In this video, we come back to Surviving Narcissism hosted by Dr. Les Carter. We learn about 8 tactics narcissists use to “train” and manipulate their victims. They can be divided into 4 phases, ingratiation, guilt trips, humiliation, and open harm. The 8 tactics are:
The “Buddy” Technique
Phony “Intellectual” Empathy
“Now You Owe Me” Mentality
Appeal To Loyalty And Guilt
Words Of Incredulity
Narcissists can’t abide their victims having a sense of self. If you have to hide yourself and your feelings from someone in your life, they probably don’t have your true well being in mind. You don’t need to engage with them further. A healthy individual respects their own self and that of others, and wishes no harm.
In the following half hour video by ClownfishTV, the hosts Kneon and Geeky Sparkles report a public opinion poll about Disney firing Gina Carano, as well Disney’s shareholder meeting this week, in which sharp questions were directed at the CEO. They also discuss Disney’s political motivations and consumers’ rejection of Disney+ and changes at Disney theme parks.
Gina Carano’s public firing from “The Mandalorian” appears to be a wakeup call to cancel culture. In the 3 weeks since, more famous individuals and IPs, who are beloved by millions, have been cancelled. Mister Potato Head, Dr. Seuss, and Pepe Le Pew, have rallied the public into ridiculing political correctness. The internet memes are abundant. Hollywood and Corporate America will surrender to the Far Left’s emotional blackmail, but customers won’t anymore.
The video mentions Disney’s previous chief executive, Bob Iger, and his political aspirations. He is known to want to run for office as a Democrat. This may explain the company’s positioning in recent years, catering to vocal leftists on Twitter. Disney’s new boss Bob Chapek has the task of winning back conservatives and moderates, but that’s a tall order. In the Internet Age, it’s easier to see through a corporation’s public image, and Disney is as cutthroat as any. The awakening of normal American citizens is only speeding up.
This YouTube video by Psych2Go tells the story of “Susie,” and how she suffers from emotional blackmail by both her boyfriend and her boss. The story illustrates several forms of abuse, and Susie responds effectively, using tactics from previous Psych2Go videos.
This video is careful to distinguish between accidental abuse, which the perpetrator will willingly fix, and chronic abuse, in which there is no hope for change. In the story, Susie determines what types her tormentors are, and successfully removes them from her life. It’s important to always give someone the benefit of the doubt, but only to a certain point. In previous posts about self defense, I point out one must deflect harm until it’s clear the opponent won’t deescalate. Then you counterattack.
In the following YouTube video by Thunk, we learn about the “motte and bailey” fallacy, its origins, and how it’s used to confuse and deceive. Put simply, the argument conflates a strong and obvious position (the motte) with a controversial or pernicious one (the bailey.) It has been put to excessive use in the last year by the media and propaganda merchants.
During the past year, we saw the motte and bailey fallacy in action when the George Floyd protests got mixed up with violent riots. The video of George Floyd’s death at the hands of abusive cops infuriated everyone. Everyone agreed that corrupt individuals should be brought to justice- this was a “motte” position. However, the far left took the “bailey” position that “all cops are bastards” and police departments nationwide should be defunded.
Not soon after, peaceful protests were organized to promote common sense police reform (motte). Unfortunately, nefarious agitators snuck into those crowds and induced them into committing riots, blocking highways, and other acts to disrupt civil society (bailey.) My previous post explains how herd psychology works, and the agitators used those principles to take control of crowds and corrupt them.
Currently, we’re witnessing “cancel culture” and attempts to excuse it as something different. Individuals and old intellectual properties are accused of bigotry or harassment, then their corporate employers terminate them, or social media platforms delete their accounts. The left calls this “accountability culture.” I propose we make a distinction, that accountability culture means acting on true and proven accusations (motte), whereas cancel culture means acting on false accusations (bailey.)
Finally, I want to make the distinction between true liberals, who sincerely want justice for the disadvantaged, and the Far Left, who are fake liberals with sinister ulterior motives. The same can be said for true conservatives, who want law and order and are accepting of diversity, against the Far Right, who are the real bigots and use conservatism as a disguise. In my opinion, true liberals and conservatives have very little to disagree about.
This video by Intermittent Diversion gives a short explanation of herd psychology. Crowds and herds of people form when individuals are uncertain, and look to others for guidance. One person might be the first to choose a business or a stock, then one or two more might join them for companionship. Then the crowd snowballs as people think the first few know something special.
This model shows that leaders need a handful of companions to present the appearance of authority. If a business owner, hedge fund, or politician is savvy, they can plant influencers among the population to sell their propositions.
In this YouTube video by Personal Power, the host Benjamin explains the Socratic Method of reasoning. The Socratic Method is based on asking questions, rather than presenting information to counter the opponent. It does no good to start arguing at the outset, because both sides will dig in and not move from their positions. To ask questions is more inviting and hospitable; it makes you and your conversation partner more open to new ideas.
Benjamin lists 6 questions, or groups of questions that can be asked during the session. You don’t need to follow them in order, but ask them as they become pertinent in your conversation.
Why do you have this belief?
Are there similar beliefs, from different points of view?
What is the evidence for this belief?
Are there different beliefs?
Why do you have this belief? Why is it important to you?
What are the consequences of having this belief? What are the consequences of giving it up?
By following the Socratic Method, we can determine not just the truth of our assumptions, but whether it’s worth maintaining a relationship with certain people. Most people should be open to questions, but one isn’t, they probably have something to hide, or have sinister intentions. This is a good way to detect narcissists.