on your blog that you claim to have plenty of morality (whatever that means) and that your type of morality is superior (to some other type?). Those are remarkable claims coming from someone with a record of dishonesty and malevolence without reason, remorse, or responsibility. If anything, it must be your public persona that is morally superior because I am familiar with the real Bob Seidensticker, the one your family knows, and he most definitely is not. I clearly remember you stating that the one who makes a claim shoulders the burden of proof. Since I strongly reject your claims of moral superiority, I expect you will abide by your stated policy, just as you demand of others ad nauseam, and present supporting evidence to your claim. Therewith, I presume that the rules that apply to yourself will also apply to me. In your own words; “If the evidence you provide isn’t compelling, I’m logically obliged to reject your claim.”
The evasion tactics you use to annoy your victims and to avoid accountability have been interesting to observe. You have quite a repertoire at your fingertips and you pull your tricks with such ease, it wouldn’t surprise me if you have had 50 or so years of practice. Your deception and manipulation skills probably make you feel smarter than your victims, and maybe you are; but moral? Absolutely not. Morality requires a conscience. The evidence I have drives me to the tentative conclusion that you don’t have one. However, I keep an open mind and if you have any compelling evidence to counter with, I would be delighted to examine it.
You have not responded to my previous email. Presumably, you are still employing an avoidance strategy that you recommend; “Just pretend it didn’t happen and get on with life. Maybe no one will notice.” as you say, and stonewalling; an avoidance tactic that is also considered abuse. Without any indication from you, I cannot be certain that you have received this email. Fortunately, there are a variety of other possible routes.
I will continue to remind you that it did happen and that I have not forgotten.
Harrison Koehli: Political Ponerology
“Not only do psychopaths live among us, but also through our ignorance we have allowed them to rise to positions of almost absolute power over us. Widespread knowledge of the reality of psychopathy on this planet is the essential first step to securing our future and that of our children. Make it your priority to spread the word.”
Red Pill Press editor Harrison Koehli discusses the book Political Ponerology by Andrew Lobacewski. It is an audio file with descriptive titles added.
“This is an extraordinary book.” Ilan Pappe, author of The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine
“Political Ponerology is fascinating, essential reading.”Philip Zimbardo, author of The Lucifer Effect
The book is a look at psychopaths in political power. Political Ponerology is a study of the founders and supporters of oppressive political regimes. Lobaczewski’s approach analyzes the common factors that lead to the propagation of man’s inhumanity to man. Morality and humanism cannot long withstand the predations of this evil. Knowledge of its nature—and its insidious effect on both individuals and groups—is the only antidote.
Related articles
- Harrison Koehli: Spread information! (psychopathresistance.wordpress.com)
- The Startling Accuracy of Referring to Politicians as ‘Psychopaths’ (theatlantic.com)
- My Brain Made Me Do It: Psychopaths and Free Will (healthland.time.com)
- Biological Explanation of Psychopathy Reduces Prison Sentencing (mail.sott.net)
- 18. Political Ponerology: A Science on The Nature of Evil adjusted for Political Purposes (12160.info)
- SOTT FOCUS: From Internet Troll to Psychopathy Expert: The Con-Artistry of Thomas Sheridan (sott.net)
Just one opinion…
Bob Seidensticker:
“That which is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.”
Bob Seidensticker, 1 Sep 2011: “I’d like to resolve this issue and put it behind us ASAP. When two peers have a conflict, then your analysis* (each person hurts the other and so escalates the conflict, or something like that) makes sense. But when you have one person who does not argue rationally, that’s a whole different story. The “both parties need to accept some blame” idea doesn’t necessarily apply anymore. It certainly doesn’t apply in this situation, IMO. Is there a future where [target] is a participating member of the group? She’s made clear in my mind that this is impossible. But that’s just one opinion.”
Just one opinion… from an arrogant individual assuming the position of judge, despite profound ignorance about the issue, which is none of his business , anyways.
Just one opinion… that is not based on reason, knowledge, evidence, or truth—only the desire to overpower and dominate.
Just one opinion… that includes a false and offensive claim without explanation or evidence.
Just one opinion… that is hostile, inflammatory, defamatory, blaming, condemning, and uncivil.
Just one opinion… that is scapegoating and escalates conflict, while rejecting discussion, civility, and any possibility of a fair and peaceful resolution.
Just one opinion… that is a conviction without a trial and a call for punishment of an individual because she has been targeted by a manipulative sociopathic female who is younger and wears very short skirts.
Bob’s ‘opinions’ are biased, ignorant, and reflect a callous lack of empathy and a disregard for for the feelings and rights of another human being. His approach is an expression of ill intent and approval of social aggression. Just as Gayatri spews out one offense after another during a temper tantrum, he says he’d “like to resolve this issue.” On one hand, he implies that the “person who does not argue rationally” is to blame for the situation, while on the other hand; he insists that the one who is level-headed and rational must be eliminated.
It sounds like bullying—because it is bullying. Bullies enjoy being abusive and they feel no compunction to give a reason. They are not interested in understanding or truth, constructive discussion, or civil resolutions. They don’t want to hear ‘both sides of the story’ and accountability just isn’t their thing. How about evidence to support their claims and judgments? Don’t ask. No evidence is required—if your name is Bob Seidensticker.
*Bob incorrectly uses the term “analysis” in reference to Keith’s attempt to describe the situation. Almost as ignorant of circumstances as Bob but with a sense of morality and reason, Keith writes an email to the group with the intent of ‘leveling the playing field;’ to appease Gayatri, the aggressor, so that a meaningful negotiation may be possible. This approach cannot work with an aggressor who demands nothing less than 100% ‘loyalty’ and support for her malevolent and divisive behavior. Though Keith’s well-intentioned intervention has some connections with reality, it is mostly unchecked, based on his imagination and speculations. Facts and a commitment to truthfulness would be required for any kind of meaningful analysis to be possible.
“No, you’re not entitled to your opinion.”
Do you think that everyone is entitled to their opinion and has a right to speak their mind? Think again.
Do not challenge
|
Freethought Bullying (atheistrev.com)
The phony apology
From an article about emotional
manipulators by Fiona McColl:
“. . . don’t capitulate! Do not care take—do not accept an apology that feels like bullshit. If it feels like bullshit—it probably is. Rule number one—if dealing with an emotional blackmailer TRUST your gut. TRUST your senses. Once an emotional manipulator finds a successful maneuver—it’s added to their hit list and you’ll be fed a steady diet of this shit.”
Related articles
- The Fake Apology
- What is Emotional Manipulation and How to Cope (psychology911.wordpress.com)
- The Rational vs The Emotional Self – how to find (and keep) balance! (paulettecake.wordpress.com)
- Reaction Free ~ From Manipulation (mysterycoachdsi.wordpress.com)
Look who’s talking.
“God exists”
is a claim… If you make that claim, you shoulder the burden of proof. If the evidence you provide isn’t compelling, I’m logically obliged to reject your claim.
Bob Seidensticker
Galileo Unchained
This man persistently demands evidence
from others, but don’t expect him to
shoulder the burden of proof
for his own claims.
Ask him for evidence or any kind
of substantiation or explanation,
and if he doesn’t deliver word
salad or simply ignore you,
you may hear him say:
“Nah, I’m good.”
D. A. R. V. O.
Agree or be banned.
“This group is open minded. All views are welcome.”
…as long as they align with the organizer’s opinions.
Vulnerabilities exploited by manipulators
Manipulators exploit the following vulnerabilities that may exist in victims, according to Braiker:
- the disease to please
- addiction to earning the approval and acceptance of others
- Emotophobia (fear of negative emotion)
- lack of assertiveness and ability to say no
- blurry sense of identity (with soft personal boundaries)
- low self-reliance
- external locus of control
According to Simon, manipulators exploit the following vulnerabilities that may exist in victims:
- naïveté – victim finds it too hard to accept the idea that some people are cunning, devious and ruthless or is “in denial” if he or she is being victimized
- over-conscientiousness – victim is too willing to give manipulator the benefit of the doubt and see their side of things in which they blame the victim
- low self-confidence – victim is self-doubting, lacking in confidence and assertiveness, likely to go on the defensive too easily.
- over-intellectualization – victim tries too hard to understand and believes the manipulator has some understandable reason to be hurtful.
- emotional dependency – victim has a submissive or dependent personality. The more emotionally dependent the victim is, the more vulnerable he or she is to being exploited and manipulated.
Manipulators generally take the time to scope out the characteristics and vulnerabilities of their victim.
The following are vulnerable to psychopathic manipulators, according to Kantor:
- too trusting – people who are honest often assume that everyone else is honest. They commit themselves to people they hardly know without checking credentials, etc. They rarely question so-called experts.
- too altruistic – the opposite of psychopathic; too honest, too fair, too empathetic
- too impressionable – overly seduced by charmers. For example, they might vote for the phony politician who kisses babies.
- too naïve – cannot believe there are dishonest people in the world or if there were they would not be allowed to operate.
- too masochistic – lack of self-respect and unconsciously let psychopaths take advantage of them. They think they deserve it out of a sense of guilt.
- too narcissistic – narcissists are prone to falling for unmerited flattery.
- too greedy – the greedy and dishonest may fall prey to a psychopath who can easily entice them to act in an immoral way.
- too immature – has impaired judgment and believes the exaggerated advertising claims.
- too materialistic – easy prey for loan sharks or get-rich-quick schemes
- too dependent – dependent people need to be loved and are therefore gullible and liable to say yes to something to which they should say no.
- too lonely – lonely people may accept any offer of human contact. A psychopathic stranger may offer human companionship for a price.
- too impulsive – make snap decisions about, for example, what to buy or whom to marry without consulting others.
- too frugal – cannot say no to a bargain even if they know the reason why it is so cheap
- the elderly – the elderly can become fatigued and less capable of multi-tasking. When hearing a sales pitch they are less likely to consider that it could be a con. They are prone to giving money to someone with a hard-luck story. See elder abuse.
Eastside Hypocrisy 