Gang stalking paranoia

[carlitos]

... Conniving bullies ...

... evil stalkers collaborating together ...

... shunning and mobbing tactics and behavior manifest everywhere ... pandemic bullying in the schoolyard, the workplace, the neighborhood, and just about any other walk of life...

...Why predatory gang stalking?? Because that's a descriptive label for an important part of the problem. Mobbing may often include gang stalking, but not always...

Hi AaronAgassi,

I see that you reject the definition of "gang stalking" as posted by those who say they are victims of "gang stalking." It's known that "gang stalking" per their definition doesn't exist. It's a manifestation of paranoid schizophrenia.

What might clear things up is if you could say what, exactly, you wish "gang stalking" to mean in this discussion? What do you claim is happening, and to whom?

Have you ever been stalked by more than one person at a time, in concert?

No.

And how do you know that the cranks coined the term: "gang stalking."?

Here is what the "cranks" (your word) posted at http://gangstalkingworld.com/ I'm taking them at their word.

Gang Stalking is a systemic form of control, which seeks to destroy every aspect of a Targeted Individuals life. Using occupational health and safety laws, warning markers can be added to a targets file. Individuals can be added to a Threat Assessment List for monitoring. Once a target is flagged, a notification is sent out, and the target is followed around 24/7 by the various communities that they are in. A covert investigation might be opened, and electronic means used by the civilian spies as part of the covert monitoring and surveillance process.

I'll need to research that. Actually, the term may have originally applied in the study of Mussolini's rise to power.

No.

Secondly, what difference does it make? It is perfectly sensible for me to say that a phenomena that would quality as gang stalking does occur, even while remaining adamant in rejecting the crank embellishments.

What would be helpful is for you to state exactly what you believe is happening, and to whom, and to provide evidence for your claim.

-Much as science permitted to speculate on the possibility of microbial life under the permafrost on mars, without having to answer for crank Ufology. I will not let you tar the credibility of what is real and reasonable, by linguistically equating it with crankery. I do not owe that to you, simply because you declare one usage privileged over the other. And clearly, I have declared mu position and am not trying to smuggle in anything by the back door. So contend with what I actually say rather than what you think that I am obliged to say.

I am trying to "contend with what you actually say." You have said "conniving bullies" and "evil stalkers" and "mobbing" and "shunning" and "pandemic bullying" and "community-based mobbing" and even "rising Fascism." I can't tell exactly what your point is.

Oh yeah? Well the cranks agree with you! Nevertheless, I am taking back a term misappropriated for crank distortion, and throwing it back at them. I oppose their flaming and suppression of all discussion of the problem that doesn't focus upon and conform to crank fantasy.
....

I'm afraid that you don't get to "take back" a term, by posting in an online discussion forum. Words mean what they mean. If you wish to claim that something is happening, please state it clearly, using terms that we all can understand.

 

[catsmate]

Speaking of gang-stalking. A mentally ill woman who stabbed several strangers in a store six years ago just did it again. She taped knives together to make a double-bladed weapon.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...-in-maryland/2011/10/12/gIQARawMgL_story.html

Slightly off topic.
OK I'm all in favour of not locking people up in mental health facilities unnecessarily but that supervised release programme either needs better controls or more supervision; two cases, two dead, three injured.

 

[carlitos]

Slightly off topic.

Not really:

Starks, 55, who has received a diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia,

...

Starks provided her account of the Nordstrom incident to mental health professionals, saying that her “sole purpose for buying the knives and stabbing the victims with the knives was to send a message to the people that have been stalking her and following her for many years,” a doctor wrote.

 

[AaronAgassi]

It seems that you at least skirt the logical falsity of argument from definition, caerlitos: For example, a common logical falsity of argument from definition by pro-lifers, is the assertion that conception is the beginning of life, because that is the definition of the word. It remains, nevertheless, that conception is the inception of development of a new individual of whichever species. Obviously, the gametes that fused together, where already alive. Life began and continued in an unbroken chain, from the primordial ooze. For another example, consider the Biblical story of Jonah, swallowed by a whale. Indeed, there are real life documented stories of individuals swallowed by whales, and surviving inside. But literally, in the Torah, Jonah is swallowed by a great fish! For the ancients new nothing of Cetaceans, sea going bovines. But whereas whales suck in great fetid breaths before submerging, a human being would surely only quickly drown, trapped inside a giant water breathing fish! Obviously, whales are not fish. The question is Empirical, not linguistic. As can be seen from the examples of conception and whales, definitions or word usage, merely constitute hypotheses. And inflexible definition even in the face of new evidence, is dogmatic, as in the case of the paranoid crank conspiracy theorists. But it doesn't make them right, any more than the pro-lifers. Gang stalking too, is not as the words are employed by cranks who have misappropriated the term, but as howsoever actually occurs, an Empirical question, not linguistics. And vigilante cause stalking is a serious problem. And so is any predatory group stalking arising as part of mobbing in any social context. So yes, I can take back words for purpose of accurate usage is a good cause. And yes I can do it on an online message board. Don't blink, I just did it again! In order to challenge untruth, it makes no sense to protect inaccurate definitions! Honestly, caerlitos, I wonder if you are not simply trying to discredit the truth by so indelibly linking it to the crazy and disallowing the distinction on linguistic grounds. The current prevalent usage, after all, derives only from deliberate massively noisy repetition, big lie principle, surely all trumped Ontologically. Gang stalking is either conducted by super secret global cabals and shadow government, or else it is not. Gang stalking is either conducted by others than super secret global cabals and shadow government, or else it is not. What to suppose as likeliest, is only a matter of parsimony of explanation.

 

[calebprime]

Yes, but when scientists discuss such subjects, they don't call it "ufological life" or "greys" or "reptillians", as they know those terms are used by the whackjobs.


Show that there are a large number of people using the term "gang stalking" to describe real-world bullying tactics, and you might have a point, but:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=gang+stalking


virtually all the hits you'll find on that term are the crazy ones. That's not "Orwellian", that's just how language works. If you refuse to use language the way most other people use it, you've got only yourself to blame for being misunderstood.

Spying with a hidden bug invading another's privacy is one thing, but electronically recording one's own experiences, already transcribed onto ones own brain in memory, can be no more illegal than simply taking notes! What is of more real and legitimate concern, is that for purposes of admissibility in court, in a public location such as a restaurant, there is less legitimate expectation of privacy than in, say, a private home. Hence stings on braggart bullies are increasingly precedented.

Laws and language are a matter of convention, surely. Here in Massachusetts, the police will arrest you and prosecute you for recording people without those people's consent. (Especially if you record the police.)

Language works the same way. Words mean whatever any large-enough group of people agree that they mean, and however they use them.

That being said, though, you could answer what Carlitos wanted to know--he was asking for clarification.

Is there some reason why you didn't respond to that part of Carlitos' post?

 

[AaronAgassi]

That has the ring of sheer timid and conflict averse urban mythology, calebprime. I would really be surprised if no covert recordings where ever admitted into evidence, let alone that they were all accepted as grounds for counter charges, even in Massachusetts. I invite you to double check your information.

Regarding linguistics, asked and answered. You are only gainsaying, repeating a disputed initial claim without fresh counterargument. Indeed, how does widest usage a'priori become so privileged? Doesn't that, in and of itself, already smack of the Orwellian? Those who appear to have initiated the discourse upon vigilante gang stalking made no connection to fantastic conspiracism. Nor do those who discourse upon community based mobbing and rising fascism. Nor do the victims of Church of Scientology "fair game" tactics. So, what loyalty to we owe to the Orwellian distortions, to begin with of the conspuracists hijacking the conversations, and then to the apologists in denial of bullying taking advantage of so indelible an association in the public consciousness?

 

[calebprime]

Here's the (Mass.) law. I don't like it, as I like to do field recording with a directional mic. So I simply ask people. I don't record without their consent.


http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/massachusetts-recording-law

Massachusetts's wiretapping law is a "two-party consent" law. Massachusetts makes it a crime to secretly record an in-person or telephone conversation without the consent of all parties to the conversation. See Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, § 99. If you are operating in Massachusetts, you should always get the consent of all parties before recording a telephone call or conversation, unless it is absolutely clear to everyone involved that you recording (i.e., it is not "secret").

As for language, if enough people say that "phat" means cool, awesome, commendable, neato, rad, then that's what "phat" means. Meaning is usage.

It's only really Orwellian if a small clique is purposefully controlling the flow of news, and if they're dictating language use, for the purpose of mind-control, or political control.

But these are tangents. Carlitos simply wanted to know what you meant.

 

[catsmate]

Laws and language are a matter of convention, surely. Here in Massachusetts, the police will arrest you and prosecute you for recording people without those people's consent. (Especially if you record the police.)

I already tried to explain to him that, depending on the jurisdiction, being a participant to a conversation doesn't necessarily give one the right to record it; he doesn't seem to want to accept this.

 

[carlitos]

Regarding linguistics, asked and answered. You are only gainsaying, repeating a disputed initial claim without fresh counterargument. Indeed, how does widest usage a'priori become so privileged? Doesn't that, in and of itself, already smack of the Orwellian? Those who appear to have initiated the discourse upon vigilante gang stalking made no connection to fantastic conspiracism. Nor do those who discourse upon community based mobbing and rising fascism. Nor do the victims of Church of Scientology "fair game" tactics. So, what loyalty to we owe to the Orwellian distortions, to begin with of the conspuracists hijacking the conversations, and then to the apologists in denial of bullying taking advantage of so indelible an association in the public consciousness?

AaronAgassi, I asked a really simple question. It's not about linguistics. It's not "Orwellian." Here it is, again:

What do you claim is happening, and to whom?

I don't care if you label it Fascism, Scientology, mobbing, whatever. Please, could you please explain what you think is happening, and to whom? Thanks.

 

[Kid Eager]

That has the ring of sheer timid and conflict averse urban mythology, calebprime. I would really be surprised if no covert recordings where ever admitted into evidence, let alone that they were all accepted as grounds for counter charges, even in Massachusetts. I invite you to double check your information.

Regarding linguistics, asked and answered. You are only gainsaying, repeating a disputed initial claim without fresh counterargument. Indeed, how does widest usage a'priori become so privileged? Doesn't that, in and of itself, already smack of the Orwellian? Those who appear to have initiated the discourse upon vigilante gang stalking made no connection to fantastic conspiracism. Nor do those who discourse upon community based mobbing and rising fascism. Nor do the victims of Church of Scientology "fair game" tactics. So, what loyalty to we owe to the Orwellian distortions, to begin with of the conspuracists hijacking the conversations, and then to the apologists in denial of bullying taking advantage of so indelible an association in the public consciousness?

You appear to be trying to conflate two issues: the common use (and perceived hijacking) of the term "gangstalking", and denial of bullying.

One does not lead to the other. Nobody here, in re-reading the posts, is denying bullying. Several people have, however, been discussing the use of the term gangstalking and your unconventional definition of it.

It would be useful if perhaps you could get to the point of this thread without getting hung up on the term - unless that is your point?

 

[AaronAgassi]

I followed your link, thanks, calebprime, Most alarming! No wonder the law is coming under challenge.

carlitos, all kinds of different things can happen and sometimes actually are happening to different people, even within whatever spectrum, category or set of events and doings. What exactly are you asking me?

Kid Eager, allow ne to attempt clarification: Step one: crank conspiracists hijack the conversation, drowning out serious discourse upon gang stalking and indelibly linking any concept at all of gang stalking (collective collaborative generally convert harassment of an individual that first involves pursuit and surveillance, so that whatever modes of devious harassment then likewise follow the moving target) with all manner of fantastic urban mythologies of conspiracism. Step two, the apologists in denial of bullying, then seize upon the latter loony and inaccurate association in order to discredit all manner of claims of abuse, especially as contexted within any social context. Result: Both conspiracists and apologists for bullying together denounce all claims of abuse that are realistic.

 

[Horatius]

Step one: crank conspiracists hijack the conversation,

Problem is, you haven't established that this actually is "step one". The point is, the cranks haven't "hijacked" the discussion of gang stalking, they were the ones who created the discussion in the first place.

Go ahead and dispute that, but unless you can provide clear evidence of a widespread discussion of non-crank gang stalking prior to the rise of the crank version, it is, in fact, you who are attempting to hijack their term.

 

[carlitos]

gang stalking (collective collaborative generally convert harassment of an individual that first involves pursuit and surveillance, so that whatever modes of devious harassment then likewise follow the moving target)

The vast majority of people claiming the above are simply paranoid schizophrenics. There is no reason for anyone to "collectively collaborate on covert harassment" of an ordinary individual. Especially the ridiculous gang-stalking claims like "they rearranged my furniture when I was at work" and nonsense like that.

Step two, the apologists in denial of bullying

Again, no one here is denying bullying. You are arguing against a straw man that you have created.

Again, please - Who is doing What to Whom? Of course all kinds of things can happen. What are you claiming that is happening?

 

[carlitos]

Result: Both conspiracists and apologists for bullying together denounce all claims of abuse that are realistic.

OK, maybe you don't understand my question that you keep not answering.

How's this - can you please give an example of a "realistic claim of abuse" that has been "denounced" by someone, somewhere, due to this theory of yours?

 

[AaronAgassi]

You need me to cite for you instances of anyone denying or trivializing bullying?

 

[AaronAgassi]

Let's try this: Take the crank conspiracist delusion of gang stalking, and remove the crank elements. First remove the exotic technology. Then remove the pervasive super secret world controlling cabals and shadow government. Imagine tasking the smallest possible number of bullying perpetrators. locally. Or, if you understand shunning and mobbing, imagine a mobile target and therefore add covert pursuit and surveillance. Optionally, include gas lighting. Add character assassination along social networks in order to encourage relational bullying.

 

[Kid Eager]

Let's try this: Take the crank conspiracist delusion of gang stalking, and remove the crank elements. First remove the exotic technology. Then remove the pervasive super secret world controlling cabals and shadow government. Imagine tasking the smallest possible number of bullying perpetrators. locally. Or, if you understand shunning and mobbing, imagine a mobile target and therefore add covert pursuit and surveillance. Optionally, include gas lighting. Add character assassination along social networks in order to encourage relational bullying.

okay, we have a definition - I think.

Now what is the point of this thread?

 

[AaronAgassi]

I had hoped that winnowing reasonable from crazy, likely from unlikely, even honesty from dishonesty and truth from falsehood, in the matter at hand, might have come anywhere into our agenda for discussion.

 

[AaronAgassi]

(Am I up to 15 posts yet?)

Know more at: http://www.FoolQuest.com/cliquebusters.htm#organized

 

[carlitos]

AaronAgassi,

Thanks. From the link you just provided:

Psychological warfare and covert relational hostility via organized orchestrated harassment

Any need of maintaining at all plausible appearances and rationalizations will tend to rule out the more overt mimesis of bullying in favor of whatever ambient or stealth abuse secretly or at least deniably. Therefore, often protected by abuse of power curried well in advance and usually also coordinated together with a wider disinformation campaign of damaging malicious gossip, an organized campaign of harassment is organized by cliques of sociopathic serial bullies, and deviously orchestrated against the target of bullying. Individual harassment episodes involving a handful of participants are carefully planned and arranged for the isolated and bewildered target of bullying to experience in a social environment thereby turned palpably hostile and frightening.

Whenever possible, and in whatever social context, cliques of bullies will consistently strive to pressure and estrange all others from the target of bullying. Not only are current friends and acquaintances pressured, but all potential new connections are obstructed or misdirected under any pretexts or by whatever defamation, disruptive dirty tricks of covert relational hostility, intimidation and intrigues of abuse of power.

Gas lighting is typically employed in order to condition and sensitize the target of bullying to certain cues that can be more readily employed to elicit stressful and maddening hypervigilance in the hapless target of bullying, to make them seem all the more haunted and undesirable, even in moments or upon occasions when in actuality only a small number of the bullies or unwitting proxies and utter tools are at all available within the harassment perimeter of the target of bullying for the ambient or stealth abuse that is organized gang stalking, and therefore there is no way for the target thereof to know how deeply community based or not.

...

Gang Stalking ... seeks to destroy every aspect of a Targeted Individuals life ... the target is followed around 24/7 by the various communities ... Everyone in the targets life is contacted ... Advised not to discuss the notification and asked to be a part of the ongoing, never ending monitoring (systemic harassment) process ... harassed and placed under surveillance in this way for months or even years before they realize that they are being targeted by an organized protocol of harassment. [stalkers are] only to be seen in twos -- we often do not have the same proof -- Watching and recording the everyday activities...

The highlighted phrase is exactly what I posted earlier. "Gang stalking" doesn't exist. It's a manifestation of paranoid schizophrenia. No.

The wording on that site is very familiar. Have you been cutting / pasting these definitions here?