A mob is born

Home > Evil, Human nature?, Libel > A mob is born

A mob is born

April 19, 2012 Leave a comment Go to comments

Gayatri wrote:

“I mean, do you and Keith not just get it?”

“Sean, Matthew, Bob and I have all voiced our opinion and we have all come out with the exact same observation about her behavior and yet you are at me, why? Why are you singling me out? Why can you not see that maybe what the four of us are saying might have some truth to it? Maybe there is really something wrong with her.”

It is typical for victims of abuse to find themselves accused of harassment. Keith, well aware of the narcissist’s explosive nature, questions such an assault politely and with caution:

It was never my intention to harass you. I get that you do not agree with something that I said but how does that constitute harassment? I do not see it that way, Perhaps you are right that I do not “get it.”

If four people make the “exact same observation,” then their conclusion must be right… Right?

Maybe not, if the four are narrow minded narcissists void of empathy who habitually place self interest and power before reason. People with similar thinking distortions tend to recognize each other as ‘like minded’ and bond together. As a group, they become an echo chamber; assimilating each other’s warped views and reinforcing them. Their biases and judgments of others are strengthened, along with their intolerance, aggression, and self-righteousness.

Appealing to popularity, or the fact that many people
do something, as an attempted form of validation.

This logical fallacy is called “bandwagon.”

Gayatri angrily laments not getting approval from everyone around her in her outburst of narcissistic rage and hateful assaults on another woman. She seems to take dissent as a personal insult and implies that the reason why two individuals will not join her mob, even though she confronts them with her ‘bandwagon’ validation of her contemptuous judgment, is because they do not comprehend what she regards as obvious ‘facts’ of the matter.

She offers no explanation for her aggressive, defamatory assaults. Possibly, Gayatri feared that the woman was a threat to her narcissistic supply; her position as center of attention in the group of men that she has engineered. In return for her social initiatives and flirtatious strokes to their shaky, middle-aged male egos, she expects loyalty and support without question when engaging in acts of hostility towards other women. A difference of opinion is not tolerated, and with the power to expel a member from the group, she is in a position to exert considerable control. The three men she anoints as allies and rewards with the epithet “real men,” saying they have “come out with the exact same observation,” will neither confirm or deny her derogatory claims about her current target. Not one of the four is forthcoming with what it was they agreed about; which objectionable behavior they had observed, what justification they had for bullying Gayatri’s current object of hate, or what opinion they supposedly shared about her. The answers to these questions have remained secret. Mob members will not discuss the issue of social aggression or explain why they support Gayatri’s uncivil assaults and indulge in abusive behavior of their own, so they chose the silent treatment, aka stonewalling, as their best method of dealing with the victim. If the abused woman made any complaint about their disrespect and intolerance or requested a reason for their unexplained hostility and ill-treatment, they would deny her a response and accuse her of “harassment.” With the DARVO strategy; role reversal of victim and offender, they would effectively incriminate and intimidate her and cause her more harm, including more damage to her reputation and social standing, while evading accountability for their own actions. The perfect win–lose scenario that any evil minded person would delight in.

Once again, they were in agreement. And they saw that it was good.