Trying to make sense of CTD's contradictory stances

[Anonymous]

The gold ring on the right is for the staff. We are victims in our own way and its time that is acknowledged. I won’t go as far to say that those who get a thrill out of holding power over others are victims, but the rest of us who hoped to make a change certainly are. Staff from the very first moment on duty is put under a huge amount of pressure. They answer to more than just the program. They answer to the groups, their coworkers, and also they answer to themselves.

The pressure to perform is constant. Staff is expected to make sure their group accomplishes certain things every single day. Not only do they have to see to these items they are responsible for upholding the standards of the program. Most often their training in how to run a group, the facility standards, isn’t at all enough. The staff member is faced with a choice. They can quit or they can do what it takes to resolve the problems in their group. Make no mistakes when I say that these groups are acting like angels. A new counselor most of the time represents blood in the water for a group. It becomes open season to see who can drive the counselor out of the facility the quickest.

Again, the counselor can take the quick route and quit or stick it out an do whatever it takes to work out the situation. A high percentage of these counselors quit. In my experience they don’t quit over any major ethical issue stemming from the shoddy treatment of the children. More often than not they tend to quit because they just couldn’t take the hell they found themselves in with their group. This hell is only made worse when their supervisors and coworkers do very little to render any sort of assistance.

The counselors that stay become hardened veterans of the program. They’ve made their ‘bones’ so to say by taming their out of control group. They believe whole heartedly in their mission to keep these kids out of jail. Avoiding the deadorinjail scenario becomes their excuse for the actions carried out by themselves or their fellow workers. These are the sort of counselors I have the most pity for. It is this type that I became, and the psychological aftermath is all the more difficult for this type to deal with. Most often it is this type of jaded soul that is promoted up to supervisor or unit director. They then turn around and perpetuate another cycle of indifference on an entirely new set of staff. It is done in the name of weaning the wheat from the chaff in order to find more of their own type of kindred spirit and to rid the program of the weak counselors.

In the end I think it is important for us all to recognize that the program is an insidious tool that does what it needs to do to sell itself. It plays on the accepted fear of society that deadorinjail is waiting around every corner for all children. One of these days I will have to write about the cult like nature of the programs I have worked for. More specifically I will write about how the cult like natures of programs work on staff members. So in conclusion( More material to infuriate someone coming up):

* Staff needs to forgive themselves for being suckered. Trust me I of all people know just how hard this can be. Once you do it you will begin to understand the entire problem rather than just a small window of it. Yes you do need to apologize for the harm you have done. Do it with all your heart.

Compared to this:

Then as an adult you say give me my money back. Use a little common sense no forced the man to participate.

Grown adults no longer are required to be responsible for their choices? I wouldn't suggest Boss to my worst enemy. Obviously they are a bunch of under qualified retards. However, when it comes to a 28 year old man signing up for a voluntary course and ends up getting himself killed, I'm not going to get all worked up over it.

He volunteered for the course. No one forced him to go. This is nothing more than Darwinian selection preventing the spread of DNA in the gene pool.

If he knew what he needed why didn't he demand that he get it? No legal sanctions could have been brought against a 28 year old man for insisting he gets some water. I mean demand here, not sit down and beg, but full out demand. Failing that I'd have said fuck this and bailed myself after about the half way mark. Of course getting me out on that sort of jackass course wouldn't have happened in the first place.

I won't however let the 28 year old man off the hook for failing to ensure he got the things he needed in order to survive in a situation he choose to be in.

If people want to do stupid shit to prove how big of balls they have its their own business. Don't expect me to weep when they end up dead or to even try to stop them either.

This man made a choice and he died for it. Its on his head.

So this begs the question TSW -- why didn't you walk out when you first saw abuse, as a grown man there completely 100% voluntarily? Why not leave the first time you saw abuse and make a blog about it then or call CPS then?
 You see I can play this game of personal responsibility too. I just think it's ironic and strange that you push this on others while writing about how you are a victim of group think as a completely free man who did not need to work for a program.
So here you are talking about this dead guy as if he's some asshole who deserved to die, and then you go write pages and pages about how you were a victim-being forced to work for an abusive program for years before being terminated ? Please. Either you are full of shit, or your views change ever 10 minutes. Or you hold yourself to a different standard than those around you. I am just curious which?

[psy]

ya know... if you wanted people to take your allegations seriously, you should have probably posted the links to the original sources along with the quotes.  It's very easy to quote people out of context, especially when you have large amounts of text as a source.

[Anonymous]

You should also be aware of the rules of evidence. This post is really walking the line of slander and I think you might of crossed over it.

The days of posting whatever you want without consequences are over.

[Anonymous]

Guest, who is slandering who?  What post are you talking about?  Sorry, I am truly confused, not trying to cause any trouble for anyone.

[Anonymous]

The days of posting whatever you want without consequences are over.

Last night, you, Izzabelle Zehnder, grudgefucked an eight year old girl with a studded dildo  for not bringing you your beer in thirty seconds. Don't try to deny it.

[Anonymous]

Last night, you, Izzabelle Zehnder, grudgefucked an eight year old girl with a studded dildo  for not bringing you your beer in thirty seconds. Don't try to deny it.

 ::roflmao::  ::roflmao::

Guest, who is slandering who? What post are you talking about? Sorry, I am truly confused, not trying to cause any trouble for anyone.

Seconded.

[psy]

You should also be aware of the rules of evidence. This post is really walking the line of slander and I think you might of crossed over it.

The days of posting whatever you want without consequences are over.

Personally, I find the entire idea of defamation, in speech or writing to be unconstitutional... and just plain wrong.  What it means in practice is that if you want to shut somebody up, you can sue them, and if they can't afford a lawyer, they're screwed (or they have to take the information down).  In my opinion, the best cure for defamation, is to post the truth, and let the public decide.  Provide proof, expose the accuser as a liar.  Why should the government interfere in what people can, or cannot say?

I realize that this would, undoubtedly lower standards of journalism for the mainstream media, but they write so much bullshit already i'm not sure people would notice much of a difference (or care, if they did).  The sooner people start doubting EVERYTHING they read, and start examining evidence, plausability of stories, etc, the sooner they will start to actually think for themselves.  As it is, people rely on others to bring them the truth, and although the law is supposed to ensure quality, it doesn't quite work that way in practice.

I'd like to see patent's and copyright go as well.  Patent's hinder progress, and copyright can be used to censor.

[Anonymous]

If there were no "defamation laws" then Izzy wouldn't need that great big long DISCLAIMER she keeps revising either, would she?
Izzy and Sue-Sue could just write those blogs filled with all their lies, and not worry about any DISCLAIMERS, right?

[Anonymous]

OP didn't link; but the long quote is from tsw's blog, and the other from "Two Hikers die on Wilderness Hikes in Utah."

[psy]

If there were no "defamation laws" then Izzy wouldn't need that great big long DISCLAIMER she keeps revising either, would she?
Izzy and Sue-Sue could just write those blogs filled with all their lies, and not worry about any DISCLAIMERS, right?

Does the disclaimer make a difference?

[Froderik]

You should also be aware of the rules of evidence. This post is really walking the line of slander and I think you might of crossed over it.

The days of posting whatever you want without consequences are over.

Personally, I find the entire idea of defamation, in speech or writing to be unconstitutional... and just plain wrong.  What it means in practice is that if you want to shut somebody up, you can sue them, and if they can't afford a lawyer, they're screwed (or they have to take the information down).  In my opinion, the best cure for defamation, is to post the truth, and let the public decide.  Provide proof, expose the accuser as a liar.  Why should the government interfere in what people can, or cannot say?

I realize that this would, undoubtedly lower standards of journalism for the mainstream media, but they write so much bullshit already i'm not sure people would notice much of a difference (or care, if they did).  The sooner people start doubting EVERYTHING they read, and start examining evidence, plausability of stories, etc, the sooner they will start to actually think for themselves.  As it is, people rely on others to bring them the truth, and although the law is supposed to ensure quality, it doesn't quite work that way in practice.

:tup:

[nimdA]

I already stated on the other thread that I will not be discussing my blog on fornits.

[nimdA]

Though my one response for this is maybe you ought to look at it from this perspective. We both should have known better.

[Anonymous]

Maybe the poster intended that to be yellow journalism, not quite a lie.

[Anonymous]

I think the OP had a good point.