Emotional Blackmail, A Weapon Against Lds Defenders

[Scott Lloyd]

Blackmail usually involves a threat by the blackmailer to do something bad to the one being blackmailed, so what bad thing do you suppose the blackmailers are threatening to do to those they are blackmailing?

 

 

Already explained in a prior post. It's the the form explained in the Wikipedia entry as the "sufferer's form": "If you don't eat the dinner I cooked, I'll hurt myself."

 

Thus

 

"If you don't shut up and stop trying to defend the Church, I'll resign my membership." Or put another way: "Apologists have driven me right out of the Church."

 

I would probably just laugh at somebody who threatened to do something bad to me, if not also feeling a little pity for them, because in the end I would be the one to come out on top and their bad deeds would end up doing damage to them.

 

It doesn't work with me either. That doesn't stop people from doing it, though.

Edited February 19, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Hamba Tuhan]

Blackmail usually involves a threat by the blackmailer to do something bad to the one being blackmailed, so what bad thing do you suppose the blackmailers are threatening to do to those they are blackmailing?

 

Emotional blackmail is a different animal. The threat is usually that one will harm himself (or more likely, do something the victim will see as harm even if the blackmailer doesn't) or harm others but blame it on the victim: If you don't stop defending the teachings of the living prophets, I'm going to leave the Church, and it will be your fault.

[Hamba Tuhan]

It doesn't work with me either. That doesn't stop people from doing it, though.

 

And it doesn't stop it working with other people. Many goodhearted Saints will swallow their tongues rather than run the mere risk that they might be the cause of 'driving' a person out of the Church ... without realising that they're simply being manipulated by someone who isn't serious and/or doesn't really value his/her membership in the same way the victim does.

Edited February 19, 2015 by Hamba Tuhan

[Scott Lloyd]

And it doesn't stop it working with other people. Many goodhearted Saints will swallow their tongues rather then run the mere risk that they might be the cause of 'driving' a person out of the Church ... without realising that they're simply being manipulated by someone who isn't serious and/or doesn't really value his/her membership in the same way the victim does.

The ridiculously annoying thing is when the perpetrator is someone who you know does not subscribe to the religious values of the Latter-day Saints, yet he will hold those values over the head of the victim. It's like schoolyard taunting. Worse, because of the blatant hypocrisy.

 

It's an example of the proverbial cheap shot.

Edited February 19, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Ahab]

The ridiculously annoying thing is when the perpetrator is someone who you know does not subscribe to the religious values of the Latter-day Saints, yet he will hold those values over the head of the victim. It's like schoolyard taunting. Worse, because of the blatant hypocrisy.

It's an example of the proverbial cheap shot.

I think I understand and have seen what you're talking about and just didn't realize there was a technical term for it. Still not sure that is the term that I would use, though.

Let's use Pahoran for an example. He can be very direct when describing what he sees as a problem, and sometimes I'm thinking he should ease up a little. But then again sometimes people need to be that direct with others to help them see the problem. So say while Pahoran is doing his thing someone like tonie comes along to tell him that he is being rude and obnoxious and arrogant and, here's the kicker, "wrong" about what he is saying. But Pahoran is actually right, and tonie is just playing off of how direct he is in his presentation of facts. And then others like Daniel2 and rockpond and, well, you know, "those guys" gang up with tonie against Pahoran trying to build up tension and portray Pahoran as someone who is rude, and "wrong", to try to get others to gang up on him too. And then before you know it others are ganging up on Pahoran while others support what Pahoran is saying, which goes on for a while, and then before you know it a moderator comes in, because someone reported Pahoran, and acts like a parent who has a LOT on his mind and just wants things to settle down. And then after seeing that people are acting like Pahoran is the one who started the fuss, when it was really tonie and his gang, the moderator cracks down on Pahoran.

And then. Well you know. If it wasn't funny I wouldn't come here anymore.

[rockpond]

I think I understand and have seen what you're talking about and just didn't realize there was a technical term for it. Still not sure that is the term that I would use, though.

Let's use Pahoran for an example. He can be very direct when describing what he sees as a problem, and sometimes I'm thinking he should ease up a little. But then again sometimes people need to be that direct with others to help them see the problem. So say while Pahoran is doing his thing someone like tonie comes along to tell him that he is being rude and obnoxious and arrogant and, here's the kicker, "wrong" about what he is saying. But Pahoran is actually right, and tonie is just playing off of how direct he is in his presentation of facts. And then others like Daniel2 and rockpond and, well, you know, "those guys" gang up with tonie against Pahoran trying to build up tension and portray Pahoran as someone who is rude, and "wrong", to try to get others to gang up on him too. And then before you know it others are ganging up on Pahoran while others support what Pahoran is saying, which goes on for a while, and then before you know it a moderator comes in, because someone reported Pahoran, and acts like a parent who has a LOT on his mind and just wants things to settle down. And then after seeing that people are acting like Pahoran is the one who started the fuss, when it was really tonie and his gang, the moderator cracks down on Pahoran.

And then. Well you know. If it wasn't funny I wouldn't come here anymore.

Wow. Always nice to randomly stop by a thread and discover that I'm being accused of something I didn't do. Nice.

Talk about "ganging up"!

[Hamba Tuhan]

I think I understand and have seen what you're talking about and just didn't realize there was a technical term for it.

 

Your hypothetical example doesn't fit the definition.

Edited February 19, 2015 by Hamba Tuhan

[Hamba Tuhan]

Talk about "ganging up"!

 

Yep. And unfair.

[smac97]

For quick reference, I have just added my definition of emotional blackmail to my signature.

 

My thanks again to Hamba Tuhan for coming up with this very apt term for a frequently used technique.

Here is an example of what might be termed "emotional blackmail," which I came up with quite a while ago:

 

Rockpond: And, of course, there are the "surprising number of active, faithful members of the church who have SSA" either left the church and/or chosen to end their lives under the crushing weight of our loving and compassionate outreach.

Smac97: Ah, I was wondering when the unfortunately-frequent "Hey, Mormons! Either change your doctrines or I'll kill myself and blame you for it!" trope would be trotted out.

When it comes to people with SSA - and specifically young Latter-day Saints with SSA, I think it is tragic that some of these brothers and sisters are treated poorly by some because of that orientation. And I am appalled and saddened that anyone would kill themselves for any reason, including despairing Latter-day Saints. However, I firmly believe that homosexual conduct is not compatible with the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ. I also believe that there is a concerted effort to legitimize homosexual conduct and undermine any organization that feels differently. I also believe that this concerted effort bears substantial responsibility for inculcating vulnerable Latter-day Saints (those with same-sex attraction) with the notion that their orientation is either compatible with or superior in importance to the Restored Gospel.

At the end of the day, the Restored Gospel prohibits homosexual behavior (along with many other sexual behaviors). Consequently, people who advocate the notion that same-sex behavior is compatible with the Restored Gospel exhibit a profound lack of judgment. In attempting to alleviate despair among young Latter-day Saints with SSA, I fear that these folks may be tacitly recommending a course of action that will only deepen that despair and lead young LDS away from the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ.

And here as well:

 

Rockpond: One of your more callous responses.

Smac97: Not callous. Mine was an appropriate response to the cynical exploitation of suicides as a guilt-trip tactic against those who believe in and defend the precepts of the Restored Gospel.

I find such exploitation repellant, and I am not shy about expressing my disgust with such exploitation.

...

I have no doubt that same-sex attraction can be a tremendous struggle. But rhetorical references to gay suicides in discussions such as this, with the attendant implication that such suicides are to be blamed on people who do not embrace/endorse same-sex behavior, are pretty much the equivalent of calling the other guy a Nazi. It just ain't cool.

...

Rockpond: I'll keep discussing this topic if you want but I think that I've made my point and these last two paragraphs are (for me and my heart) the best of your thoughts on the matter.

Smac97: As you like. Perhaps the next time you and your heart could avoid suggesting that gay suicides are to be blamed on people who disagree with you. "Callous" I can handle, no problemo. But the "We've gotta embrace same-sex behavior 'cuz otherwise homosexuals will kill themselves and it'll be our fault" meme just doesn't work for me.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 19, 2015 by smac97

[Hamba Tuhan]

Here is an example of what might be termed "emotional blackmail," which I came up with quite a while ago:

 

These emotional manipulations are also essential elements of the strategy to 'overhaul straight America' first penned by Kirk and Madsen back in 1987:

 

Gays must be cast as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined by reflex to assume the role of protector ...

 

At a later stage of the media campaign for gay rights ... it will be time to get tough with remaining opponents. To be blunt, they must be vilified ...

Edited February 19, 2015 by Hamba Tuhan

[Ahab]

Your hypothetical example doesn't fit the definition.

Then I don't think I've seen what you are talking about. Nobody I've seen has said they'll leave the Church if someone else isn't nice. Just trying to imagine an example of what you are talking about.

[Hamba Tuhan]

Then I don't think I've seen what you are talking about. Nobody I've seen has said they'll leave the Church if someone else isn't nice.

 

You haven't noticed anyone say, for example, 'Your post is pushing me closer to leaving the Church' or 'Your strident defence of Church teachings is pushing young "gays" to the brink of suicide'?

[Scott Lloyd]

Here is an example of what might be termed "emotional blackmail," which I came up with quite a while ago:

 

And here as well:

 

Thanks,

-Smac

Your posts (which I don't believe I saw before now; otherwise I would have enthusiastically added a rep point to the five that you received back then) illustrate the tactic with elegant precision.

 

I think it is a tactic that some of us have noticed for a long time. But it was not until a few days ago, when I read a post from Hamba, that I knew there was a term that fit it so aptly. I was delighted to hear of it, so much so that I eagerly added it with its definition to my signature.

 

It's like having a medical condition (or observing it in someone else) that you thought was uncommon and finding out that it is indeed so common and observable that there is a medical term for it.

Edited February 19, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Then I don't think I've seen what you are talking about. Nobody I've seen has said they'll leave the Church if someone else isn't nice. Just trying to imagine an example of what you are talking about.

Read Smac's post on this thread. He gives very clear illustrations.

[Ahab]

You haven't noticed anyone say, for example, 'Your post is pushing me closer to leaving the Church'

Well yeah but I just figure they're kidding.

or 'Your strident defence of Church teachings is pushing young "gays" to the brink of suicide'?

Well yeah but I just figure they're being rude, and at least partiality kidding too.

But nothing I would take seriously.

[Scott Lloyd]

Well yeah but I just figure they're kidding.

Well yeah but I just figure they're being rude, and at least partiality kidding too.

But nothing I would take seriously.

Rude, very likely. Kidding, hardly. Have you read smac's post yet?

[Ahab]

Here is an example of what might be termed "emotional blackmail," which I came up with quite a while ago:

And here as well:

Thanks,

-Smac

How lame. I hadn't seen an example of "emotional blackmail" like this before and all I have to say about it is that it is very lame, and silly, and should not be condoned.

[Hamba Tuhan]

Well yeah but I just figure they're being rude, and at least partiality kidding too.

But nothing I would take seriously.

 

Which is great for you. The problems start when people don't know if they should take them seriously or not. Many goodhearted people will err on the side of caution in such cases, retreating into silence or apology, which of course is the intended effect.

[smac97]

Your posts (which I don't believe I saw before now; otherwise I would have enthusiastically added a rep point to the five that you received back then) illustrate the tactic with elegant precision.

 

I think it is a tactic that some of us have noticed for a long time. But it was not until a few days ago, when I read a post from Hamba, that I knew there was a term that fit it so aptly. I was delighted to hear of it, so much so that I eagerly added it with its definition to my signature.

 

It's like having a medical condition (or observing it in someone else) that you thought was uncommon and finding out that it is indeed so common and observable that there is a medical term for it.

Wow. I have been on this board for, I think, 12 years. And this is the first time I have heard about or noticed "rep points." How clueless I am!

-Smac

[Pahoran]

Well yeah but I just figure they're kidding.

Well yeah but I just figure they're being rude, and at least partiality kidding too.

But nothing I would take seriously.

I promise you they're not kidding. They mean it in dead earnest.

Because even if you see through the ploy, they are usually playing to an audience; and they want that audience to see you as heartless and uncaring. Manipulative people are always manipulating.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Scott Lloyd]

Wow. I have been on this board for, I think, 12 years. And this is the first time I have heard about or noticed "rep points." How clueless I am!

-Smac

I wondered why you've never given me one!

If you click on your rep points in a post, you can identify who gave them to you. And if you hover your cursor over your name, you can see how many you have amassed (you had 1,800 when I looked just now).

If you go to your profile and click on Reputation, you'll pull up a list of your posts that have been given rep points, listed in reverse chronological order.

You have a whole new dimension to board posting to discover. As amazed as you are that you are only now learning about rep points, I am astounded by it.

Calmoriah has the most rep pints of anyone I know. She is also the most frequent awarder of them, I daresay. I have said repeatedly that it is all the more impressive that she has so many considering she doesn't have cal to award them to her.

Edited February 20, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Pahoran]

I age said repeatedly ...

 

Posting from the phone again, are we?

That "age" looks like a cheap autocorrect's attempt at "have," done by "swipe."

Regards,

Pahoran

[Scott Lloyd]

Posting from the phone again, are we?

That "age" looks like a cheap autocorrect's attempt at "have," done by "swipe."

Regards,

Pahoran

You called it.

I went back in to fix it and noticed two or three others while I was there. And I fixed another one just now, all of them the fault of the damned autocorrect on my iPod touch.