Log In

Home
    - Create Journal
    - Update
    - Download

LiveJournal
    - News
    - Paid Accounts
    - Contributors

Customize
    - Customize Journal
    - Create Style
    - Edit Style

Find Users
    - Random!
    - By Region
    - By Interest
    - Search

Edit ...
    - Personal Info &
      Settings
    - Your Friends
    - Old Entries
    - Your Pictures
    - Your Password

Developer Area

Need Help?
    - Lost Password?
    - Freq. Asked
      Questions
    - Support Area



vassilissa ([info]vassilissa) wrote in [info]otf_wank,
@ 2009-12-15 18:54:00


Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Satanic ritual abuse wank
I dithered about whether to put this in unfunnybusiness or here, but in the end Satanic Ritual Abuse is not real, and what the person who said it was said was so funny it belonged here.

People who blatantly deny the existence of ritual abuse after being offered solid resources to the contrary demonstrate that they don’t need evidence about its existence. Instead, when they continue to deny its existence in a seemingly obsessive manner, they are more likely trolling for new victims in hopes that responding survivors will – while more emotional – slip-up and provide vulnerable, personal information.

There you go. If you deny the existance of ritual abuse, it's because you're looking for new victims to ritually abuse.


(Read comments) - (Post a new comment)


tetradecimal
2009-12-15 09:46 pm UTC (link)
So, you're arguing that:
* it's possible that at some point, somewhere, someone might have abused a child in a ritualistic manner
* therefore, no one should dismiss claims of such abuse out of hand

But I don't think anyone is actually contradicting you. What everyone else is saying appears to be:
* SRA as the giant Satanic conspiracy does not exist
* claims of abuse, including those that involve ritualistic abuse, should be investigated

Which I think we all agree on, so... why are we arguing?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]sneer
2009-12-15 10:16 pm UTC (link)
It doesn't look to me like we all agree that it's possible that someone somewhere might have abused a child in a ritualistic manner. Or maybe I just misunderstood this.

Did I misread the part where she said "all beliefs in ritual abuse by its survivors have been traced to a suggestive and unreliable therapeutic technique known as Recovered Memory Therapy (RMT)" and "this shit did not happen?" Or her response when I pointed out that I found it very, very hard to believe that not one single solitary case of ritualistic abuse had ever been confirmed? If I did--wow, shit, I really am sorry and I'll clean that up on the way out.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]white_serpent
2009-12-15 11:03 pm UTC (link)
Yes, you did misunderstand. She is talking about the "Satanic panic," and is quoting someone else's wording exactly.

In context, it's certainly clear to me that the person she's quoting using "ritual abuse" as a shorthand for "Satanic Ritual Abuse" featuring secret conspiracies, sensationalized and causing hysteria. The two bullet points are prefaced by "the 'Satanic panic.'"

In her follow-up response to you, she once again references SRA, in caps-- which, once again, is a reference to the secret conspiracies of Satanists.

You're fighting against a strawman here.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


tetradecimal
2009-12-15 11:24 pm UTC (link)
Only [info]lady_ganesh can clear this up, but I read her post as "Essentially all" cases = all cases that she knew of and which alleged SRA, and her general "this shit did not happen" tone as probably coming off from an overall frustration with the continued low-grade "Satanic panic" that some people still cling to.

I suspect she was talking strictly about SRA and not abuse of children by individuals that does not connect to some sort of Rosemary's Baby-esque conspiracy.

I read it this way because I think if you were to ask her, "Do you think we should ignore a child who says they were abused ritualistically, or do you think we should investigate those claims?", her answer would a big fat, "INVESTIGATE."

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]lady_ganesh
2009-12-16 01:02 am UTC (link)
Yes, and thank you. I'm not sure why my follow-up comment, which, to repeat, included:

Look, we should believe kids when they say they're abused, and we should have people who know what they're doing in to help, support, and get the truth

seemed to suggest something otherwise to [info]sneer.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


tetradecimal
2009-12-16 03:11 am UTC (link)
I suspect that [info]sneer took these two parts

And your proof that it has happened is...what, exactly?

Insisting that SRA must have happened sometime, to someone is, IMO, completely unhelpful.


as saying she couldn't prove ritualistic abuse happened and otherwise marginalizing her concerns.

Small misunderstandings snowball! And now, if you'll excuse me, I need to go sing Row, Row, Row Your Boat with some Starfleet officers.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]lady_ganesh
2009-12-16 03:20 am UTC (link)
Live long and prosper!

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]nevadafighter
2009-12-16 05:51 am UTC (link)
Make sure you contemplate the meaning of the words first.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


(Read comments) -

 
   
Privacy Policy - COPPA
Legal Disclaimer - Site Map