4 ms·

The only workable solution I've found: maintain absolute transparency with everyone in your various networks, and never, ever, ever respond to the animal in any

by jpxxx 14y ago

The only workable solution I've found: maintain absolute transparency with everyone in your various networks, and never, ever, ever respond to the animal in any way. It literally takes years for them to break off from the hunt, and there is no protection from their predation as long as they can still smell your blood. Your attention fuels their hatred and their psychosis. Notifying their family or friends is counterproductive - they have been programmed to treat their predator as a victim and will attack you as well, multiplying the threat.

dickbasedregex 14y ago
I kept thinking if her emails were as batshit crazy as the author states, why not just post all of them online. Buy a domain and make a big public display of what a whackjob this person is. Allow her to publicly hang herself. I suspect, as suggested in the comments, some or all of this is possibly fabricated for book sales? Otherwise, many of his responses don't make much sense. I think most would very quickly, and correctly, attempt to sue for defamation.
- jpxxx 14y ago
  Name and shame seems like a good tactic, but you must understand that the animal is incapable of feeling shame or remorse - they have no reputation to uphold. There is only predator and prey. Their world literally does not extend beyond you, their food source. You are their obsession, and your existence (and suffering!) gives them their daily meaning.
  - dickbasedregex 14y ago
    Well, the article mentioned her attempts at being a published author? I would argue that reputation and financial ruin might put a crimp in those plans. Obviously, I don't suggest this as a first response... maybe the dream of being an author was the one thing still anchoring her to reality? I would seek legal council on the best method of just making her go the hell away (harassment charges/restraining order). If she persisted to be a thorn in my side, or I had no legal recourse to the harassment, then yes, attempt to ruin her. What other choice do you have? Just allow her to chip away at you for all of eternity?
    - illuminate 14y ago
      "I would argue that reputation and financial ruin might put a crimp in those plans." Delusions have never stopped a sociopath before.
- DanBC 14y ago
  It's not that easy. (http://www.wired.com/underwire/2012/04/ff_koreanrapper/all/1 http://www.wired.com/underwire/2012/04/ff_koreanrapper/all/1)
  - RexRollman 14y ago
    That reminds me of the birther movement in some ways.
- jacques_chester 14y ago
  > I think most would very quickly, and correctly, attempt to sue for defamation. I agree. In particular I'd also go after republishers, such as Amazon, to have the various public ones removed.
- michaelochurch 14y ago
  I don't think this is a good idea. When you have a stalker, ruining his or her reputation doesn't help. It can easily be spun around to make you look like the bad guy. Some stalkers are obviously crazy and you should notify the police. Others are adept at making it look like you're doing bad things. They won't be able to prove anything, obviously, but they can muddy the waters and make your life hell. Female-on-male stalking tends to come from the extremes of the popularity spectrum, not the middle of the curve, and those two extremes tend to produce different patterns of stalking. If she's obviously crazy and weird, then she's also unpopular. Her reputation is already damaged, but she doesn't care. Her situation is asymmetric warfare. I wouldn't even call it "warfare" at that point. It's just angry destruction. The bad news is that she's liable to become violent. The good news is that she has no credibility so, while it might be annoying to hear a crazy person using your name, nothing she says will stick. The less common form tends to come from women who are high on the social spectrum. They tend not to be physically dangerous (they have decades of experience at hiding their craziness, and they know that physical intrusion will blow their credibility) but it's much more socially dangerous, because when they set out to ruin a man's reputation, they often succeed. What the OP experienced appears to be a mix of those two, enabled by the largeness and credibility sparsity of a large society (e.g. the Internet).
michaelochurch 14y ago
Notifying their family or friends is counterproductive - they have been programmed to treat their predator as a victim and will attack you as well, multiplying the threat. A large percentage of stalkers believe they are being stalked by their target. They interpret every interaction (or lack thereof) with this person, no matter how mundane, in the context of this illusory and perverse relationship existing in the stalker's mind. One terrifying thing is that, when a man has a well-liked female stalker (and in many places, a woman just has to be attractive to be well-liked) she often succeeds in destroying his reputation. There has to be a social power differential (teacher / student) or the man is likely to come out ruined, because of the behaviors OP describes.
- vorg 14y ago
  > A large percentage of stalkers believe they are being stalked by their target. A large percentage of stalkers believe they themselves are being stalked because they are, but by someone other than their target. They don't know who's stalking them, and are reciprocating, but towards a different target they themselves have chosen. There's a difference in personality between stalkers who keep themselves well hidden, and those who are unafraid to reveal themselves. > stalking tends to come from the extremes of the popularity spectrum, not the middle of the curve, and those two extremes tend to produce different patterns of stalking. In your other comment on this submission, you described both types of stalker in the context of female-on-male stalking, but it applies more generally in society. You called the form that comes from those high on the social spectrum as "less common", but it's simply _more hidden_. Stalking is a many-layered social structure, with the sociopathic types at the top pulling the strings of the schizophrenic types at the bottom, often with one or two layers of other people in between. The sociopathic types who keep themselves hidden watch others in order to change win-win relationships into win-lose relationships. The more recognizable schizophrenic types react to these win-lose relationships by changing them into lose-lose relationships. If we talk about how to handle the schizophrenic type of stalker without talking about the sociopathic type, we're simply targeting a symptom without looking at the cause. Behind every wacko hellbent on ruining their prey is a scheming business manager protecting their business interests at all costs, or a listening functionary doing what it takes to get their kids an education in a Western country.
gosu 14y ago
A mentally ill person - even one who is criminally so - is still a person, and not "the animal". Maybe you're just trying to hammer home the predator/hunt thing, but it still sounds really wrong to me. Whatever bad thing happened to you, don't let it corrupt your own sense of humanity.
- cantankerous 14y ago
  It's easy to say that from the sidelines. I think it's a small price to pay for maintaining your sanity while its under siege by a mentally ill person. So long as you're not harming anybody, who cares how you frame your aggressor?
  - vacri 14y ago
    Framing them in an appropriate way is significant. Framing them as a mentally ill person can help you cope with what's going on, because it helps you understand what's happening. And while it's not nice, humans deal much better with things that they think they understand (cf: origins of religions) Framing them as a cunning predator that can strike mysteriously and who knows where the next attack vector is, well, that's just feeding the paranoia - and playing into their hands. Besides, if your goal is to react as encouraged above and remain as dispassionate as possible, framing them as mentally ill helps put you in a mood of pity (or even compassion), whereas framing them as an animal suggests that they must have battle done to them. EDIT: Not to mention just the basic humanity of seeing humans as people who can have problems, instead of simply writing off people wholesale if they take a wrong turn.
    - illuminate 14y ago
      "Framing them as a cunning predator that can strike mysteriously and who knows where the next attack vector is, well, that's just feeding the paranoia - and playing into their hands." But it's true, in a way. You can't really assume much about the limits of a person who's willing to take their own life down to assume control over yours.
- jpxxx 14y ago

by jpxxx 14y ago

dickbasedregex 14y ago

I kept thinking if her emails were as batshit crazy as the author states, why not just post all of them online. Buy a domain and make a big public display of what a whackjob this person is. Allow her to publicly hang herself. I suspect, as suggested in the comments, some or all of this is possibly fabricated for book sales? Otherwise, many of his responses don't make much sense. I think most would very quickly, and correctly, attempt to sue for defamation.

jpxxx 14y ago
Name and shame seems like a good tactic, but you must understand that the animal is incapable of feeling shame or remorse - they have no reputation to uphold. There is only predator and prey. Their world literally does not extend beyond you, their food source. You are their obsession, and your existence (and suffering!) gives them their daily meaning.
- dickbasedregex 14y ago
  Well, the article mentioned her attempts at being a published author? I would argue that reputation and financial ruin might put a crimp in those plans. Obviously, I don't suggest this as a first response... maybe the dream of being an author was the one thing still anchoring her to reality? I would seek legal council on the best method of just making her go the hell away (harassment charges/restraining order). If she persisted to be a thorn in my side, or I had no legal recourse to the harassment, then yes, attempt to ruin her. What other choice do you have? Just allow her to chip away at you for all of eternity?
  - illuminate 14y ago
    "I would argue that reputation and financial ruin might put a crimp in those plans." Delusions have never stopped a sociopath before.
DanBC 14y ago
It's not that easy. (http://www.wired.com/underwire/2012/04/ff_koreanrapper/all/1 http://www.wired.com/underwire/2012/04/ff_koreanrapper/all/1)
- RexRollman 14y ago
  That reminds me of the birther movement in some ways.
jacques_chester 14y ago
> I think most would very quickly, and correctly, attempt to sue for defamation. I agree. In particular I'd also go after republishers, such as Amazon, to have the various public ones removed.
michaelochurch 14y ago
I don't think this is a good idea. When you have a stalker, ruining his or her reputation doesn't help. It can easily be spun around to make you look like the bad guy. Some stalkers are obviously crazy and you should notify the police. Others are adept at making it look like you're doing bad things. They won't be able to prove anything, obviously, but they can muddy the waters and make your life hell. Female-on-male stalking tends to come from the extremes of the popularity spectrum, not the middle of the curve, and those two extremes tend to produce different patterns of stalking. If she's obviously crazy and weird, then she's also unpopular. Her reputation is already damaged, but she doesn't care. Her situation is asymmetric warfare. I wouldn't even call it "warfare" at that point. It's just angry destruction. The bad news is that she's liable to become violent. The good news is that she has no credibility so, while it might be annoying to hear a crazy person using your name, nothing she says will stick. The less common form tends to come from women who are high on the social spectrum. They tend not to be physically dangerous (they have decades of experience at hiding their craziness, and they know that physical intrusion will blow their credibility) but it's much more socially dangerous, because when they set out to ruin a man's reputation, they often succeed. What the OP experienced appears to be a mix of those two, enabled by the largeness and credibility sparsity of a large society (e.g. the Internet).

michaelochurch 14y ago

Notifying their family or friends is counterproductive - they have been programmed to treat their predator as a victim and will attack you as well, multiplying the threat. A large percentage of stalkers believe they are being stalked by their target. They interpret every interaction (or lack thereof) with this person, no matter how mundane, in the context of this illusory and perverse relationship existing in the stalker's mind. One terrifying thing is that, when a man has a well-liked female stalker (and in many places, a woman just has to be attractive to be well-liked) she often succeeds in destroying his reputation. There has to be a social power differential (teacher / student) or the man is likely to come out ruined, because of the behaviors OP describes.

vorg 14y ago
> A large percentage of stalkers believe they are being stalked by their target. A large percentage of stalkers believe they themselves are being stalked because they are, but by someone other than their target. They don't know who's stalking them, and are reciprocating, but towards a different target they themselves have chosen. There's a difference in personality between stalkers who keep themselves well hidden, and those who are unafraid to reveal themselves. > stalking tends to come from the extremes of the popularity spectrum, not the middle of the curve, and those two extremes tend to produce different patterns of stalking. In your other comment on this submission, you described both types of stalker in the context of female-on-male stalking, but it applies more generally in society. You called the form that comes from those high on the social spectrum as "less common", but it's simply _more hidden_. Stalking is a many-layered social structure, with the sociopathic types at the top pulling the strings of the schizophrenic types at the bottom, often with one or two layers of other people in between. The sociopathic types who keep themselves hidden watch others in order to change win-win relationships into win-lose relationships. The more recognizable schizophrenic types react to these win-lose relationships by changing them into lose-lose relationships. If we talk about how to handle the schizophrenic type of stalker without talking about the sociopathic type, we're simply targeting a symptom without looking at the cause. Behind every wacko hellbent on ruining their prey is a scheming business manager protecting their business interests at all costs, or a listening functionary doing what it takes to get their kids an education in a Western country.

gosu 14y ago

A mentally ill person - even one who is criminally so - is still a person, and not "the animal". Maybe you're just trying to hammer home the predator/hunt thing, but it still sounds really wrong to me. Whatever bad thing happened to you, don't let it corrupt your own sense of humanity.

cantankerous 14y ago
It's easy to say that from the sidelines. I think it's a small price to pay for maintaining your sanity while its under siege by a mentally ill person. So long as you're not harming anybody, who cares how you frame your aggressor?
- vacri 14y ago
  Framing them in an appropriate way is significant. Framing them as a mentally ill person can help you cope with what's going on, because it helps you understand what's happening. And while it's not nice, humans deal much better with things that they think they understand (cf: origins of religions) Framing them as a cunning predator that can strike mysteriously and who knows where the next attack vector is, well, that's just feeding the paranoia - and playing into their hands. Besides, if your goal is to react as encouraged above and remain as dispassionate as possible, framing them as mentally ill helps put you in a mood of pity (or even compassion), whereas framing them as an animal suggests that they must have battle done to them. EDIT: Not to mention just the basic humanity of seeing humans as people who can have problems, instead of simply writing off people wholesale if they take a wrong turn.
  - illuminate 14y ago
    "Framing them as a cunning predator that can strike mysteriously and who knows where the next attack vector is, well, that's just feeding the paranoia - and playing into their hands." But it's true, in a way. You can't really assume much about the limits of a person who's willing to take their own life down to assume control over yours.
jpxxx 14y ago