What is New?

WHAT IS NEWEST ON THIS BLOG?
September 26 New Post: Dealing with Overwhelming Emotions From Narcissistic Abuse, an Introduction. Comes With a Discussion on Dysregulated Emotions.
August 21 New Post: Things Narcissists Get Wrong About Punishing Their Scapegoat Adult Children. Includes Some Discussion on Medical and Emotional Issues in Both.
August 11 New Post: If people don't want to hear what you have to say, it is normal for you to not want to hear what they have to say either. Comes with a discussion on narcissism
July 30 New Post: Is It Possible that Gen Z and Millennials Having to Work 2 - 3 Jobs Is Contributing to the Nationwide Trend of Estrangement With Parents in the USA?
July 21 New Post: Don't Narcissists Care About Hurting You?
July 14 New Post: Reviews of "Narcissistic Rehab", "Narcissistic Detox" and "No More Narcissists" on Facebook
June 23 New Post: How I Came to Forgive the Narcissists in My Life (and it may not be what you think)
June 6 New Post: Why Do Sycophants Feel They Need to Follow Someone Who is So Unethical, Power Hungry, Cruel and Narcissistic? Comes with Personal Stories and a Deep Dive Into the Subject.
May 18 New Post: Family Obligation and the Scapegoat. Do You Owe Your Narcissistic Family Anything?
April 26 New Post: An Update: New Studies on Scapegoats of Narcissistic Families, Wills and Narcissistic Parents, Dissociation, and Some Other Topics of Note
April 6 New Post: Why Scapegoats of Narcissistic Families Are Unlikely To Turn Into Sycophants. Part II.
March 29 New Post: A Domestic Violence Situation and Tale - from a well known Canadian Musician.
March 9 New Post: Why Scapegoats of Narcissistic Families Find It Impossible to Turn Themselves Into Sycophants. Comes with a Discussion on Largely Involuntary Independent Thinking, C-PTSD and Healing.
February 28 New Post: Don't Get Narcissism Mixed Up With Alzheimer's Disease. How Similar Are They? Comes With a Discussion on Brain Science in Narcissistic Families and in Alzheimer's Disease
February 16 New Post: Perspecticide and Being Invalidated Often Feels Unsafe and Even Downright Dangerous On the Receiving End. Comes With a Discussion on Narcissism.
PERTINENT POST: ** Hurting or Punishing Others to Teach Them a Lesson - Does it Work?
PETITION: the first petition I have seen of its kind: Protection for Victims of Narcissistic Sociopath Abuse (such as the laws the UK has, and is being proposed for the USA): story here and here or sign the actual petition here
Note: After seeing my images on social media unattributed, I find it necessary to post some rules about sharing my images
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Showing posts with label word salad arguments. Show all posts
Showing posts with label word salad arguments. Show all posts

Thursday, June 22, 2017

abusers, narcissists, alcoholics, sociopaths and word salad arguments

© photo by Lise Winne

Word salad has different meanings, depending on the psychiatric illness or disorder of the person using word salad.

Most people associate "word salad" with dementia or schizophrenia. In people with these disorders it appears as words, phrases and sentences which can appear to be random, confused or unintelligible. In other words, in this case, the listener cannot extract meaning from them. Some alcoholics can also fall under this category, though when they are sober they become intelligible again.

Eventually the term began to be used by reporters for politicians who were trying to dodge, divert and deflect questions. The term began to be used for narcissists and sociopaths too, particularly in court.
The term "word salad arguments" graduated to being used in clinical situations as well.

Word salad in abusive homes (typically run by parents with Cluster B personality disorders, of which narcissism and sociopathy are two of the major ones) indicates a conversation of not only dodging, diverting, distracting and deflecting, but also of blaming and shifting focus away from themselves (and all culpability). Narcissists and sociopaths are known for arguing with others about how perfect they are, where as their accusers are often smeared and/or slandered. In some instances it is also re-framing stories and experiences so that the altered versions make the personality disordered parent look good/better than others.

The term also began to be used for the more functional intelligible alcoholics who were trying to keep the conversation away from their drinking.

For alcoholics, word salad can be used to shift conversations away from why they drink, how they act and react while under the influence of alcohol, health problems that are exacerbated from drinking, indeed it can be anything. Some alcoholics have been known to lose their morality, ethics, health, their major relationships, ability to work, ability to remember things clearly, former cognitive abilities and even the ability to be rational.

Most alcoholics "protect" the subject of their drinking because it is part of the addiction process. In order to be enslaved by an addiction, the slave must protect the seemingly benevolent master who is making the alcoholic feel good. "Feeling good" is exchanged for dependence. If the slave withdraws from the master, there are consequences (DTs, realizations of how he has treated others, looking at the state of his life which often deteriorates, the state of his health which also often deteriorates, and so on).  Word salad is just another way that some alcoholics explain away culpability for their actions.

For instance: say that the alcoholic drinks more than he usually does and gets in a fight at a local bar, and he beats someone up. The police are called and the alcoholic is taken to a jail cell for the night. When he wakes up, he wonders why he is in jail. He doesn't remember the bar fight and he thinks he has been "set up" by someone with an agenda to hurt him or make him culpable of a crime. So dodging culpability might sound like word salad: full of excuses, events that he swears are "the real truth", diverting the conversation to other topics, and dodging any responsibility for wounding someone else, denying "black outs" (amnesia) that many alcoholics experience, which takes focus away from "the drinking problem."

For narcissists, their main focus is on narcissistic supply (on-going attention and flattery, and a need for absolute power and control over people), and like an addict, they will do anything to get it. They also don't have empathy, so they use people in their lives, and get bored, and dump people, even their own children. They even expect their own spouses and children to idealize and aggrandize them. Many narcissists are self indulgent and don't care about the feelings of others around them, and they can be retaliatory if they are not getting what they demand, so they hurt just about everyone in their lives in their quest for endless amounts of narcissistic supply. Extramarital affairs, lying, stealing, hurting others, a haughty lecturing arrogant demeanor, acting and self indulgence can become their lifestyle to the detriment of all of the people closest to them. They can feel a lot more comfortable with strangers than with people who know them well because strangers are innocent to what they are about, and don't know what their agenda is (i.e. it is to get supply through love bombing or mirroring).

When it comes to word salad, they deflect and try to dodge any culpability. If you persist in making them culpable, many of them will "punish you", or somehow make a project of you with smear campaigns and outright lies, including trying to make you appear to be insane (this can, again, include their own children and spouse). They insist that everything that goes wrong around them or makes them feel bad about themselves is everyone else's fault -- they like to pretend they are victims, while the real victims, the people closest to them, who have been coldly cast aside or emotionally eviscerated and trampled on, are called the abusers. It is the extremely rare narcissist who will apologize for anything. If they do apologize, they are often "up against a wall" of societal shame, so the apology is not genuine or voluntary; it is to save face, period.

Sociopaths also use word salad, except they do it differently than narcissists. Narcissists dodge and weave to keep their social standing high, or intact (which means they try to keep a lot of the abusive, back-stabbing, under-handed stuff they do a secret, and terrorize victims who are not willing to let their immoral unethical behaviors go or who are a threat to the false image they are trying to present in their social circles). Sociopaths, who are usually socially awkward, if charming, use the guilt-trip as their deflection tool.

For instance, say that you caught them at an immoral act. They will immediately switch the conversation to how much you owe them. If you are their child, the guilt trip will be for that ice-cream they gave you when you were seven, and that twenty dollar fee they gave you to buy a costume for the school play, or that 150 dollar contribution to your college education. Sociopaths are cheap, but they don't forget about a single cent, and all gifts to them are IOUs. So they will hammer away at you about how evil you are, about how ungrateful you are, about how stupid you are, about how you don't measure up to anyone else they know, and how you owe them the world because of those small gifts. If you are their spouse, they will talk about how they purchased a nice house (even if tiny or falling down), how they took you on vacations (even if rarely), how they found you a doctor when you were sick (even if they waited until you were in dire shape). Gratitude is everything to sociopaths, and if you are deemed to be ungrateful, the punishments arise.

They threaten and they are sadistic in order to get that IOU, which really boils down to them thinking you owe them slavery, whether it is sexual slavery, child servant-type slavery, being a total sycophant in a marriage, etc. In other words, they feel a lot more entitled than narcissists.

I have mentioned before in this post that just about all child molesters and child sex abusers are sociopaths and malignant narcissists, but not all sociopaths and malignant narcissists are child molesters and child sex abusers. The IOUs in these cases can simply be the sociopath's feelings of entitlement to have sex with a minor. If they can avoid gift-giving, sex is obtained through threats leveraged at the child. Or if it is a family member, the child might be given some extra privileges or little gifts like candy, and the IOU would be a sexual demand. If the child is a scapegoat, the sexual abuse often is inappropriately dealt with by the parent as it was in this case because the child is in a permanent state of punishment and not cared for.

Having to supply sex to an adult when you are seven or eight, or even twelve, is deeply traumatic to a child (and I can't emphasize that enough). It does cause serious PTSD. It is especially traumatic because the child is under threat to keep it a secret. So any convenient IOU is used for even the most minor, brief kindnesses or relief from abuse.

Sociopaths almost never apologize or change. They often sit on death row telling everyone that their victims are to blame.      

For the rest of the post, I am focusing on giving examples of narcissists and their particular brand of word salad:

A 15 year old teenage girl finds out her mother is having an affair on her father: 

First of all, I'd like to say that a lot of narcissists indulge in extra-marital affairs. In a way they are sex addicts (they do it for narcissistic supply). The narcissists who use sex are generally referred to as somatic narcissists.

The overt narcissists have extra-marital affairs openly, and sometimes even to punish their spouse, or to make their spouse feel uneasy and insecure in the relationship. The message is: "I'm so awesome! Look at how many beautiful people want to screw me! You are in competition with THEM, so you can be NOTHING to me in no time flat, unless you do absolutely EVERYTHING I want, or else!"

The covert narcissists have extra-marital affairs "covertly", in secrecy, and they lie and dodge to keep their spouse from knowing about it. So the covert feels some shame about what they are doing, and how many people they are screwing, but all narcissists put their needs and wants first before all family members. They feel they need the narcissistic supply the sexual partners give them, but they prefer to get it covertly, so that they can look like an upstanding citizen (i.e. not like a whore). So they get their sex on the side by pretending to go out to a meeting, or a parent-teacher conference, or swimming at the gym, anything that is deemed suburban-acceptable. Anything non-threatening and common is used as an excuse to get out of the house and into the arms of their lovers.

The following story is more about a covert narcissist:

Angela, the teenager, is walking on a very quiet side street in her downtown and sees her mother in the doorway of a deserted store with their neighbor, Mr. Rick Reinaldo (made up name). Her mother is kissing him passionately; there are long embraces and when they part ways, she squeezes his hand and it appears that she says, "I'll miss you." Then Mr. Reinaldo pulls her back for another long embrace and kiss, and her mother gets on her tippy toes and presses her groin into his, until they finally part ways again.

Angela, of course is stunned, and she hates that Mr. Reinaldo lives in her neighborhood and is now going to be a constant threat to the security and sanctity of her family.

When Angela gets home she looks at her mother and feels disgust. She cannot bear to even look at her, so takes off to her room where she cries until supper. She obviously feels that her world is falling apart, that her mother isn't what she thought she was, that her mother probably doesn't care about her father if she would put the family and marriage at risk.

So Angela is, understandably, going through some trauma about the situation, as most kids do in these situations.

At the dinner table she can barely look at her mother. She also doesn't feel like eating (not eating is also a sign of trauma). Her father looks intently at Angela and notices that her eyes are all red and swollen. He reaches out to touch her, and asks her what is wrong. But he doesn't get an answer. The more he comforts her, the more inconsolable she seems to be.

So he looks at his wife, Helen, and asks her what is wrong.

"How should I know? You know how she is! Sensitive about everything! She'd be sensitive about a pea under ten mattresses!" -- this is typical of narcs, to see one of their children as "too sensitive."

"Hell I am! I caught you, Mom!"

"What the Hell are you talking about?! I made you your dinner you ungrateful little twerp! If you caught me making dinner, then yes, I do that!" Helen says. Narcs try to get the conversation moving in a different direction, even though they know what "getting caught" means.

"Mom, I caught you kissing Mr. Reinaldo."

Helen looks at her husband who looks shocked, walks up and whispers, "She's fifteen. She doesn't know anything yet. There is nothing going on. I'll talk to her about what neighbors are about."

So Helen takes Angela to her room and they sit on a bed together.

Helen begins to lecture Angela:

"Now Angela, sometimes neighbors greet each other and they are a little more friendly than other people out in the world. Now, you know Cathy and Bianca Reinaldo, nice kids, wouldn't you say?"

"Mom, I saw you kissing him! On the street!"

"Kissing a neighbor in a greeting is a lot of what neighbors do. You have to understand that this is a very close neighborhood where we have barbecues over at each other's houses. It is friendly here. You remember when you and Cathy Reinaldo found that little kitten? Wasn't that kitten cute? And we adopted him. But I'm sorry he ran off, Angela --"

"But, Mom, that wasn't a little peck of a kiss like neighbors give. I'm not stupid! You were deep kissing!"

Helen laughs. "Well, I don't blame you for having a vivid imagination!" (note this is gaslighting, which usually takes place in word salad arguments too). "You know, when you were young, you had all kinds of imaginative friends. You remember your teddy bears all had names and distinct personalities? That was such a wonderful time of your life! You should always remember those times! And now your imagination is making you into a formidable talent. I'd love to hear you write more songs and --" (note the diversions and dodging and buttering up -- this is all part of word salad).

"Mom, I don't have a vivid imagination! You were kissing him in that doorway of that store on Regent Street!"

"But you do have a vivid imagination! I see you as a brilliant songwriter, singing on stages, singing about songs that are all about love! It's no wonder you see love in everything! It's what you want! But you are too young to have a husband now. But some day you will --"

"Stop it, Mom! I'm not talking about my career or a husband when I grow up! Just stop it!"

Helen looks shocked. Her eyes dart around madly as if she is thinking about what to say. Then she comes up with it: "Well, I was just trying to get you into a better frame of mind! You need that, don't you? A little more happiness in your life? You don't need to worry about me!"

"Mom, I wasn't worried about you!"

"Yes, you were! You were worried, and you are soooo young, and you don't understand adults yet. Perhaps you were reading into it that you thought I loved Mr. Reinaldo, so you saw deep kissing when it wasn't ANYTHING; it's like worrying about a thunderstorm when you are in bed and cozy. That thunderstorm can't do anything to you, but you worry and fret about it when it is happening. And then you get all of us up in the middle of the night because you can't sleep because you think the gods are all thrashing about in the sky because your mind is that imaginative and good. Worrying will make you read way too much into situations. It happens, so I forgive you ..."

"Mom, stop with the vivid imagination already! I'm not so naive that I don't know what you did!"

"But that's the thing. You ARE that naive. If you go on like this, just like you do when there is a thunderstorm, you'll get your father all upset, worried and concerned. Don't you think he has enough on his plate with the mortgage and all? With all of his work responsibilities and keeping us all fed and happy? You get him out of bed in the middle of the night all of the time over the slightest rumble. I think you are playing this up to that extent too, and it's all right because you are such a great imaginative songwriter. You might want to try your hand at writing a love song, and I could critique it if you would like. You seem to be focused on love, and I could teach you what it really is about. I'm good at grammar too, and I --"

"Mom, why would you kiss him like that?"

Helen starts slitting her eyes and looking mean. "Mr. Reinaldo? Why were you downtown? Answer me that! You were supposed to be home doing homework! You aren't supposed to be anywhere until you do your homework! And I doubt you finished it if you were in town that early to --"

"Mom, today was 'free-for-all day', not regular classes. I took drama, a swimming lesson and played basketball, and in homeroom we had a big long party and a movie. Don't you remember the note the school sent home?"

"No, I don't. Hmmm, a drama class. That's good, because you ARE dramatic. In fact you are being a drama queen right now. It's always about drama and upsetting people, isn't it? Drama, drama, drama!" (note: this is a favorite phrase among narcissists -- they often accuse people around them of creating drama). "Anyway, I think you are lying. I'm sure you had homework to do. In fact, how about getting all of the facts and figures together for your composition? What happened to that?"

"I didn't have home work. That's the thing about 'free-for-all day'. No homework."

"Well, you still have that composition to prepare for."

"That's not due for a month."

"In fact, I think you still need to be punished. You accused me, and you were downtown snooping around. How dare you! Now I see that your imagination has taken hold of your senses to the point where you look so badly upon your own mother that you think she is a slut! I really can't believe this! After all I have done for you! I made your meal tonight which you were too uppity and ungrateful to eat or thank me for! So, you deserve to be punished!" -- another favorite diverting tactic is the "ungrateful phrase".

"I wasn't snooping. I was --"

"Yes, you were snooping! Now I have had enough of this talk! How dare you think that I was having an affair with Mr. Reinaldo! How dare you think that I was THAT kind of woman! If you are going to invent that kind of mother, there will be consequences! After all I have done for you, for your father and for this family! I really don't want to hear another word out of your mouth about Mr. Reinaldo! Now if you say another word about this to anyone, or get anyone upset about what you think you saw, then we'll add on another week, and another week, and another week of your punishment! Is that what you want?"

"So what is my punishment?"

"You are to come home from school and you are going to go immediately to your room! We'll do this for one week to start ... You are NOT allowed downtown until you can behave yourself!" -- narcs are famous for isolating their "naughty" intelligent children to a room. Isolation as a disciplinary tool does not work very well in normal circumstances, and especially as a way to "hide the evidence" by strong-arming the child.

In this situation, everything is on the child's shoulders to pretend that this a perfect family, with a perfect mother who would NEVER, not EVER, in a million years, have an affair! The punishment of the child who knows the truth or embodies the truth is typically marginalized in narcissistic and sociopathic "punishing families". Word salad and super-imposing an altered experience is part of the lexicon of abuse: gaslighting, bullying and erroneous blaming.

One of the problems is that it can build estrangement and distrust between mother and daughter. When the teenager grows into an adult, she will still remember being punished for knowing the truth about her mother (a truth that can't be denied by word salad). Once the child becomes an adult, Helen would feel that she had to make more word salad out of it (narcissists usually pile lies upon lies to excuse themselves): "Well, I didn't want you to be concerned over adult matters. I didn't want to upset you. I didn't think it was appropriate to talk to you about it at that time. I did it for your own good." -- narcs are famous for saying their injustices against you are for "your own good" or "the common good".

The response to "I did it for your own good" word salad arguments with children run the gamut. The children know that they had to "serve time" for what their parent did, that they were blamed for seeing it rather than the parent doing it. So children can have a lot of differing reactions including disgust, lack of respect for the parent who is supposed to have higher moral standards and ethics than the child (a parent with low ethics cannot discipline a child very well). The child may keep quiet and pretend to go along so as not to be targeted for another attack. The child may never trust the parent again, seeing the parent as duplicitous and a cheater. The child may see the parent as immoral and injust (for punishing her own child for "being keeper of the truth", which again effects the parent's ability to teach or discipline the child). The child may have disgust over the gaslighting. The child might display signs of cognitive dissonance. The child may be shocked and grieving over the loss of what she thought her mother was. There may be on-going anger over the injustice. Children who grow up with this kind of parent either keep very quiet (too quiet, even about their motivations and feelings about their parent) or they talk back. No matter what the reaction is, this word salad argument has long lasting effects, far-reaching consequences and can traumatize others far into the future. The additional problem is, word salad arguments tend to be used over, and over, and over again: sometimes narcs literally live on their word salad arguments to the point where they appear to be an empty shell or totally insane.

Most people cannot live with someone who repeatedly uses word salad to explain away their actions, which is why narcs abandon, or are abandoned, at a dizzying rate. Part of feeling narc-entitled to have affairs and lie consistently, is that you break people's hearts, minds and trust in you. You also break their belief in you. You are labeled as unethical.

Word salad is used primarily as a way to keep shame off of the narcissist, and in the process the narcissist puts the shame on to the child's shoulders instead, where it does not belong - this is called blame-shifting and it is absolutely horrific and abusive when used in this context.

But, narcs don't care about damaging their children. Children can be, and are, disposed of (usually through a silent treatment) if they object.

Now, sometimes instead of punishing a child who becomes privy to some kind of unethical truth, a narc parent can also try to turn the daughter into a "best friend", confiding in intimate details of the marriage with her father, confiding in how the new relationship with the lover is fulfilling needs, and asking the daughter for guidance, who to choose and other suggestions (completely inappropriate). But narc mothers do this because they feel it keeps the daughter from being an enemy -- and it does work on teenage girls. So narc parents either become completely enmeshed with a child, or they are rejecting of the child, and more often they go between total enmeshment to total estrangement: "idealize, devalue, discard".

For the sake of keeping this story simple, I am featuring a rejected punished daughter.

The next example features how damaging word salad can be to the whole family:

The father finds out his wife is having an affair, and it has been going on for two years:

Helen covers up the incident with Mr. Reinaldo by telling her husband, Bob, that their daughter, Angela, doesn't know the difference between a friendly neighbor kiss and a passionate kiss, that she is too young.

She goes on to explain to her husband: "Don't worry about it. You know I'd never be with a man like Rick Reinaldo anyway. All of those kids! And that big smelly dog of his! And that swimming pool full of leaves and grime! It's preposterous, but our little girl has quite the imagination -- which she needs to put into songwriting instead of this line of thinking! Ha!" Helen laughs heartily as though it is all a big joke. (Note: narcissists are fairly good at acting, which is why she gets away with the lies).

Sometimes, if you know they are narcs, you can know they are lying if they keep talking endlessly about the situation. The problem is that covert narcs are not so easily detected, so the conclusion that they are a narc usually comes way after you have been pretty substantially hurt by them. But just in case, narcs will go on and on and on with cover-ups: "If something ever happened to you, Bob, God forbid, Rick Reinaldo would be the last person I would even consider in my bed. I'd be up to my eyeballs in kids fussy fights, and having two kids of our own is enough for me! You know I don't like kids that much even if I've grown to love ours. No, there is no one but you for me, babe. You and I against the world!" With hugs and kisses ... So, Rick Reinaldo would keep coming up in this way, over and over again. He might even be the butt of the jokes between Bob and Helen. The exception to this rule? A really introverted narc tries to avoid talking about it altogether, or just mumbles things like "How dare you accuse me!"

But this story isn't over yet ...

One day, Bob is in the house alone and he gets a call from Rick Reinaldo's wife, Sharon. Sharon tells Bob that Helen and Rick are having an affair, that she's had enough and is moving out with the kids. Bob is shocked at the news, and asked how she found out and Sharon replies: "They have been having an affair for two years. I caught them in bed together at our house two years ago. Caroline was in a school play, so I took all the kids and we went. Rick stayed home because he had a stomach ache. While we were at the play, Bianca got sick, just throwing up buckets of vomit. We had to leave. So, anyway, we get home, and Helen and Rick are in the shower together, naked, laughing away, and he was telling her how good she was. It made me sick. I chased Helen out, but it just kept going on and on and on, at the office, in their cars, during so-called meetings. He made all of the usual excuses and I tried to give him the benefit of the doubt, but no more. I'm just not living a lie any more. And I'm moving out. This is not good for the kids and they are my main concern. I know that Bianca took it out pretty hard on Angela one day for breaking up our family. I told Bianca not to blame it on Angela, that Angela has nothing to do with what Helen did, but you might want to talk to Angela so that she really understands this."

"So, Angela knows this?" he asks incredulously.

Sharon continues: "I thought maybe Angela would have told you by now, but Angela tells me that Helen is punishing her for being aware of the affair. One reason I'm telling you all of this is concern for Angela."

"I see. I'm in such total shock! I mean Helen has sworn up and down that she finds Rick unattractive, that she would never have an affair with him, that I was the only man for her. I feel like I've been knifed in the back, so I'll have to catch my breath about all of this."

"Bob, I'm so sorry I dropped this bombshell on you, but I figured you would find out sooner or later, and as you know, I'm concerned for the welfare of children, and I really think that Angela's falling grades, her estrangement from a lot of her friends, and what has happened between her and Bianca is too much for her to bear, along with keeping the awful secret of Helen's and Rick's affair to herself. It's not right for that child to live that way."

"No, I agree, it isn't."

When Helen comes home, she and Bob have it out. "What proof do you have? You know how Sharon is! She's jealous of us! She'd love to ruin our marriage! She'd like to have what we have! She's got a husband who is fat, and I've got one who is slender! We have a nice clean swimming pool, and she's got one full of leaves! I mean, how long does it take to rake out a few leaves? And they certainly have the money to hire someone to rake the leaves out for them. But, no! She takes it out on me! I have offered her my rake, and all of my expertise, and that is why I sometimes go over there, trying to get her some help. Let her have her messy yard, her falling down house, her grimy swimming pool. And the other problem is they have too many trees around their swimming pool!" -- you can see how the conversation derailed into typical word salad about a swimming pool instead of about the very dire situation they are in.

When Bob keeps trying to bring the conversation back to Helen's affair with Rick, it keeps getting derailed over and over again until Helen becomes incensed. She tells Bob that she has had enough of the accusations, and distrust, and finding fault. How dare he think she'd be having an affair with someone like Rick Reinaldo. In fact, she threatens that if he continues with this line of talk, she will take the kids away from him and make his life as miserable as he is making her life miserable with all of the accusations.

So, there are several ways these kinds of situations play out:

1. Bob gives in: gives his wife the benefit of the doubt -- the less likely outcome, especially since Sharon has raised his suspicions.

2. Bob doesn't want his kids taken away from him, especially if the mother is duplicitous: it would put the kids at risk. So he needs to have his wits about him and think things through.

3. Bob doesn't believe a word of what his wife says and files for divorce.

If he's a "regular guy", with an ability to keep a cool head, he is going to choose option #2. He is going to call a lawyer and get some idea of the possibilities of what the law can do for him. He might also hire a private detective.

So, he hires a private detective, and the detective finds Helen and Rick in all kinds of compromising situations: taking out a motel room together under an alias, having sex in a car, spending PTA night in another town dancing.

Then he tells her that he is filing for divorce because of infidelity.

At first Helen tries to deny it, saying that it wasn't what it seems (gaslighting). But this time the diverting and dodging isn't working. Bob keeps talking about divorce while she goes on and on and on about how she was forced to have sex with Rick, that there was coercion, control and blackmail involved.

Then Bob finally blows up at her. "I have had enough of the excuses and the lies, Helen! Look at you! You're disgusting!"

"Well, just for that, I'm going to take the kids away from you! And guess what? I'll get them! Because they always give custody to the mother!"

"Damn you, Helen, all you can think of is threatening me after being caught in lies that have been running out of your mouth for two years!? Two years, Helen!"

"You know why I had an affair? Because of how you are reacting right now! Because you have no control over yourself, your temper! You are the one who is disgusting! Look at you! As if screaming at the top of your lungs, and accusing me is attractive!" Note: narcs like to switch it so that your reactions to their immoral behavior are causing them to be liars, cheaters, abusers, bait-and-switchers -- this is also classic blame-shifting that narcs are famous for.

But Bob is onto this tactic and ignores her. He knows that he rarely has a temper, and he feels his temper is justified in this situation, so Helen's words go in one ear and out the other, as the saying goes.

When that isn't working, Helen's word salad switches to talking about how "Everyone has affairs. It's not a big deal. It's just sex. Affairs are as old as the human race."

But Bob doesn't listen to that either.

So she cries, and acts desperate, to appeal to his sympathy. He is taken in by that somewhat because he's an empath. They start counseling. But after several sessions where she seems, on the surface to be contrite, it is clear that Helen is using the sessions to talk about how inadequate Bob is as a sex partner, as a husband, as a father, and if he had just done certain things, she would have remained faithful.

So Bob works really hard for Helen. In fact, if she has a complaint, he resolves her complaint. The problem is, the more work he does for her, the more she complains about him, even to her own children -- typical. So, he wears himself out for her, while at the same time not trusting her entirely. Eventually, she starts going to an awful lot of meetings in the evening again, so he hires the private detective again.

One note here before continuing the story: couples therapy does not work in these situations. If anything, this is closer to a domestic abuse issue (betrayal trauma).

So to continue:

She gets caught again having sex with Rick Reinaldo.

This time the divorce is on.

She escalates by criticizing him even more than when they were in therapy, and starts to lob insults at him as well: ugly, slob, lazy. She tells him she never loved him anyway, that he was half the man Rick was, that he was like a sniveling little puppy dog with a tiny penis, that he could never satisfy her in a million years, that he was a "downright dweeb". Now the relationship has turned outright abusive. In fact, as the divorce is underway, she flaunts Rick in Bob's face, and even tries to bring Rick into the marital home to upset Bob. But Bob responds by calling the police and the police tell Rick that he is not to go into the house, or he will be arrested.

By this time, the whole neighborhood knows, and Helen explains in more word salad to the neighbors that Bob was having an affair for two years, and that she had had enough, and that Rick had helped her to see the light and protect her from Bob (who she explained to neighbors was torturing her in "that house"):

"In fact, he tortured me so much, that I tried to get Rick in the house to protect me from Bob's rages and beatings, but the police wouldn't let him be there. I understand why the police did that, but really! They need to have laws to protect the women and children in these situations!  We are so relieved about the divorce, and I can't wait another day until the papers are signed so that Bob leaves, gets out of the neighborhood and we can leave him behind! Rick will be such a great stepfather to the kids! Just look at how great he is with his own kids! Ever since that awful Sharon moved out, the swimming pool is finally clean; there aren't toys all over the yard; he's finally just able to focus on the kids and not on all of her problems and excuses about why she can't keep the place clean! My God, she was in that house for all of these years, and she has no job, and she had the messiest lawn of all of us! I hope we stay in the neighborhood to bring stability to our kid's lives. The kids need some nice grounding after what Bob did to them!" In the meantime Rick nods in agreement to all of these altered stories.

Yes, narcs are attracted to other cheaters, who can be other narcs or other cluster B personality disordered people.

All of the smear campaigns to make themselves look like victims and to socially isolate the real victim, Bob, is typical elementary 101 narc behavior. The word salad in this instance is used to make Bob appear as a perpetrator and make Helen and Rick appear as victims. This word salad can go on for years, and does. Sometimes narcs are so focused on punishing their exes, that they will keep trying to figure out a way to punish by proxy, and the endless smear campaign and isolating the ex from common friends becomes the easiest way to do it. From looking at forums, it is obvious that a lot of narcs even try to slander their exes with the exes parents! In fact, no one is off limits!

They have even been noted to target their own children for persuasion -- that their other parent is bad (in this case, Bob). This is called parental alienation syndrome, which, because of the damage it does, is illegal in a lot of states now ... if only there was a law for parents who try to punish and slander children who choose the non-narc parent in custody arrangements, perhaps name it child alienation syndrome. Anything that would disarm narcissists from doing vicious smear campaigns against their own children would greatly help to stem the tide of domestic abuse and domestic violence.

Having said that, most children end up wanting to live with the non-narc parent (in this case, Bob). That is because a normal parent offers stability, on-going love, and is someone a child can look up to. Ethics means more to children than "being a golden favored child" in the narc-world of "do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do."

You can almost count on narcs reacting vindictively to not being the center of attention in a family, especially an unmasked one (i.e. shown to be unethical and immoral). Word salad is their defense to keeping the false society-security mask in place. Without that mask, they cannot get narcissistic supply very easily.

If laws never change, and no one stands up to the narcs, they will continue to do more and more damage, and it becomes collateral: effecting inlaws who marry into the family, step children and grandchildren -- even if they appear to go off happy into the sunset with their Mr. Reinaldos at the outset. This is one reason why many therapists strongly urge their clients to go "no contact" because it does end up traumatizing and infecting your own children.

You can see that in just one to three word salad arguments, how damaging it can be to everyone in a family. The problem is word salad begins to be a run-away train with ever-more deflections, lies and re-framed stories. And it is not the only weapon used against members of their family. Gaslighting, erroneous blaming, smear campaigns, blame-shifting, discards and ostracism of children and other family members, injustice, constant threats and severe "punishments", scapegoating,  insults, financial abuse, being put into extremely unhealthy roles by the toxic parent, gang-bullying, triangulation, being accused of actions and types of mental processes that are actually projection, continual broken promises and favoritism are also part of the arsenal used in tandem with word salad. Some of this can turn into such "acceptable levels" within a family, that sibling abuse can arise too. How awful, right? Most members of narcissistic families are either dealing with more trauma than most people can ever imagine, or they are bullies themselves. It's easy to see why young children really are not capable of dealing with or defending themselves against all of these weapons that the narcissist uses on their own family members (which is why children from abusive homes end up with chronic PTSD).

The members who live on the outside of these types of families (whether they got there from being scapegoated, smeared, ostracized or volunteered to leave) are often the family members who endured the most abuse from this "weaponry", or who saw the most unethical behavior (i.e. the truth that the narcissist wants to hide). These members are usually the ones who have the most disabling PTSD symptoms too.

The problem with accepting or ignoring word salad arguments and the unethical behavior that often goes with these arguments is: what does it teach children? Does it teach children that if they, the children, constantly fib and use word salad it will be ignored too? This is how abuse passes from one generation to the next: no one is watching the foxes in the henhouse! -- the foxes being blatant abuse. I would put my money on it that 98 percent of abuse and bullying in the world starts in the childhood home, not in schools, not in work places, but with what children see and hear from their own parents, parents who are supposed to be setting limits, teaching morality, teaching justice, and most of all, teaching by example. Some research is being done now that supports my theory. When these kinds of parents blatantly fail at good parenting, they pass the abusive "tricks" and "weapons", like the word salad argument, on to the next generation. I am, in fact, seeing it with my own eyes.

Here is a video by popular life coach, Richard Grannon on "Covert Salad" 
(this has a lot of humor in it, unlike my post ...
any survivor will be able to identify and perhaps laugh at how ridiculous narc word salad can get):


10 Warning Signs of Word Salad --
from the Psychopath Free blog

How to End Circular Conversations  -- A Huffington Post article by Dianna Booher

10 Warning Signs of Word Salad -- from Sanctuary of the Abused website

The Narcissist is a Chameleon and an Empty Void -- a recommended post by Melanie Tonia Evans (not only discusses the narcissist's word salad arguments, but goes into why they practically shape-shift what they say to fit in with the company they keep)

A New York model’s marriage to a sociopath -- by Jen Waite, continued on a New York Post article, by Jane Ridley: My husband’s secret double life

found on facebook:



from Pierce the Darkness on Facebook:

Friday, May 27, 2016

cyber bullying, an example, with my comments

original drawing avatar: © Lise Winne
screenshot: © Facebook with alterations  

Note: I suggest you read my post about what is abuse and who is it perpetrated by, otherwise you may not understand many of the comments I make on the posts. Also this post is about adult to adult cyberbullying. I will be discussing cyberbullying as it pertains to children, preteens and teenagers in another post.

According to Wikipedia, cyberbullying is defined as:

Cyberbullying is the act of harming or harassing via information technology networks in a repeated and deliberate manner. According to U.S. Legal Definitions, "cyber-bullying could be limited to posting rumors or gossips about a person in the internet bringing about hatred in other’s minds; or it may go to the extent of personally identifying victims and publishing materials severely defaming and humiliating them."[1]

Examples of what constitutes cyberbullying include communications that seek to intimidate, control, manipulate, put down, falsely discredit, or humiliate the recipient. The actions are deliberate, repeated, and hostile behavior intended to harm another. Cyberbullying has been defined by The National Crime Prevention Council: "When the Internet, cell phones or other devices are used to send or post text or images intended to hurt or embarrass another person."[6][7]

Since this post is primarily about adult to adult cyberbullying, I have included this definition from Wikipedia too:

The practice of cyberbullying is not limited to children and, while the behavior is identified by the same definition when practiced by adults, the distinction in age groups sometimes refers to the abuse as cyberstalking or cyberharassment when perpetrated by adults toward adults.[12]Common tactics used by cyberstalkers are performed in public forums, social media or online information sites and are intended to threaten a victim's earnings, employment, reputation, or safety. Behaviors may include encouraging others to harass the victim and trying to affect a victim's online participation. Many cyberstalkers try to damage the reputation of their victim and turn other people against them. The differences between cyberbullying and cyberstalking have been expressed in a Trolling Magnitude (TM) Scale, showing cyberbullying is more strategic and cyberstalking is more about domination.[5]

In a great deal of unmoderated online forums, you will notice that bullies take over most of them. Note the word unmoderated.

Most forums are about shared values, perceptions, opinions or experiences. In unmoderated forums, the reason why the bullies end up controlling the information and discussions is because their lives are primarily focused on controlling other people and their perceptions. The issues that are raised in these forums rate a distant second. This kind of control in an on-line forum translates to controlling subjects, opinions and facts to match up as perfectly as possible with the bully's visions of the world, and interest in a subject. If the bully is not interested in the subject, or the opinions oppose his own, he will feel threatened and incensed, and begin to attack another poster on a personal level. Verbal abuse lingo becomes his box of tools: "You are irritating", "You are being a moron", "Move along. We don't want to hear your drivel", "You're really wacky, you know that?", "You're our daily troll", "Go back to your playpen" and other insults are hurled at an unsuspecting target to intimidate and demean. Some bullies try to out-maneuver opponents by twisting concepts and words, bombarding the forum with erroneous facts, and engaging in word salad arguments before graduating to personal attacks.

Bullies tend to be disordered: narcissists or antisocial personality disordered -- see my post on what abuse is and who it is perpetrated by.

The reason so many people become bullied by a gang in unmoderated forums is that bullies are on the lookout for their own kind. They see a  poster getting personally attacked. They watch, and then if they like what the "other" bully is doing (which usually they do), they join in to help that other bully. This sets up a buddy system where the main agenda is to scour the forum to find lone posters who appear not to have support, or are supported only by a few people. In this way, two bullies can easily turn into 30 bullies or more, many more. Many unmoderated forums turn into gang bullying sites by default. Gang bullying is typically referred to as mobbing or dog piling.

In the following typical example, the forum is from Facebook and it has over 7,000 members. It is a political forum that started out primarily as a place to show political cartoons and satire for the educated left-leaning.

But an interesting turn of events began to happen as "the Republican birther movement" started to take place. While there were still cartoons, there were less of them. It was obvious that it was turning more into a forum for political articles and discussions about Obama and the debunking of claims that he was born in another country besides the USA. There were other articles too about the health care bill, and Congress stonewalling legislation. The discussions were not too consequential in that they did not bring much discussion.

A more drastic turn of events happened, however, when the latest political race began. All of a sudden there were many posts about both Clinton and Sanders. The cartoons completely disappeared and it became obvious that there was a war going on between the Sanders voters and the Clinton voters. Then there were the people who were unsure of either candidate. Then there were voters who wanted Clinton, but were afraid she would be beaten by Trump, so were voting for Sanders instead, particularly in the later primaries (West Virginia, California, Oregon, New Mexico, Montana and so on).

This is where Tina, the focus of this story, and the target for bullying, entered into the forum, to discuss the concern that was raised that Clinton might not be able to beat Trump, especially because the latest polls showed that Hillary was in a dead heat with Trump.

At the end of this post I discuss ideas for reducing victimization in cyberbullying (i.e. how Tina could have made the situation better).

A little bit of back story first: Tina had posted only a handful of times (minimally). In facebook groups you can check how often someone posts in the search section of the group.

The forum was constantly changing and it was clear to many members that the Clinton voters were dominating, even in posts put up by Sanders supporters to discuss campaigning, the rallies, the articles on him, and so on. Slogans like "Bernie go home" were sometimes posted with frequency by the Clinton camp (like a chant) to disrupt the dialog between Sanders supporters. More and more Sanders voters were drowned out by these more vocal (and full time) Clinton supporters as time went on. Within a month, a group of Clinton supporters dominated the forum, even posting all day long, and attacking anyone with differing views than their own. If you did not pay attention to this very drastic change, you could be easily targeted for bullying. Some posters did not know that the forum had become more hostile, but quickly found out. The number of members decreased as well.

So, my first advice is to look over the group forums pretty thoroughly before posting. Do many of the posters seem hostile? Do they attack people on a personal level? Are they acting intimidating? Do they ask members to reveal personal or professional information? Gauging "the mood" of the forum is one way to prevent cyberbullying (or cyberharassment, as it is sometimes called when it is between adults).

Also note: Hillary Clinton's campaign is hiring internet trolls to try to dissuade Sanders voters. This may have been possible in this group, particularly since it has close to 8,000 members. Here are some articles that verify this:

KING: Hillary Clinton camp now paying online trolls to attack anyone who disparages her online



Be nice to Hillary Clinton online — or risk a confrontation with her super PAC
Clinton SuperPac Admits to Paying Internet Trolls

A former paid “Internet troll” for Clinton speaks out: It was “nasty” and “left a very bad taste” (UPDATED)
Now, to the forum discussion:
(names and personal details have been changed to protect the guilty)

THIS WAS THE MAJOR POST, an article from Salon. The major headline was "Donald Trump is going to win: This is why Hillary Clinton can’t defeat what Trump represents ...
People are rising up against neoliberal globalization. Trump represents capital, but also understands this reality"

The person (Sara) who put up the post was a California resident. She had wanted to vote for Clinton but was concerned that Clinton was going to lose against Trump, so decided to vote for Sanders. She also attended the huge Sanders rally where over 30,000 people showed up. She interviewed many Sanders supporters who were saying that they would either vote for Trump or write Sanders name in for the general election. As she put it, this was deeply concerning for her.

Sara was getting reactions from the Clinton group like:
* Clinton has already won. If you want to vote for Clinton, vote for Clinton because Sanders isn't going to win anyway.
* Not this issue again. Sanders is finished. There is no way he will take California with the large margin he needs there.
* That article is from an extreme left wing publication. I wouldn't take stock in it.

From the ever-diminishing Sanders group Sara was getting opinions like:
* I have thought the same way. Sanders has one thing going for him: he doesn't take money from wall street and big business. He can't be bought. Right now that means more to the people in the nation than woman-power.
* Hillary is hobbled by so many scandals.
* So many Sanders supporters are not voting for Hillary no matter what. Once you count in the Independent vote in, he's our only chance at beating Trump.  

I don't want to elaborate too much on Sara's part of the forum, or the reactions from other posters, except to say that Tina posted after these initial posts.

Tina: I agree with Sara.
I have been trying to get people to see that the Independent vote is of importance if Trump is to be beaten. One thing that a lot of reporters have not thought about much is about the rural vote. If you look at maps where candidates win, Bernie wins the rural vote while Hillary wins the big cities. If Bernie is not the Democratic nominee, many in these rural areas will switch from Sanders to Trump.


Lindsey: If they are true liberals, they will vote for Hillary after they lick their wounds.

Pamela: Sanders has lost. Time to move onto other subjects. 

Tina: No, he hasn't lost (yet). He has a real uphill battle, but he hasn't lost.

Pamela: The super delegates will go to Hillary. He's lost. 

Peyton: Not another Republican troll! 

Tina: No personal insults or attacks please. Stick to the discussion topic.

Gordon: Total hogwash. Clinton has had more time to be attacked by the Republican machine. That is what Republicans do. And now with Trump, that is all they have: attacks, period, because Trump has no government experience or record. He just has wishful thinking. No one thought Sanders would be a contender, so they haven't bothered to dig up dirt. But they would, and a lot of it, if he was the contender. But he's not and never will be. Clinton won the race fair and square, one thing Bernie-bots fail to take into consideration. The old man and his "followers" are delusional to keep going with their race.

Tina: This is an NBC poll showing the rural and city divide:
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/first-read-2016-urban-rural-divide-n580056  


Tina: This NBC post says that most Democrats want Bernie to stay in the race until the convention:
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/poll-majority-democrats-want-sanders-stay-until-convention-n566146


Tina: This Huffington Post blog shows Bernie far ahead of Trump in the general, while Hillary is neck-and-neck:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/hillary-clinton-now-loses_b_10102664.html 

Tina: I think the main issue for many people is the Super PAC contributions to Clinton's campaign. A lot of millennials are concerned with the environment too. Here is just one article from GreenPeace about her ties to big oil: http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaign-updates/hillary-clintons-connection-oil-gas-industry/

Peyton: If Sanders doesn't win, you're going to vote for Trump. Like I said, just your every day average Republican troll. 

Tina: You're assuming personal things about me, while I am trying to stay on topic. Again, no personal attacks please. These posts have nothing to do with me. I'm putting up articles to discuss, period. BTW, I never said who I was voting for. Usually, that is a private matter, however I am a registered Democrat. And that is all I will share. I was showing polls where Sanders is ahead of Clinton when he faces off against Trump, period. That and the OPs beginning post is the real discussion without the personal attacks.

Michael: Supporting Bernie and then voting for Trump makes no sense what so ever.
Again, there is an assumption that Tina will vote for Trump.

Lindsey: That Huff Post was a "blog". It was not reporting.

Simon: Tina, you're just concern trolling.

Tina: You don't know me. Stop with the personal attacks.

Simon: I don't need to know you. All I need to know is the definition of a concern troll and to read your posts.
Note: This is where the vilification of Tina starts. He is painting her out to have ulterior motives. If these were hired Hillary Clinton campaign internet trolls, then they would project what they are doing onto Tina. Almost all bullies project; very rarely do they know who their targets really are.

Lindsey: There's a pop song by Cyndi Lauper. I'll see your true colors. That's this woman.

Scarlet: These fringe nutjobs are extremely misguided. It doesn't take a six year old to realize that if you like Bernie, you would naturally be anti-Trump. What is this cutting off the nose to spite your face sort of idiocy? Even my first grader can articulate that anyone is better than Trump! The very idea of a progressive ascribing to such absolute insanity is enough to make me sputter with rage. I'd take a true blue Trump supporter any day over this posse of charlatan assholes.
Again, a new poster is furthering the vilification that Tina will vote for Trump.

Lindsey: There is a lot of privilege and entitlement. They also aren't great at vetting "facts."

Tina: Okay, I'm going to ignore this. I refuse to respond to personal attacks. I think those who are new to this forum will see that these posts of mine are mainly articles. This next quote and link is from a Salon article. It is slightly dated, but I think it is still relevant to what the beginning post and all of these articles are talking about:
"Presidents never let appointees make endorsements, but three Obama cabinet secretaries — Agriculture’s Tom Vilsack, HUD’s Julian Castro and Labor’s Thomas Perez — backed Clinton early, thus shepherding whole economic sectors into her camp. At Obama’s DNC, ethically challenged Debbie Wasserman Schultz brazenly violates party rules by daily rigging the game for Clinton.
Sanders often says he took on “the most powerful political machine in America,” by which he means the Clintons. He’s really fighting the whole Democratic Party: White House, Congress, DNC, elite media and, sad to say, national progressive groups. That includes organized labor but also nearly every liberal lobby in town. He’s been a more constant friend than Hillary Clinton to almost all of them — but he must face and defeat them all. That he’s done so in 14 states — 15 counting Iowa-and fought four more to a draw is a miracle — and a sign their days are truly numbered."

http://www.salon.com/2016/03/29/we_must_smash_the_clinton_machine_democratic_elites_and_the_media_sold_out_to_hillary_this_time_but_change_is_coming/ 

Lyndsey: Salon is an ultra left wing publication. You need to vet your sources.

Penelope: Why are you feeding us these news stories? What is the motivation? I'm hearing that you're a troll, but I want to hear what your motivations are from your perspective. Just let her tell her side of it, people. By the way, I'm still undecided, so I want to hear from all perspectives and it doesn't help when people are attacking her. 

Tina: Thank you, Penelope.
Just to wake people up. I became concerned because I know a lot of people who live in small towns and farming communities who voted for Sanders in the primary, but who are switching to Trump if Hillary is the nominee. And having looked at articles, I know this is true across the country. Why is Sanders winning in rural areas and small towns?
* on farming: he wants to stop gov subsidies of big Ag (Monsanto etc) and big Farming (Tyson, etc) and subsidize small farmers instead

* on small business: we all know that many big businesses (Walmart, etc) is being subsidized, plus they don't pay taxes. Again, this enrages small business owners to no end. Big businesses take business away from the small business and then the government subsidizes these businesses on top of it. Any small business owner can see that is wrong. Bernie wants to stop it, and make them pay their fair share in taxes.
* on the second amendment: Guns are viewed very differently in rural areas than cities. In farming, it is very difficult not to use a gun. The rats get into the chicken coop and chicken feed, the woodchucks get into beans, broccoli, cabbage, squash (flowers), the voles eat potatoes, and so on. Second amendment rights are something that Bernie wants to protect.
-- These are just a few things, and one of the reasons why the rural vote will switch to Trump (and not go to Hillary). The news media in this area has been polling voters and a great many Bernie voters will automatically go to Trump (and it is largely based on the rural vote). I worked the elections for decades and half of voters do not know what party they belong to (seriously). They consider themselves Independents even when they sign up for one party or another. Farmers and small business owners are Independents, and Bernie started out as an Independent.


Blick: Sanders is not to be discounted. If you discount him, Hillary may not make it. You need us Sanders people to get the lady president.

Tina: Exactly.
PUTS UP VIDEO: https://www.facebook.com/NowThisElection/videos/1166948986669923/
(This video is about Sanders announcement to run to a handful of people, only expected to win 1 or 2 percent of the vote in the primary with Clinton, and ending up with the huge rallies).

Donald: Tina shoots voles with a gun? LOL Unlikely. A good cat will do it.

Scarlet: Tina, what STATE do you live in?

Donald: I just looked Tina up. Sander's state of Vermont! Now I'm laughing!! The most progressive state in the union and she pretends to be worried! Vermont will go blue! Who are you trying to kid? Are you one of Bernie's bots?

Simon: Tina, you live in a rural, overwhelmingly white area. Neither of those adjectives describe what America is in 2016.

Tina: I am not naive about demographics. But America is made up primarily of rural areas, small towns, small cities, and suburbia  which is neither country or city, but something inbetween. Many suburban developments are out in the country these days, not the outskirts of a big city.

Scarlet: How anybody can assume that their little white hamlet is going to determine anything is beyond me.

Rhonda: Ha! That was my exact thought too, Scarlet . . . Tina's area is going to determine the entire election because she says so. Doesn't matter how the ENTIRE country votes if rural Tina's area votes differently. What a nutty argument.

Simon: again with the factual inaccuracies! No, most of the USA is NOT rural / suburban! Over 80% of the U.S. population lives in CITIES!

Tina: I mentioned small cities, so those are counted in this census, I believe. A small city can seem like a town: 25,000  people for instance is not very large. If it is one of those kinds of "cities" with barns out in the back and very few services except a post office, the census will still consider it an urban area. 

Scarlet: Why bother with the facts when you can create your own reality?

Note the beginning of the gaslighting phase of the bullying process.

Mobbing is also beginning in this phase. "Cyber mobbing" and "piling on" are also phrases sometimes used in place of the word "mobbing". Mobbing is defined (from Wikipedia) as: "Mobbing can be described as being 'ganged up on.' Mobbing is executed by a leader. The leader then rallies others into a systematic and frequent 'mob-like' behaviour toward the victim.[4]"

Donald: Elections are won by voters, not land.

Simon: You're STILL wrong! Jesus Frederick Christ-Horwitz!
"There are officially two types of urban areas: “urbanized areas” of 50,000 or more people and “urban clusters” of between 2,500 and 50,000 people. For the 2010 count, the Census Bureau has defined 486 urbanized areas, accounting for 71.2 percent of the U.S. population. The 3,087 urban clusters account for 9.5 percent of the U.S. population."


Lindsey: The argument that "rural America is the real America" was made frequently by Republicans and Tea Baggers led by the mother of all...Sarah.

Donald: This discussion is inane ... and insane. Tina is trolling here.

According to Wikipedia an internet troll is:

"... a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion,[3] often for their own amusement ...
Media attention in recent years has equated trolling with online harassment ...
... Two studies published in 2013 and 2014 have found that people who are identified as trolls tend to have dark personality traits and show signs of sadism, antisocial behavior, psychopathy, and machiavellianism.[41][42] The 2013 study suggested that there are a number of similarities between anti-social and flame trolling activities[41] and the 2014 study suggested that the noxious personality characteristics known as the "dark triad of personality" should be investigated in the analysis of trolling, and concluded that trolling appears "to be an Internet manifestation of everyday sadism."[42] Their relevance is suggested by research linking these traits to bullying in both adolescents and adults. The 2014 study found that trolls operate as agents of chaos on the Internet, exploiting hot-button issues to make users appear overly emotional or foolish in some manner. If an unfortunate person falls into their trap, trolling intensifies for further, merciless amusement. This is why novice Internet users are routinely admonished, 'Do not feed the trolls!' ..."

According to this website on how to counteract trolling:
"Trolls divert online discussions into non-productive, off-topic venues. They pose as part of a community only to disrupt it. Trolling is anti-social behavior.
Some of the techniques trolls use to accomplish their objectives are:
* Pithy put-downs
* Name-calling and insults
* Ad hominem attacks that try to negate an opinion by alleging negatives about the person supporting it
* Impugning other's motives
* Emotional rants
* Bullying and harassment
* Completely off-topic posts
* Posting inaccurate 'facts'"

In other words, trolling is a more accurate description of the gang than of Tina, especially in the posts that follow this one. 

Bullies tend to use projection about what they are doing onto their victims/targets, in this case projecting trolling. They do this instead of counter-arguing with facts, expert opinions, analysis and educated discourse. 

Tyler: Is that Tina posting? I blocked her, so I can't see.

Simon: Yes, Tyler. Tina is a textbook example of a "concern troll". She feigns concern that Hillary cannot win against Trump, but we really know she hopes that Hillary loses.
This is classic for bullies: to tell targets and other people who happen to look in on the forum what their target's real motivations are, even though it is just speculation, based on very little evidence. It is to blacken the target's reputation.

Tom: I don't see Tina's comments in this comment section, so apparently I blocked her for some other ridiculous post she made. Yay me!

Kondi: Concern trolls have been rampant in Democratic groups for the past few months. All they try to do is stir up trouble, and when you call them out on it, they start whining that they're being attacked. I'm sick of them.

Lindsey: Yes she is using Republican tactics, language, and rhetoric. It's actually rather creepy.

Scarlet: It would make sense. Republicans only take into account what they feel is relevant, accuracy be damned. But this is too rich...it's not like she's from N. Dakota!
Notice that they are trying to paint Tina as a Republican. They don't know her affiliation. But this is how bullying happens: through vilification and suspicion of the target.

Brandon: It doesn't surprise me that she is from the party of these extremist Republican Nazis. This is the way these Nazis do it. They infiltrate a forum like this, and expect us to be "nice" and "polite" and all that horseshit while they feed us false lies.    

Rhonda: Wait, did Tina delete all her comments??

Donald: Daily Troll disappeared.

Simon: Did we just get... another FLOUNCE?

Rhonda: I checked. She's still in the group.

Scarlet: I think when it came to light that she was from Vermont but was arguing that this state was in danger of falling into Trump's clutches she realized the jig was up.

Rhonda: I think she really has bought into the narrative that if we don't nominate Bernie, Trump will win. Or she is one of those "concerned" trolls. Hard to say.

Scarlet:  I am pretty sure she is just in la la land.

Notice that even though Tina left and erased all of her posts, they continued to talk about her, not about the subjects of the forum. When other people come into the threads with any concern over polls that Hillary might lose to Trump, they are also given the "rough trolling treatment" too, though most of these "concerned posters" only post once, and then leave.

One post is not enough to get the whole army going, after all.

Back to our story:

They continued to talk about Tina for awhile, even starting a new thread.

The next day, Tina started a new thread to explain to others who were looking in on the situation, why she erased her posts.

Tina: I deleted my comments because I was being personally attacked (cyber bullying). There is a real person here and I am hurt. I have been taking screen shots of all of your insults, rumors and personal attacks. For those who are seeing this thread for the first time, the articles I put up were from Greenpeace, NBC news, Salon and a video of Bernie Sanders being made a laughing stock by the media when he first began his campaign and ending with the huge rally in California, hardly Republican sites.
I ask you politely to stop talking to me, attacking my character and spreading rumors. Otherwise I will take further action. I wish to be left alone.

Most people would apologize to a person who said they were hurt and wanted to be left alone. They would also respect the decisions of a person who did not want to engage in any more discourse or have their reputations dragged through the mud. 

But bullies and people with NPD and APD always see it as an invitation to bully some more, to further hurt their targets, justify their own actions, and twist their target's words and intentions some more so that their targets seem either insane or uneducated. If you have been following along with my posts, it is a form of gaslighting to make a target appear not to have their full faculties in order, to be uneducated and unhinged, so that people who visit the forum will listen to the overwhelming number of the bullies' views first. The more people that they can get to agree with that perception, the more they feel validated. So they enlist as many co-bullies as they can in the effort to drive home their agendas. 

All narcissists deeply want a reaction (they are like sharks in that they get off on their targets feeling ever-more hurt, and if there are signs that their bullying is working, they circle around more, and ramp up the attacking). They try to entice their targets to engage in arguing with them and struggling against a bombardment of personal attacks. Unless their targets agree 100 percent with the bullies, the bullies will go all-out for more blood (or to phrase it differently, for narcissistic supply). These bullies love to denounce their targets. They do some research for personal information about their targets, plus goad for personal information. Any little morsel of information will do for the purpose of more bullying. Making the most devastating impact on the target is the primary objective.

This is what happened in response to Tina's post that she was being bullied: 

Kristin: I recently posted topics on another topic and was also attacked. I too erased my comments. I'm sorry this happened to you.

Scarlet: ATTACK?! That's WHACK!
Notice the gaslighting again. 
If you talk crap you will be called out on it. Insisting that Trump was endangering Vermont as a potential voting threat was a huge waste of time.
Notice how Tina's words and intentions are being twisted and tweaked a bit more by Scarlet to make Tina's words seem "crazy". 
The only thing anyone was asserting was that not enough Bernie followers will vote for Trump to make a substantial amount of difference and certainly not in Vermont. So, stop the whining.
Bullies love to say that their targets are whining. They reduce the target's pain down to being "petulant", the definition of whining. So, stop whining is also the way someone would talk to a child, another narcissistic trait not too endearing.

Tina: Thank you, Kristin. I'm sorry this happened to you too. *virtual hugs*

Tina: Scarlet, please leave me alone.

Scarlet: Tina, you can block me if you want. I only challenged your argument because it was a lame excuse for an argument. When you have something factual to assert, I am sure it will be much different. 
Notice the imperiousness of this statement. Scarlet is still talking to Tina as though Tina is a child who needs to become more educated to be in their company. She is also trying to paint Tina as a "non-factual" person.

Tina: No, I am more likely to report. Please stop. 
Tina probably shouldn't have said anything here, but targets get caught up in justice and trying to keep the attacks at bay.

Scarlet: Tina, I stand by everything I said. I did nothing but respond to your argument and tell you that you were incorrect. That is not an attack -- it is saying you are incorrect. If that is reportable -- go ahead, report me. 
Notice how the personal attacks are being reduced by Scarlet as "just Tina being incorrect." This is typical in bullying situations so that the target is made to seem unreasonable, emotional, hysterical and over-reactive.

Simon: You are not being "attacked". Your factual claims were being challenged. And incidentally, were proven to be untrue. 
Note how this second bully tries to uphold the first bully's claims that Tina is being "non-factual", i.e. "incorrect". 
You're hurt by being exposed as factually incorrect. So step your fact game up and come with verifiable truths. 
Notice that Simon is telling Tina her feelings. He is "assuming" and not asking. In almost all bullying, perpetrators tell their targets what they feel (in other words, they are not open to what their targets say about their own feelings; their feelings are superimposed by the bully's opinion about his perception of those feelings instead). In empathetic situations, someone will ask why the target feels hurt and what can be done about it. In this situation, it negates what the target really feels by superseding it with what the perpetrator wants to believe about the target. So step up your fact game and come with verifiable truths is the way a teacher would talk to a child. Bullies feel superior to their victims. The real message is that if Tina comes with the same information that they espouse, she will be welcomed into the "bully" group, rather than be outside it. They are trying to gather people for their army. 
For example, 71% of the US population lives in urban centers, with an additional 9% in urban growth areas, and you claimed that the country was mostly rural. 
You're hurt because you're wrong, not because you are insulted. 
Again, look at how Simon twisted what Tina said.

Donald: Attacked? Oh good grief! 

Tina: Attacking being defined as "You're Sarah Palin", "She's a troll for the Republican Party", "daily troll" and all of the rest.
Factual claims and being challenged by them are fine. 
Claiming you know what other people think and feel, and what their perspectives are, i.e. "You're hurt because you're wrong, not because you were insulted" is part of cyber-bullying. I teach bullying workshops: bullying gets out of control when people start labeling other people's intentions, their character, and vilifying them. 
Now I'll ask you to stop talking to me, please.
Tina knows more about bullying than others, and she comes with some special knowledge about it to call them out on their actions.

Simon: You're free to block me. That's how this works. If you don't want to get read or read responses from an individual, block them.

Tina: Not yet. I am keeping this open so that I can screen-shoot as necessary.

Rhonda: You're threatening us! I'm telling! 
Note, the goading and taunting. Also note the childish behavior. Bullies usually act childish. 

Peyton: Lol!!

Donald :

Peyton: That's screen-shotable, Donald! You're in big trouble!

Donald:

Peyton: If people get "hurt" by what others say to them on the internet, there's a simple solution. Stay off the internet.
Note: Many bullies like to say that the problem lies in the target being on the internet, not in what is being said to or about the target. This is called blame-shifting, and it is used by most abusers.

Donald: Politely pointing out someone's flaws is constructive feedback in friendly discussion, not attacking the person. It's not bullying. I stand by my previous remarks.

Donald:

Donald:

Most "normal empathetic people" would feel that all of these Snoopy dogs are an inappropriate response to someone who states that they are hurt and want to be left alone. Abusers do not want to leave targets alone (because it does not give them enough narcissistic supply to respect boundaries and leave them alone). Putting up smiling snoopy dogs is, in all likelihood, about showing the target that they disregard the fact that the target wants to be left alone. It is also a way of saying, "I don't care if you are hurt; I am going to continue to harass you", and seeing Tina's reaction as an invitation and opportunity to be provoking.

Donald: You said rural people need guns to shoot possums, ground hogs, rats, voles, etc. that threaten their garden vegetables. You special mentioned voles. 
Actually Tina didn't make special mention of voles if you look at her original post above.
That made me laugh out loud. Shoot a vole? That is funny. My daughter has had gardens out in rural areas for years. She and her husband have never owned guns. There are other (better) ways to keep out varmints. 
Most bullies will make sure that they appear to be more of an expert on subjects than their targets, even if they have to pretend, even if it is just to show off in front of their co-bullies.
I called you the "Daily Troll" because you kept repeating the same incorrect lines about the political power of rural areas and totally disregarding the facts that Simon put out before you. You invited teasing. I didn't attack you. I didn't bully you. I laughed.
Note the phrase: "You invited teasing." This is similar to the You Brought This Upon Yourself phrasing and attitudes that abusers are famous for.

Lindsey:  Tina. Respectfully. Nobody called you Sarah Palin. The rhetoric and examples that you were using were out of the Republican Playbook that was written by Sarah Palin. The sites you were posting were all conservative news sites with the exception of Greenpeace. While recognizing that you love Bernie, please be aware that all of your talking points were brought to you by the Republicans. Vet information more carefully. 
Notice the imperious lecturing tone. Inappropriate lecturing while twisting a target's real talking points is another mark of the bully. 
This is not a Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton fan page where memes and information are posted without vetting and arguing. It's one of the reasons why most of us like this page. It's not an echo chamber.

Tina: For someone who wishes to be left alone like I do, there is an awful lot of responses. Total lack of respect.

Samantha: Tina, you are in a place to "engage", not be left alone. If you need to be left alone, perhaps you are in the wrong place.

Tina: Samantha, I put up posts and at that time I wished to engage in discussion. I no longer wish to engage in these discussions. It should be obvious because I took my posts down.
You cannot convince me that you are not engaging in cyber-bullying. I am a Mandated Reporter and I report signs of abuse and bullying. I bring bullying awareness to schools. And these behaviors are definitely defined as cyber-bullying.

Simon: You are still talking to us, so you still want to talk to us. It works both ways.
You are the one bullying and threatening us by telling us that you are going to report us. 
Note: It is common for bullies to escalate a "definition of bullying" to "you're going to report us" to "you're bullying us". This way they also get to "play the victim", another extremely common tactic for bullies. He also, in most likelihood, does not understand what Tina's sentence means: she never said that she would report anyone, only that she knew the definition of cyber-bullying from training to be a Mandated Reporter.

Tina: Most of the people who have tried to engage with me in this thread have now been blocked.   

Alvin: Tina, you put up provocative posts in a political forum and complain about responses? Come on now! Really?

Tina: Alvin, no I didn't put up provocative posts; I put up "articles".

Samantha: Tina, most of us are "mandated reporters". But this forum has nothing to do with the areas of abuse you are mandated to report. This is an open discussion, largely unmonitored for adults. It is fast paced and can be brutal. I don't know who you think you are going to report this to and frankly I find your threat to do so provocative, amusing and hollow. If it is bothering you, take care of yourself. Step away. Leave the group. Seek counsel from someone you trust. But stop the poor me and silly threats.
You'll notice that Tina never made a threat, but it is still being painted that way by as many people as the bullies can possibly appeal to. 
"But stop the poor me and silly threats" is another phrase that bullies use to make their targets appear to be like an unruly child, rather than an intelligent adult, another trait of abusers not too endearing.

Simon: Well, I'm not yet blocked (even though I told you that you should if you actually felt some way about viewing my posts) and I have been engaging with you on this thread from the beginning. And I still say your cries of "bullying" are total sloppy wet bullshit. You are being called out on your incorrect FACTS, which you cannot legitimately backup so now you cry wolf.

Lindsey: Mandated reporting is only for children, mentally challenged folks, and elders. Not able bodied adults. I teach students to be mandated reporters. A dialogue in a discussion board does not constitute abuse.
Lindsey is using the "expertise card". I tell at the end of the story what I found on her professional life (hint: it is like one of those birds who makes themselves look twice as big, but it is all feathers).
She said: "A dialogue in a discussion board does not constitute abuse."
In fact, it does constitute abuse if the attacks are personal, meant to hurt, vilify, falsely discredit, expose personal information or humiliate (almost all cyber-bullying websites state this). Generally all personal attacks on a forum constitute abuse. All five kinds of attacks are in evidence against Tina. However, if Tina stated her knowledge of cyber-bullying using facts and links, bully groups are known to reword things to suit their needs. It would have kept the arguing going.
This is how it typically happens:  "We weren't out to hurt, just to discuss", "We didn't vilify you, we just saw that you were misinformed. We made references to Sarah Palin and Nazis to wake you up about the fact that you were going in the wrong direction with your thinking and your discussion", "We didn't falsely discredit you, you falsely discredited us by saying we were trying to bully you and vilify you" and "We weren't out to humiliate you. You don't understand what the word means." -- i.e. throwing more word salad arguments at the problem instead of self reflecting and being accountable. Note also, this gang of bullies did not apologize, they lectured and justified instead.

Samantha: Tina, the thing here is that you are in a conversation with lawyers, writers, professors and medical professionals. These highly educated people know the law better than you do. This hollow crap may work in your little rural world. But here, your threats make you look silly.
Note, Samantha continues with the "threat" twist, even though Tina never "threatened". Plus, she does not know Tina enough to know her education, or background, but assumes Tina is less educated than the pack of bullies that have taken over the forum. That is because bullies generally feel superior (in being educated). The truth is that Tina is more educated than the bullies. It is a ruse to intimidate.

Tina: Mandated reporters report on all forms of abuse, even adults.

Lindsey: Then you obviously do not know the law. That is concerning to someone like me. Here is a link that explains what mandated reporters do:
http://dcf.vermont.gov/protection/reporting/mandated



Tina: Adults have children, and children can be at risk. I have to report adult to adult abuse regardless if the abuse is known to have been leveraged or not leveraged at a child in the household. I didn't read your links. I am not interested in debate about this, nor do I have time. I need to get to work. Stop the comments already and have some respect.

Lindsey: Report it to whom? The social worker in your place of employment? That's fine. Then that person makes the decision on what is reported to the state. They are "the mandated reporter" to the state. You can always report suspected abuse to the state, but those are the guidelines for intervention. Bullying and abuse are two different issues under the law.
Notice that Lindsey is fishing for more personal and professional information from Tina while trying to lecture Tina about the law (without respecting Tina's wishes to no longer discuss the subject). The point is to make the bully pack unaccountable by putting up these links.  

Kristin: Tina, I have tried to stop getting notifications on this thread with no luck. It just goes on and on and on. Maybe you can delete it so that it all goes away. Sometimes you just can't reach people.

Tina: Thank you Kristin. I will be deleting shortly because they will not leave me alone even after I requested that they do so. They think these links will prove they are not cyber-bullying. 

Lindsey: Plus, the bullying laws are for children: http://www.stopbullying.gov/laws/key-components/

Samantha: Tina, you need to look at those links and pay some attention to what Lindsey is telling you. You obviously do not know the law. Since you are so unsure of yourself when it comes to the law, I think we need to report you to your place of employment in Vermont, because you are an obvious idiot, a detriment to both children and adults, because you don't know the laws for which you are supposed to follow for your work. Your wild accusations and threats are not based on any facts. Thank you, Lindsey, for absolving us from being labeled as bullies. Bullying refers to children, not adults. Get your facts straight!
Yes, this was really said. I tell below how an adult can report another adult on a facebook forum. 

Lindsey: I know this will get deleted, but if you are truly a Mandated Reporter, you do need to know what you need to report. The only guidelines are for children, disabled adults, and elders.



Tina: Yes, I know what the laws are, so you can stop now. I need to end this conversation.

Lindsey: There is no mandatory reporting of adult bullying or adult domestic violence between adults in Vermont. You need to read these links to understand what your duties are as a mandated reporter. However you must report if a child is present and witnesses the abuse. This is a form of psychological abuse of a child. 

Lindsey: I teach this stuff. You need to listen.

Tina: This is splitting hairs, sidetracking with smoke and mirrors under the guise of expert knowledge. I do report on adult to adult abuse for the reasons I mentioned earlier, and to the police, so this discussion must stop. You are not my teacher and this is inappropriate.
If you teach this stuff then you will undoubtedly know what is, and what is not, cyber-bullying. 

Ashley: She does not know what cyber-bullying is. This has nothing to do with us. I agree with Samantha. Report her to Vermont.  

Lindsey: That was my concern, Ashley. Although, over-reporting when there is domestic violence between adults is not a bad thing when it comes to those who are at risk. It's just not able-bodied adults like us. None of this applies. We are safe. Her accusations are very concerning.

Tina: The harassment never ends! You have no right to harass me.

Samantha: No one is harassing you. Facebook exists to comment.

Lindsey: No one is questioning your intelligence. I was only questioning your knowledge base as some of your comments greatly concern me. You described Mandated Reporting that was not congruent with Vermont State law.
Notice that Lindsey is trying to bait Tina for more personal and professional information via "knowledge base of Mandated Reporting." Bullies love arguing. But they argue for one purpose: to feel superior to a target in "knowledge and education", and to "win" an argument. They cannot win without more bait (tidbits of personal or professional knowledge of their subjects) and without constantly trying to engage their targets in more arguments, discussions, sidetracks to arguments, circular conversations, and justifications to keep intimidating, and indulging in more arguing.
Trying to bait Tina by saying Tina was trying to discuss Mandated Reporting as it related to Vermont state law was being used to keep the argument going. Obviously Tina was not trying to discuss Vermont state law. She wanted to stop the debating.

Kristin:

Kristin: Tina, just enjoy the day.

TINA ERASED THIS ENTIRE THREAD AT SEEING KRISTIN'S TWO MESSAGES

But the discussion on Tina continued in a sub-thread entitled: "Where did Tina go? Did she erase all of her posts?" Bullies cannot leave their targets alone, not quite. And it gives them a chance to twist the facts some more, especially since they know they have been blocked by Tina, and that Tina will not be able to see what they say about her, and cannot refute the smear campaign being run against her ("Facebook blocking" means that they cannot see her posts, and she she cannot see their posts).

Lindsey: Looks like it. At first it was only in one sub thread. Not it looks like she deleted everything. The sites she was posting were conservative republican websites and her rhetoric was straight out of the Sarah Palin playbook about rural America being the "real America."

Rhonda: I think she is deleting or blocking again.

Rhonda: I must be blocked ...lol! I keep getting a notice people are posting to her comment about reporting us but when I click, nothing. Well she is safe from me now. BOO!

Scarlet: Some "revolutionary"--humph! 

Lindsey: Scarlet, great point!  

Peyton: I keep getting notices that people "liked" several of my comments but I can no longer see them so she must have blocked me.

Scarlet: Me too - I guess I have been blocked

Lindsey: Lucky you.

Scarlet: We've all seen some silliness here, but when disagreeing with an anti-Hillary Bernie zealot becomes "bullying" simply on the grounds that you are not passing out "virtual hugs" it is PATHETIC!

Peyton: I just warned Donald that she was taking screenshots, which she said she was.

Simon: She finally put the block on me when I told her to three times!

Ashley: Tina is reporting us. She's a mandated reporter, you know. So, my question is this. Who is going to share a cell with me in facebook jail?

Lindsey: Ridiculous. This truly was nuts. And a bit concerning as she stated she was a "mandated reporter" in her job and then had no clue as to the laws regarding reporting.

Ashley: Poor thing. I'm not sure if she is playing with a full bag of marbles. She seemed to really not get it.
Note that the gaslighting is a continual campaign. If Tina ever posts in the group again, these kinds of statements might prejudice others to Tina's views. Of course, this is the desired effect that bullies want. They want to be the authorities on all forum subjects.

Samantha: She said mandated reporter for State of VT. So for the sake of argument lets says that is true. How the hell does that effect Ohio?

Ashley: She's a mandated reporter for everything. For the world. Mars, too.

Lindsey: LOL!
Note: Lindsey is supposed to be an educated woman. The fact that she is LOL-ing over Ashley's statement is childish behavior, not indicative of someone trained to detect signs of bullying and abuse. This made me suspect something was up. I write about what I discovered later on in the post.
   
Simon:

          © Memgenerator.com

Samantha: What is a mandated reporter for the state of Vermont?
Notice in the thread above she said: "Tina, most of us are 'mandated reporters'. But this forum has nothing to do with the areas of abuse you are mandated to report." -- in other words, Samantha was bluffing knowledge to Tina.

Peyton: Ask her lol

Samantha: I can't, she blocked me!

Lindsey: Reports abuse. She said of everyone but it is only children, disabled adults, and elders. She was all over the place.

Peyton: To who?

Samantha: This is everyone's question Peyton

Lindsey: Mandated reporters include social workers, health care providers, teachers, etc. They are mandated to report suspected or actual abuse to the States in which they work.

Peyton: Ah, yes, I was not making the connection with that and her complaints about this thread. I missed that part of the conversation.

Bernard: They've already been dispatched to your house
            © Facebook

Lindsey: It was quite bizarre and a bit concerning.

Callie: i am just so disinterested in little white girls with victim complexes. i don't indulge them in any way whatsoever.

Rhonda: Wow. Yeah, she needs to get off of FB it sounds. If the mild disagreements with her posts are bullying to her she can not handle social media.
And the bullying was "mild" when it came to Tina compared to what they do to other posters on the forum in other threads.

Scarlet:  It is also a sense of entitlement that is phenomenal. God forbid you call anything they say into question, even if it is easily proven to be false. "and this little Bern-bot cried whaa whaa whaa all the way home."

End of forum discussion 
(comments on how to better protect yourself below)


This part of the post will be more about how to deal with trolling and how to minimize becoming a victim of invasive bullying on facebook group discussions and forums.

One of the things that Tina did not do (in all likelihood) was to check the mood and the primary focus of the posting in the forum. Most of the posts and threads had quite a bit of bullying in them. Sanders posters and supporters had become "thinned out" and many were leaving. In other words, if she had checked the forum fully, she would have known there were going to be too many Clinton-sharks to take on. She was going to be more prey for the Clinton supporters' if she posted about Sanders at all, including posts about Hillary's e-mails, or posts about polls when she runs against Trump. All posters who raised these concerns got the "bully treatment". Remember: "Do not feed the trolls!" 

Tina preferred to screenshot instead of block. While it is always a good idea (in case you should ever need evidence in a court of law), my advice is this: if you put up the words "No personal attacks. Keep to the subject of the forum" and if it is not respected, then block right away (and I mean right away). If there are a gang of bullies, block often and as soon as you can. They will no longer see your posts and you can have more intelligent discourse with the people left on the thread, the people who are more reasonable, and want to see more reasonable discourse. 

If you walk away from the forum, only to find the bullies have attacked you and talked about you mercilessly, report the thread to the group administrators. The report drop down is at the top of the thread/post on the right hand side. Alternatively, you can also report each user. You can also report the whole group site to facebook (that it has become a vehicle for hate, oppression, personal attacks, trolling, threats, personal user smear campaigns, name-calling and insults).

Do not argue with the bullies. They get a charge out of arguing and will use it as an excuse to escalate abuse. They will use any word you utter and any personal and professional information they can gather about you to argue their points. Remember this quote from George Bernard Shaw if you find yourself in this predicament: "I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it."    

Research who the bullies are. The only thing is, if you find information on them, do not challenge them directly because they can escalate very, very quickly. It is better to expose them to "authorities" and other people they are attacking than face to face. As I have said before, bullies and abusers tend to be personality disordered and can be dangerous (especially when they are in the process of escalating ... as you saw here, they can escalate fast).

Most bullies "don't have a life", as the saying goes. They are usually unhappy in some aspect of their life. If you think about it, anyone who puts a lot of time carousing forums to find people to bully, and enjoys bullying, cannot be happy. They are also not careful about who they bully; they are generally not discretionary, and they even "mess with" people who have a great deal of clout and power in some field of expertise (because they don't check their victims' identities). They can even "mess with" psychopaths who are much more dangerous than they are and could kill over being gang cyber-attacked. In other words, they are remarkably careless about bullying and insulting. It could effect their reputations as well as their professional and personal lives. 

Engaging in bullying does not make the bullies happy. It is more like a drug with a "high" and then a "come down." Torturing victims is fun for them, but when their victims walk away, there is a sense of emptiness and ennui.

Laws are constantly changing when it comes to cyberbullying and cyberharassment. Find out what they are in your state.   


If you are rattled and unnerved by a cyberbullying experience, remember this quote from Eleanor Roosevelt: "Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people."

What I found out through research of some of the bullies in the group forum:

Lindsey: No record found on google that she is a mandated reporter. There was not much information about her at all (from Google). I checked her posting activity in the group, and she is posting mornings, afternoons and evenings, all day long. She primarily debates Sanders supporters in most of her posts or she applauds posters who agree with her. This tells me that she may be a paid Hillary Clinton campaign troll. Her "job" on the forum seems to be "correcting Clinton's record", and justifying bullying (she uses the excuse that bullying is only bullying when it relates to children).

Samantha: Personal Facebook friends with most of the "other bullies" from the forum. Seems likely she is disabled and at home most of the time. Comments on almost all of the posts in the group. She comments in the morning, afternoon and evenings, therefore may be a paid Hillary Clinton campaign troll too. Most of her posts are direct personal insults directed at anyone who disagrees with her. Tells most Sanders supporters things like: Maybe you should go away for the good of everyone.

Peyton: It seems likely that she does not have a life outside of trolling this forum. Posts almost all of the time on every subject in the forum.

Scarlet: Has a college degree, small children, lives in one of the largest cities in the USA, career seems to be in cleaning apartments or houses for other people, used to be a Sanders supporter, multi-racial, more transparent than others, spends a lot of time on the forum, but not as much as others. Three quarters of all of her posts are direct insults, and a quarter of them are on-topic.  


Ashley: Personal facebook friends with most of the "other bullies" from the forum, posts throughout the day and all day long, does not seem to have much of a life outside the group, possibly a paid Clinton troll since she is so prevalent in the group. Heavily made up, lots of "selfies". She makes it clear she wants all of the Bernie supporters to leave the forum with these kinds of rants: Lori's one of the last holdouts of bitter berners who hasn't flounced. Fugees are urging all of their members to leave here, and just hang in their hornet's nest ... (There are) No HRC trolls here. In case you haven't noticed, this page is a page of HRC supporters. Most of the Angry bots and bros have left this page....which really makes YOU the troll on OUR page. Worshiping childish posts like this (said to a Sanders supporter on another thread): ... if I "bit you", all I'd taste is bitter and salty tears. Sorry. I like sweet. Like the sweet, sweet Hillary winning air that I get to breathe, now that HRC won the nomination. It's much nicer than that stale, musty, losing air that Sanders supporters have to breathe. Winning is fun, Lori. You should try it. Crying salty tears is just no fun at all!
*eyeroll* (mine)

Simon: Intellectual property contacts negotiation specialist. Works in the music industry. Lives in Atlanta. Posts in 2 - 3 forums a day with about 8 posts per forum and throughout the day. Most of his posts are about race oriented politics. Most of his posts are about insulting others. He also plays a "facts game". He appears to have an interesting career, which for most people would be all-consuming, and a doctorate degree. So why is he spending so much time in forums bullying is anyone's guess. This is just one instance of how he behaves (insulting a Sanders supporter): Bye, Don LittleBitch! We don't need you whiney white male sexist privileged "BernieBros" in the fall because... guess what? You were never going to support HRC, anyway! You're not fooling anyone ... The people of color and women who helped to elect Obama are also putting Clinton over the top this time, and leaving Sanders in the dustbin of history. Your whiny white male "revolution" and "civil war" is over. Go back to playing war games on XBox Live.  
*eyeroll* (mine)

Donald: History professor (transitioning into retirement). Lives in Virginia. Tends to post short one sentence "reactions". He does not post as frequently as the "other bullies". Probably not a paid troll, but seems to enjoy trolling on many forum posts anyway. Seems to have very little social awareness, or ability to have polite discourse. Seems to want to provoke others with short pithy put-downs.

In other words, these people do not have much going on in their lives.

   


© Facebook screen shot
with names and avatars altered (erased) to protect the guilty