I will begin by honestly admitting that I have NEVER TAKEN a psychology course.
My opinions and viewpoints are based upon independent study alone.
That having been said...I have officially begun to prove my point.
We all know that Diddy is in trouble. He has asked for bail 3 times and the court has denied him.
We all saw the tapes, we heard the rumors before his house got raided.
As his victims begin to step forward I am noticing a pattern of skepticism.
"Why are they saying something now? Why didn't they report it back then."
"They are just in it for the money grab."
That may very well be true for some of the accusers, but as for the others...
I wonder...
You don't need a psychology degree to know that if you tell a therapist you were raped by a celebrity they will most likely question the fuck out of you.
They will begin the process of checking for delusional traits.
Imagine if you are a victim that was drugged and manipulated.
What evidence you have is in your head and is in pieces.
Guess what you're getting?
Medication and a diagnosis.
Which leads me to my point and the title of this piece.
I believe there is innate educational bias associated in the evaluation of victims of sexual assault by celebrities or powerful and wealthy people.
It is assumed that one would fixate on someone in the public eye and that that fixation is of higher probability than the actual assault asserted.
Simply put: "They can have anyone they want. Why would they **** you?"
An ordinary person. Why would a rich, powerful, sexual deviant sexually assault an ordinary person?
...because they can. And they know they will get away with it. And if they use the proper drugs not only will they get away with it but their victim will be branded as crazy and delusional.
Cassie speaking up illuminates this even more. If a sexual deviant is willing to mistreat and abuse someone in the public eye what do you think they are willing to do to a "nobody."
A "nobody" will most likely have little to no support from "somebodies" to prove anything.
Yet that same nobody has less chance of being believed while being more likely to be victimized.
Another topic where I see this bias is the taboo subject of "Gang Stalking."
Most serious sites of psychological research suggests that gang stalking is a mass delusion.
That it does not exist in reality.
I can unravel the bias on this topic by address the term "mass delusion" and also addressing the existence of gang stalking as a realistic possibility.
"Mass delusion is a false belief shared by a large group of people"-Medcrave online
Ok. We have the internet, right? This makes things difficult because people who have never met can communicate and share ideas.
But that doesn't mean they are delusional. There are organizations that watch and actively coerce their targets that we pay taxes to fund.
These organizations are trusted with national security and gathering of intelligence. Because higher forms of technology have become more available to public, it is more likely that such behaviors can be conducted by informal organizations.
Yes, the same medium and tool that condemns gang stalking as "mass delusion" is the very medium and tool that makes it more likely.
To me the existence of gang stalking has not been proven to be a "false belief." Gang stalking is not like Santa Claus.
Moving on to the lack of gang stalking as existing in reality.
The KKK practiced gang stalking. They would stalk, harass, and coerce others to stalk and harass their victims.
There you go. There is an example of gang stalking.
Now lets get into the existentialism.
If an individual stalker can exist why can't a group of stalkers exist?
If a group of stalkers exist, why can't that group be organized?
If that group is organized, are they not a gang?
If a group of stalkers can exist and be called a "gang" then gang stalking can exist.
There you go. DONE.
Are y'all ok?
Comments
Post a Comment