Jump to content
GreaseSpot Cafe

You (we) are not alone


Rocky
 Share

Recommended Posts

Published on the Daily Beast, March 23, 2014

In early March, blogger Samantha Field contacted her alma mater, the notoriously fundamentalist Pensacola Christian College in Florida, before she published an explosive story. Field, who blogs about “overcoming fundamentalist indoctrination,” was going public with allegations from two former students who said they had been raped at Pensacola, and that the school had shamed and expelled them instead of punishing the alleged perpetrators. The stories had come in after Field posted a call on her blog. She contacted four different departments at Pensacola to ask how such cases were handled, and was finally told by the college’s communications officer that the school didn’t respond to “blog-type articles.”

That didn’t last long. Field’s “blog-type article” was quickly shared tens of thousands of times, and Pensacola was forced to respond to the allegations with an official statement.

continued...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote: instead of punishing the alleged perpetrators.

Oh, so now if anyone is accused of anything, they automatically need to be "punished"???

quote: The internet provides an open forum that allows unfounded assertions to be spread without proof. There seems to be no defense against such attacks getting started when someone has an agenda.

Mm hmm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote: instead of punishing the alleged perpetrators.

Oh, so now if anyone is accused of anything, they automatically need to be "punished"???

I generally know that, when I see these unlinked, partial sentences quoted

by certain posters, that it's a sure sign the full sentence said something

important that got dropped in the partial quote,

akin to quoting the Bible as saying "there is no God" when the full

sentence is "The fool says in his heart, 'there is no God'".

Here's what the sentence read a post or so up:

Field, who blogs about “overcoming fundamentalist indoctrination,” was going public with allegations from two former students who said they had been raped at Pensacola, and that the school had shamed and expelled them instead of punishing the alleged perpetrators."

So, John's insinuating-once again, refusing to state his opinions

outright, but slyly suggesting them without the courage to state them

outright- John is insinuating that the administration acted

appropriately in what they did and did not do.

John INSINUATED that it would have been wrong to have "punished" the

alleged perpetrators, and that the remaining actions and halts

were appropriate....which would mean he thinks it's just fine that

the school refused to investigate when matters were brought to their

attention- and that it was totally appropriate for the school to have

SHAMED AND EXPELLED the alleged victims when they came forth.

Most schools would have taken a different tack. They could have turned

the entire matter over to local law enforcement, and that would have been

fine. They could have conducted their own investigation, taken limited

action, and THEN turn the entire matter over to local law enforcement.

Instead, they just sat on the reports.

In the case of the second claim, we don't have a lot of information to go

on, so, until more information is presented, it's premature to go into a

lot of detail as to what the best specific actions would have been.

However, in the case of the first, there was a witness who was a school

staffer- a security guard who was required to have reported what he

observed- which was an obvious aftermath of a rape or similar crime

(pending confirmation by police investigators who should have been

called in immediately.) The alleged victim went to the hospital,

where the details of her report and their treatment were logged- and

she went to the police, where the details of her report were logged.

At that point, there's a curious disconnect, since the school never said

"We have a potential crime scene. We don't know if a crime happened here

or not. You're the experts, so you find out." The school SAT on their

end of things. Then, when the student returned to school, complete with

black eye and broken arm, the administration expelled her.

So, she was expelled- "punished"- automatically because she REPORTED a

crime. So, according to John, it's awful if someone is automatically

punished if accused of anything- but it's also preferred for accusations

to be quietly buried, and the ACCUSER is AUTOMATICALLY punished if

accusing anyone of anything.

That's conducive to an environment that shames the victims, empowers

the victimizers and felons, and covers the tracks of the felons so they

can escape consequences and commit more felonies down the road. Since

it does that, there's also an environment present that encourages other

possible felons to commit felonies- since they will face no consequences.

Civilized society is supposed to work a lot differently.

Why would an ex-twi'er and vpw supporter find it acceptable for an

institution to bury felonies, punish and expel victims, and allow

felons to escape consequences?

quote: The internet provides an open forum that allows unfounded assertions to be spread without proof. There seems to be no defense against such attacks getting started when someone has an agenda.

Mm hmm.

It's also the bright light that gets shined on stories where victims

were expected to just accept being shamed, punished, and expelled,

and institutions and individuals just expected them to fade away.

When abuse of power is done, the internet gives victims and eyewitnesses

the voice they were denied- so appropriate action can be taken.

Naturally,

once an institution had tried to silence and punish victims-

a clear abuse of their power-

while refusing to investigate claims-

a clear violation of their responsibilities-

it's in their best interests to later LIE once everyone's been made

aware something happened, and claim this is the first they'd heard

of it. It's obvious, it's transparent, and few people would

actually be fooled by their claims-

generally people who had a vested interest in automatically assuming

any official statement would be nothing less than the unvarnished

truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I generally know that, when I see these unlinked, partial sentences quoted

by certain posters, that it's a sure sign the full sentence said something

important that got dropped in the partial quote,

akin to quoting the Bible as saying "there is no God" when the full

sentence is "The fool says in his heart, 'there is no God'".

Here's what the sentence read a post or so up:

So, John's insinuating-once again, refusing to state his opinions

outright, but slyly suggesting them without the courage to state them

outright- John is insinuating that the administration acted

appropriately in what they did and did not do.

John INSINUATED that it would have been wrong to have "punished" the

alleged perpetrators, and that the remaining actions and halts

were appropriate....which would mean he thinks it's just fine that

the school refused to investigate when matters were brought to their

attention- and that it was totally appropriate for the school to have

SHAMED AND EXPELLED the alleged victims when they came forth.

Most schools would have taken a different tack. They could have turned

the entire matter over to local law enforcement, and that would have been

fine. They could have conducted their own investigation, taken limited

action, and THEN turn the entire matter over to local law enforcement.

Instead, they just sat on the reports.

In the case of the second claim, we don't have a lot of information to go

on, so, until more information is presented, it's premature to go into a

lot of detail as to what the best specific actions would have been.

However, in the case of the first, there was a witness who was a school

staffer- a security guard who was required to have reported what he

observed- which was an obvious aftermath of a rape or similar crime

(pending confirmation by police investigators who should have been

called in immediately.) The alleged victim went to the hospital,

where the details of her report and their treatment were logged- and

she went to the police, where the details of her report were logged.

At that point, there's a curious disconnect, since the school never said

"We have a potential crime scene. We don't know if a crime happened here

or not. You're the experts, so you find out." The school SAT on their

end of things. Then, when the student returned to school, complete with

black eye and broken arm, the administration expelled her.

So, she was expelled- "punished"- automatically because she REPORTED a

crime. So, according to John, it's awful if someone is automatically

punished if accused of anything- but it's also preferred for accusations

to be quietly buried, and the ACCUSER is AUTOMATICALLY punished if

accusing anyone of anything.

That's conducive to an environment that shames the victims, empowers

the victimizers and felons, and covers the tracks of the felons so they

can escape consequences and commit more felonies down the road. Since

it does that, there's also an environment present that encourages other

possible felons to commit felonies- since they will face no consequences.

Civilized society is supposed to work a lot differently.

Why would an ex-twi'er and vpw supporter find it acceptable for an

institution to bury felonies, punish and expel victims, and allow

felons to escape consequences?

It's also the bright light that gets shined on stories where victims

were expected to just accept being shamed, punished, and expelled,

and institutions and individuals just expected them to fade away.

When abuse of power is done, the internet gives victims and eyewitnesses

the voice they were denied- so appropriate action can be taken.

Naturally,

once an institution had tried to silence and punish victims-

a clear abuse of their power-

while refusing to investigate claims-

a clear violation of their responsibilities-

it's in their best interests to later LIE once everyone's been made

aware something happened, and claim this is the first they'd heard

of it. It's obvious, it's transparent, and few people would

actually be fooled by their claims-

generally people who had a vested interest in automatically assuming

any official statement would be nothing less than the unvarnished

truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WW, sorry I woke you up from your nap.

I'm also aware that, when certain posters suddenly change the subject-

often with ad hominem personal attacks or cheap shots, like this one-

that it's as good as an admission that

A) they didn't like what we were talking about

B) were unable to refute what we were saying, not with evidence nor logic

Really. It's a consistent set of flaws in posting that are as good as

coded messages once someone knows how to read them.

(Know the code, and all the subtext might as well be plain text.)

In this case, the translation works out to

"Well done! You have made a strong, logical case for your position

and shown the opposing one to be error-ridden and flawed!"

In response, I say "Thank you for the kind words, even if they

were accidental."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whereas I would agree that punishing an ALLEGED perpetrator is wrong (although, admittedly, it is right to detain a suspect when there is reasonable likelihood that that person will either commit other crimes or flee), I think WordWolf's inference that johniam approved of punishing the VICTIMS is unfair. johniam nowhere states that he thought the treatment of the victims was correct.

And, yes, the internet can bring great light upon evil, but it can also be the vehicle of great lies. Furthermore, not every claim of rape is, to paraphrase an oft-disdained politician, "legitimate." A few years ago, folks were ready to lynch the ALLEGED rapists on the Duke lacrosse team, until the story was shown to be wholly fabricated by the "victim."

George

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:offtopic:/>

WW, stop attacking John, please just address the topic.

If you don't like what John says, either ignore it or address it briefly and stick to the topic.

While you make good points (sometimes), you can be awfully pompous :)

(Cue an attack on Twinky)

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whereas I would agree that punishing an ALLEGED perpetrator is wrong (although, admittedly, it is right to detain a suspect when there is reasonable likelihood that that person will either commit other crimes or flee), I think WordWolf's inference that johniam approved of punishing the VICTIMS is unfair. johniam nowhere states that he thought the treatment of the victims was correct.

That's the greasy thing about INSINUATIONS. People refuse to just state outright

what they think or mean, and cover it up by speaking indirectly.

There's a subtext in play that colors what they said- so that it means something

other than just what's written. I resent that more than if it was just said

outright because I can agree to disagree honestly, but I find insinuations

inherently dishonest since they are deceptive. He objected to precisely

2 things, and left everything else alone. When called on it, he didn't say

"I was misunderstood, here's what I was thinking..." and address how the

accusers were made into victims by the establishments whether or not they

were victims of the accused. (If they are, they were victimized twice,

if they were not, they were punished without any investigation nor

due process.)

If he didn't have a history of relying on insinuations and zero pathos for

possible victims, I'd suspect he somehow missed commenting on equally

important points rather than very specific ones that match his usual

position (accusers make things up, accused are innocent, establishments

don't abuse their power and don't lie or deceive.) Psychologically, it's

fascinating how consistent that's been, but it's really not my place to

get into that, especially since he hasn't hired me as any kind of

professional to do so.

And, yes, the internet can bring great light upon evil, but it can also be the vehicle of great lies. Furthermore, not every claim of rape is, to paraphrase an oft-disdained politician, "legitimate." A few years ago, folks were ready to lynch the ALLEGED rapists on the Duke lacrosse team, until the story was shown to be wholly fabricated by the "victim."

George

As I said earlier, INVESTIGATING before any action is taken is sensible.

However, the school in question did nothing of the kind.

They AUTOMATICALLY ASSUMED the accused was innocent- then penalized the

accuser without any investigation before doing so. The accused was left

alone. However, the accused was automatically punished.

BTW,

seems Broken Arrow agreed with me, since they quoted my longer post

and didn't seem to add to it. So, there's differences of opinions

as to whether it was appropriate and on-topic (for those who thought

it was not).

Meanwhile,

it does seem part of the human condition that there will always be social

structures, and some people will use them to abuse others and be bullies,

and cover their tracks if caught.

Yes, that is disconcerting (I would say 'dismaying'), and it is a strange

comfort to know it wasn't just us and the people we knew who were victimized

by the one corrupt group out there...there's lots of other victims who were

never abused and used by vpw and his criminal cadre.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's disconcerting to know it happens in other groups but comforting, in some twisted way, to know we weren't alone.

Does my observation make any sense?

Not trying to be insulting, but you like to post songs to illustrate points. Perhaps the song for this point is...Barry Manilow's I've made it through the rain. I don't think that's twisted.

Edited by johniam
Link to comment
Share on other sites

WW, you are a control freak who hubristically thinks you are the final word on ANYTHING posted here. Anyone who doesn't track with you is "possessed" and should be "marked and avoided". There, is that insinuating enough for you?

Now there YOU go, putting words in WW's mouth. Goose, gander, I suppose. :(

George

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WW, you are a control freak who hubristically thinks you are the final word on ANYTHING posted here. Anyone who doesn't track with you is "possessed" and should be "marked and avoided". There, is that insinuating enough for you?

Ok, I much prefer you coming right out and being your mean, vicious self openly,

rather than hide behind "weasel words", and just say what you're really thinking.

Then people can agree or disagree openly.

"control freak"-

I refused the offer to moderate when it was offered.

A control freak would have JUMPED at the chance. Swing and a miss.

"Hubris" -

I've OPENED discussions with people I thought were wrong just in case

I might learn something new, and I've changed my mind when following threads here,

and that's just counting time I've spent here. Swing and a miss.

"Thinks you are the final word on ANYTHING posted here."

No, I actually leave a LOT of threads alone. When I see something that

I think is wrong and needs a response, THEN I respond. It just so happens that a

lot of your posts have logic errors and other things I think need to be challenged.

Any post, any place, they can all be challenged, and the person can try to support their

claims or post. "Actually, I was correct because...." With you, the responses in this thread

don't relate to the actual topic (abuse of power, victims) but about the person

who called you on it. (Ad hominem, personal attacks.) If you want your statements

to just sit there unchallenged, you have to put them someplace private, where others

aren't ALLOWED. Go to the vpw cheerleader locations and post them there, where you're

preaching to the choir. Any place else, and they're free game to be REFUTED.

(Refuting successfully is not a crime, even if it's you that's refuted.)

Swing and a miss.

"Anyone who doesn't track with you is "possessed" and should be "marked and avoided".

You posted. You were refuted. I disagree with LOTS of posters and "agree to disagree"

with most of them on most subjects. So, most people who don't "track" with me

(whatever that's supposed to mean when you're using it) are left alone.

This "possessed" thing is a common claim for people who cling to vpw and his doctrines,

but I didn't even make those claims when I was young, naive, and in twi.

"Marked and avoided." I didn't advocate for that when lcm started it, either.

So, we're getting knee-jerk reactions with stock phrases from twi and ex-twi,

none of which actually relate to me.

Swings and misses.

"There, is that insinuating enough for you?"

You objected to me calling you on being "insinuating" and didn't even bother

to find out what "insinuating" means before trying to use it in a sentence.

This is the internet. You could have found it in seconds without getting up

from your chair.

And I know you didn't look it up because you used it incorrectly here,

and I know you didn't use it ironically (and correctly) here because

you would have written it differently if that's what you meant.

If anything I'm putting an attitude in his head, but IMO it's already there, 24/7, every day.

All this over me catching you ignoring proven victims

(the people who were kicked out were victimized by the school)

while siding with the alleged victimizers,

and proclaiming the internet as a location for smears rather than

a place for "the other side of the story."

Could only see how some people thought the alleged attackers should have

been punished (not stated if any investigation should have proceeded first,

so it looked like they wanted them lynched), and could NOT see how those

who stepped forth were punished without any investigation. Also automatically

accepted the official statement even when it clashed with events.

Gee, it's a sore point that the internet (the GSC and other places) have

been "the other side of the story", and how an establishment can act against

the best interests of the people, and that, since certain people were never

charged in court, he can claim that nobody can recount personal experiences

that reflected negatively on them because they were never charged with a

crime- as if that was the measure of truth or falsehood. I get that.

But when caught on it, you could have either accepted it, or let it go.

Instead, we get the typical "attack the dissenting voice and try to intimidate,

make cheap shots when possible, and silence them if possible." That's such an

old strategy. It was used, pre-internet, with great success in twi, and

post-internet, has been seen on all the ex-twi messageboards every time a

victim said "this happened to me." They were called liars, they were told they

were accomplices, they were told they wanted it, they were told the fault was

theirs- all as a smokescreen, and all to attempt to silence them, to attempt

to fog the issues, to attempt to take the emphasis off who actually did what.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

VPW was a serial rapist. Why his life should be compared to the Duke incident is a mystery to me.

Granted,

comparing a serial rapist to an incident with a non-serial rapist (we hope)

doesn't seem like much of a connection (especially 2 non-serial rapists.)

However, there's similarities in having the institution punishing any victims

who dare to come forth and try to speak. Earlier posts made the points.

i would rather the bast-uds be looked into more closely than doubting the victim -- you know -- the way it's been for YEARS AND YEARS

It's disconcerting to know it happens in other groups but comforting, in some twisted way, to know we weren't alone.

Does my observation make any sense?

(snip)

Meanwhile,

it does seem part of the human condition that there will always be social

structures, and some people will use them to abuse others and be bullies,

and cover their tracks if caught.

Yes, that is disconcerting (I would say 'dismaying'), and it is a strange

comfort to know it wasn't just us and the people we knew who were victimized

by the one corrupt group out there...there's lots of other victims who were

never abused and used by vpw and his criminal cadre.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We all have our little psychological blind-spots, me included.

George was on the right track, and I missed it.

I keep thinking that all posters actually think before they post,

and read before they think. That's been proven to be wrong, more than once.

I'm not dealing with someone who actually looked over the controversy,

thought it over, then picked a position.

I'm dealing with someone who skipped the links, scrolled down the text,

found a few buzz-words (alleged perpetrators, unfounded assertions)

and REACTED. The rest of the text might as well have been

"Blah blah blah instead of punishing the alleged perpetrators

blah blah blah The internet provides an open forum that allows unfounded

assertions to be spread without proof blah blah blah",

for all the attention paid to the actual issues.

Someone allegedly was raped- and the documentation trail includes a school

official eyewitness to the aftermath (a security guard), the hospital

(who treated them afterwards and can document evidence supporting a claim

of rape), and the police (who were required to file a report when a claim

was made, and are required to investigate...which raises some interesting

questions on its own.) Then the alleged victim, still injured from something

and claiming the injury was from the rape, was called into the school and

punished for making an accusation of rape. No investigation as to whether the

allegation is true or false- the making of an accusation was sufficient reason

to be punished and expelled from the school. That's a gross miscarriage of

injustice by the school, independent of any actual rape. John missed the

entire thing- he saw someone saying an alleged criminal had to be punished

without due process (which isn't fair any more than punishing the victim

for making the claim), and stopped there. He saw the school make a statement

that they didn't know anything about this until the fuss was kicked up online

(an obvious lie since the school took action, which resulted in the fuss

online), and didn't wonder if this was an obvious coverup lie by the school,

he just latched onto a comment about how the internet can spread unfounded

accusations without proof. Technically true, but a distraction in this instance

because the school DID take the action that was being protested. John missed

that rather fundamental detail because he WASN'T READING- he was skimming

for buzzwords and just replying to THOSE. The actual substance of the complaint

was missed because John didn't bother. He didn't care what he was reacting to,

he just found his buzzwords to react to, so he did, then went off, probably

feeling a sense of accomplishment.

So, I made the mistake of over-estimating John, and it means I made the mistake

of putting a lot more thought into his words when reading them than he did writing

them. For that, I apologize to the other posters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it would be kinda' nice if i could tell wierwille what i think someday. don't know if that could happen but it's nice to think about

sometimes i wonder what his children think now that they are getting closer to his age when he was an abuser

We'll all stand before the judgment seat to give account of ourselves. That's where all the crap we collected for ourselves will be burned off. When you next see VP, you'll be completely healed, and so will he. You'll be able to have the relationship with him (true, Christian love) that you should have been able to have before.

George

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...