Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform > News Items
blog of a program parent
Anonymous:
--- Quote from: "Guest" ---
--- Quote from: "psy" ---Oh please. These places are more than a little transparent about breaking kids down in order to "build them up". How, precisely, do you think the breaking down is done? Humiliation is a powerful tool, as is stripping a person of everything that they connect to as an individual in order to gradually strip them of individuality entirely. Is it possible the orange jumpsuits/tshirts/uniforms/whatever have multiple purposes?
--- End quote ---
I am sure there are dual purposes. The colors or suits that they have the flight risk kids and kids who break the rules wear are probably not the popular ones or as comfortable as an added incentive (or break them down as you put it) for the kids to follow the rules so they don’t have to wear them. But there seems to be such a big push to label this as a humiliation tool or as abuse. I just don’t see it. My thinking is alot of posters here believe this because they don’t know any better and this is the first time a lot of these kids have had to conform to strict rules.
If a salesman approached HR and said he was being humiliated and abused because he has been working for the company for 15 years and is still in a small cubicle while all the people he started with have corner and window offices, would he have a case to sue? Should the company give him a corner office to stop his peers from snickering every time they passed his small cubicle and end his humiliation? Why are all his co-workers being rewarded with larger offices and not him? He shows up everyday for work just like they do.
I really beleive the color of the t-shirts is a stretch for crying abuse.
--- End quote ---
Must this be said a million times?
No one said the "color" or type of outfit itself was the problem--(unless it's mimicking a prisoner's uniform, or is too small, etc---i.e., debasing in itself.)
Like forcefully shaving a "criminal" woman's head,(" publicly shaving a woman’s head may not only humiliate her in front of those who witness her shearing, it may also deprive her of her hair for as long as it takes to grow back, thus serving as a continual reminder of her punishment and her humiliation") Cross Creek’s uses colors to denote a detainee’s badness, depravity, and like the “yellow star of Judea” it uses colored scrubs to create a caste system in which the precise humiliations and abuses the wearer has/will experience and deserves to experience are publicly displayed. The symbolism of the forcefully applied color and its “abuse level” designations is the psychological torture, not the color itself, as the symbolism of the forcefully shaved head is psychological abuse, not a shaved head itself.
As for forcing self injurers to wear “yellow,” why not make the girls who have been involved in incest wear "red" or a scarlet "A"? Making what is personal and painful into a public exhibit is yet another layer of deliberate psychological destruction: disintegration of emotional privacy, taking away the choice of whether to make something so personal into something public, turning something painful into something shameful, and turning a bad experience or symptom of pain into an identity
As for your not having a corner office being equivalent to kidnapping people and forcing them into outfits that designate their level of depravity and the level abuse they recieve, the reason you can't see the difference is the reason you are a child abuser. I actually think that you abuse your child (or other people's) to cathartically purge "normal" humiliations such as not having a large office. Your victims are you "poison bags." You channel the poison of your everyday life onto them.
By the way, your arguments are absurd and anyone with an education or a brain pays them no mind. I respond only because this subject is my emotional heart.
Anonymous:
--- Quote from: "psy" ---
--- Quote from: "Guest" ---I really beleive the color of the t-shirts is a stretch for crying abuse.
--- End quote ---
Perhaps on it's own, but in context with everything else, it can paint a different picture. Just stick around and keep an open mind.
--- End quote ---
Are you saying this guest is not the who?
Can you please answer that? I've asked you before. he sound a lot like him, but I dont want to keep assuming he is if he is not.
psy:
--- Quote from: "Guest" ---
--- Quote from: "psy" ---
--- Quote from: "Guest" ---I really beleive the color of the t-shirts is a stretch for crying abuse.
--- End quote ---
Perhaps on it's own, but in context with everything else, it can paint a different picture. Just stick around and keep an open mind.
--- End quote ---
Are you saying this guest is not the who?
Can you please answer that? I've asked you before. he sound a lot like him, but I dont want to keep assuming he is if he is not.
--- End quote ---
I couldn't tell you even if he was. You should know that. The only time I've outed Who is when he has given me permission. Identities of guests is private, and that applies to everybody here regardless of how myself, ginger, or anybody else might feel about them personally.
In this case, I didn't even check (i rarely if ever do). Frankly, I don't want to know. I do know that there are lots of parents like his persona (who he portrayed himself to be) out in the world, although I do believe Whooter is/was actually a hired gun... There is really no other explanation if you've followed him for long enough. He'll defend *any* program... even places like AARC. I'm not sure even the most staunch program parent would be as extreme if they were exposed to the same truth he has been.
Anyway... It really doesn't matter whether the person is whooter, a program parent, or a regular playing devil's advocate. It's a necessary function. Whooter was right about one thing: there must always be a counterbalance on this forum. Think long enough about it and maybe you'll agree. He asks us to question why program critics believe what they believe... and I think that's important. Blindly following any ideal is dangerous, regardless of what it is, and even if you're "right". It's mental sloth.
Anonymous:
--- Quote from: "FemanonFatal2.0" ---
--- Quote from: "Guest" ---
--- Quote from: "NeilW" ---
--- Quote from: "FemanonFatal2.0" --- What I would like to know is why you, NeilW, have such an interest in our forum and what program you are affiliated with and why you think the kind of "treatment" in these programs is appropriate. Furthermore I would like to know if you have children, and if you have at any point placed them in a program. I know these questions have been asked before and you blatantly skirt them, and I assume cowardliness is just another perk of your refined personality but I think it would only be fair that you reveal your reasoning for being so cold toward us and the children we are advocating for.
--- End quote ---
I have several children and have had a child in a program. If I seem cold towards you it is because I have seen the bias of how parents are treated vs kids on this forum. I find it hard to believe that you say who you are. People that I have known who studied psychology don’t go around calling other people names. I also find it hard to believe that you know the names of people who force kids to eat feces and vomit and urinate on them. It seems that within the confines of this forum stories like this are accepted at face value.
--- End quote ---
Those "stories" are from 1000s of survivors, have been submitted under penalty of perjury, during in the course of lawsuits,criminal investigations, congressional hearings. They have been presented to Feds and have put more than one WWASP manager in the clink and have closed down several WWASP torture chamers. (mostly overseas by countries not bought by David Gilcrease and his evil child murdering henchmen) Time to stop calling them stories, who.
FEMANON, contact Kaite, or her brothers. Do something helpful instead of wasting time with thewho, please, ::poke:: :soapbox:
--- End quote ---
Already found her, contacted her and just waiting for a response. Katie's Myspace
.
--- End quote ---
thank you for finding Katie! How did you manage it, if you don't mind saying?
Antigen:
--- Quote from: "mcarter.fornits" ---However I WILL NOT RESPOND to anonymous emails - since people have decided to post my name, Diane's phone numbers and a whole lot more information, then if you expect me to respond then I will expect the same - a minimum of your full name and location. Nor will I respond to flames.
--- End quote ---
Let's make this clear right from the gate. YOU posted that personal identifying information about yourself in your profile at Blogger.com. You can't legitimately complain about anybody but yourself making that public. I suppose that when you did that, you just presumed that the whole world would agree with you and maybe send you love letters or business connects or something. Now you're haring from people who have been the beneficiaries of the same sort of "help" you have inflicted on your daughter. Yeah, it cost you a lot. That 30 year mortgage is nothing compared to the costs you have begun to realize but have yet to properly attribute to the correct cause.
Quit picking on the kid and take some responsibility for your own actions, please.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version