|
Blog Archives
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)
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.
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.
Eastside Hypocrisy 