Projection, Paranoia, and Moral Objectivism.

There are few things more irritating, no, infuriating than being told what one’s motives are by people who haven’t the first idea about what you do and who you are asa a person. Imagine then my disgust, when a group leader of a parent group I had been invited to, that I had visited daily and contributed to online when I had time, and am friends with many of the members of a group which aims to promote inclusiveness, but in no uncertain terms has told me I have no right to talk about the group and should not even care because I have never benefitted from the group (isn’t that for me to decide?). The real grating issue is that it’s something we bloggers and activists come across everyday.

The ‘why do you even care?‘ meme -apathy begets apathy – is not even a question. It’s a derailing tactic used by those with no real interest in a rational discussion, who have already decided they are absolutely right, and that they want you to stop talking so their illusions about you wont be challenged or even broken. Its not that they particularly care or don’t either. They have merely imagined a scenario, decided on how they feel about it and convinced themselves that their way is the only correct way to deal with it. As my friend and fellow opinionated-pain-in-the-bum, (I say opinionated, but everyone has opinions on something, if they say they don’t they’re liars) Reap Paden, points out: ‘everyone thinks that everyone else should react exactly the same as they do’. This is called projection and it’s something we need to be conscious of and avoid doing. Why? Because it’s really annoying and rude, that’s why!! This attitude is also known as ‘moral objectivism’ and a socially acceptable in only the views of Ayn Rand fans.

“Angela Claisse
Apr 25, 2012 @ 21:16:32 [Edit]

Anna, you have never been to our group and have never commented on our group’s facebook page, so I find this blog of yours quite bizarre to be honest with you. Why do you care so much about a group ending that you have never attended and have never benefitted from? It seems you are just looking for an argument and were trying to rile up our group members with your negative comments. You can’t argue this matter by saying it’s because you ‘care’ – you don’t. You just want a juicy bit of gossip for your latest blog!

You were not in the room when the closure of the group was being discussed during our parents forum meeting, nor do you know the full reasons why we have been asked to end our group, so please keep your ‘views’ about this to yourself. No one is asking you not to ‘care’, the council are not trying to ‘silence’ you and it is not a form of ‘censorship’. Karen and I as facilitators of this group are simply asking you to not use our group as an example for your ‘blog’. In future, maybe you will think about resourcing your ‘blog’ material from areas and issues that DO directly affect you.”

Yes it is censorship, because it was demanded that I take down every thing I posted about the group, they did not ask me not to use the group as an example for my blog – which I wasn’t doing; I was trying to raise awareness and had been asked to share the comment.   What I write on here is my decision, not theirs but this is irrelevant because she has conveniently chosen to ignore the fact that I asked permission to share the comment on my blog as a good means of circulation of that information.   I cannot attend the sessions as they clash with my son’s playschool. Not being a driver and the centre being more than a mile from the play school, my hands are tied. I don’t have inexhaustible funds to spend on buses. Apparently, this renders me incapable of genuine concern about a vital source of support for local mums, and unqualified to express any view on the social efficacy of such groups regardless of my position.  This leaves the groundless accusation that all my suggestions for possible ways to  save the group are ‘negative’ and that I was only there on the page to cynically there to gather hot gossip for this blog.  I think she would have preferred it if I HAD been ‘negative’ about the group; it might have given her a genuine reason to complain about me.  Considering the closing statement of the comment, if she’d actually read any of my other posts she’d know they rarely focus on me. I’ve left the facebook section now too now because I can anticipate sarcastic and snide comments being made on everything I post and if everything I post is now going be haunted by a paranoid neurotic, I can’t see it  being helpful anymore.  This isn’t the ethos of the group as a whole, this is the attitude of one person who has decided that they dislike me and is plainly miffed that obvoiusly I don’t care about being ‘liked’ if it means sitting by and doing or saying nothing when I know I can help.  She has conspicuously not been able to give any concrete examples of exactly how my comments have ‘negative’.  her accusations are based on more groundless assumptions about me.

“All it takes for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing.” Albert Camus

She knows nothing about me, she hasn’t ever attempted to interact with me, every comment I make is taken as negative and argumentative. She hasn’t even asked what my kids names are, or why I cannot attend the meetings, she has just assumed I haven’t been going because I can’t be bothered. She doesn’t actually seem to care about how it is her attitude toward me which is negative, not really. Let’s not let the facts get in the way of a good rant, after all.  All she knows about me is that I have a blog, that I’m open and candid with my views -I don’t see the point in pretending I’m someone I’m not – and that seems to be enough for her to draw every unflattering conclusion under the sun about me and then launch into a diatribe about not having the right to comment and inferring that she thinks this blog is no more than a grubby gossip column,  that I’m such an awful person that all I really want is gossip for this. Hah, that’s news to me! It would be pathetic if the accusation wasn’t so funny and she if wasn’t displaying her ignorance about me as obviously as she is about my blog. Just because I have not been attending the sessions in person does not mean I have not benefitted from the group in general. Does this mean that while I remained mostly an observer I am ‘unqualified to comment‘, she however, feels she has both the right and qualification to decree to me not only what sort of person I am but dictate how and in what form someone can benefit from the group and then tell me what I can write on my blog? Surely that’s for me to decide?

The self-centeredness she has exhibited in her comment to me has frankly appalled me and is not the attitude I would expect from a leader of a group such as Little Acorns. If she doesn’t care about that which doesn’t touch her (this country’s whole problem if you ask me), that’s her prerogative, but she has no right do decide what can be cared about by whom. As people who read this blog know, I’m deeply invested and involved in raising awareness for Responsible Charity.  Its time consuming and its important but no, I cannot say it does directly benefit me. It affects me on the level of one human being’s compassion for another and I have gotten involved because its the right thing to do. If writing about the charity on here means free publicity for Hemley and the others, and its what I can do then it’s what I will do. According to the ‘why do you care?‘ meme, I shouldn’t even think of it.  If the founder accepted the help of only those he felt benefited from the charity (pretty much the Church’s attitude) or those he felt were affected by certain issues, his work and efforts, how effective would the charity be? If the founder had cared only for his own immediate needs and benefits, the wonderful work this charity has done and is still doing (at present, raising funds and setting up a school for the slum children in Calcutta) would never have happened and nor would the millions of other causes and civil rights movements over time; the end of appartied, the end of the slave trade, the fall of the Berlin wall, votes for women, to name a few. They weren’t just run by people who had something to gain by it, people got involved because they cared.

And that is the point of this post. Not only to answer that her assertion that I had not benefitted from the group, and that what I should care and write about is not her decision to make, but to question how she feels she knows ‘who I am’ when she said herself that she wouldn’t know me from Doris. In that nominal ignorance (I stress nominal as she is merely not in possession of the facts) she can say within a 99% – nothing is certain- surety, what my motives are, and why I went on the Facebook group in the first place. Who among us can honestly say that about anybody, even about people we DO know? Her prejudice against me is (as all prejudice is) based on ignorance.

She has also projected her attitude onto me based upon her own posting habits. It may well be the only group she’s involved with so has time to spend considerable efforts on it. I would not presume to speak for how much time she has to run it and post in it, any more than she should be passing judgement on my posting habits. When I have some thing to post I post it on my wall or in the relevant group and I’m involved in many. I don’t write about me for a reason: I don’t think the humdrum of my everyday life would be particularly interesting to most people outside my immediate family.  If I wanted a journal, I would keep a journal and I certainly would not publish it for all to see.  What am I doing when my children are sleeping? I am studying. When they are awake, my attention is on them. Not that I need to justify myself to anyone, but I would not say that any physical lack of time to involve myself in lengthy facebook threads – I read them even if i don’t comment – or attend a group disqualifies me from holding a view about a public service which should not be arbitrarily closed down or changed to fit the social model of the upper-class idiot in charge, who has never struggled for anything for a day in his life.  I still think she should rethink how she has spoken to someone who took time away from something important (yes, my degree coursework is important) to help and raise awareness. The question isn’t why I care, it’s why I shouldn’t.


8 thoughts on “Projection, Paranoia, and Moral Objectivism.

  1. Debbie Crosfield says:

    While I understand the need to air policial views Anna I do think that this could air on the side of bullying, and indeed slander. You really do have to be careful what you say in print as in case law of slander the written word is all the evidence people need. Of course we all have the right to free speech but you were thoughtful enough to ask if you could blog about the group so surely to save a group you clearly want to help then taking down the above will help that. If this was the breast feeding group which helped you and you made good friends with was closing in fact if the whole centre closed we would all be without a place to meet each other. You are now on a personal crusade to victimise one person because she has freedom of speech the one thing you beleive in and only wants to help mums out there who dont want to be stuck at home. I have met you once and I thought you were a really nice person but your blog does not seem to show you in this light at all what a shame! As I said becareful what you say the written word is a powerful one and legally words can amount to assult.R v Wilson [1955] 1 WLR 493 (Case summary), it was stated obiter that words could amount to an assault.


    • Now read what she’s been writing to me, starting with the slanderous assertion about my motives for being in the facebook group which I was invited to.

      Freedom of speech works both ways, and she has every right to be rude as she likes to me even in public as she has been. This is a common attitude I come up against when blogging; the ‘why do you care?’ attittude and derailing meme, is appallingly common. She doesn’t have the right to demand that I remove evidence of that rudeness (see previous post)-as if it is then magically unsaid- and then accuse me of twisting it all to suit me after a threat like the one she made. I have said nothing that isn’t true and it is backed by the evidence of her own comments (in which she has contradicted herself several times and lied about demanding her comments be removed) and accusations. Slander is spoken words and it has to be false.

      If you interpret my refusal to bow down to her demands and my candid interpretation of those comments as bullying, it is up to you. If anyone is acting like a bully its her with her threats and accusations about me. What is bullying about questioning what she said to me? Am I supposed to meekly sit by and take it as she dishes out threats, abuse and accusations then obediently do as she orders? If she does think that shes going to be disappointed. How does she so intimately know my motives when she has admitted she knows nothing about me and why am I not qualified to defend a valauble group and be indignant when its members are summarily silenced on the matter, while she seems to have taken on the role of publuc judge, jury and executioner on the character of someone she has never met? I am with in my rights to question and answer, in as much depth as I see fit, what is said to me in my blog. If she doesn’t like it, she should be more careful about what she writes in public, because nothing is immune to criticism.

      Very few people understand what freedom really means. Freedom of speech means that she may say what she likes but must also put up with the consequences of her words and cannot expect someone else to just make them go away for her; least of all the person she said them too. Say I had deleted all her comments for good and she had decided to carry out her little treat of slander anyway, where would that leave me? I hadn’t seen her threat when I first wiped the comments, when I did, I reinstated them to protect myself as I am also within my rights to do, and her own comments put the lie to it her accusations. If she didn’t want to be seen as acting like a petulant child in public she shouldn’t have written what she did. I will not be responding to any more of her comments, but she is welcome to carry on posting if she wishes, but they will be staying public.

      I’m doing nothing to make her look ridiculous, she is doing that all by herself.


  2. Angela says:

    Thank you for deleting my comments Anna – now please can you delete the section of this blog with my comment and name that you have copied. Thank you


    • So you can conveniently erase how rude you have been? Forget it! I will not be removing the comments you have left here in public. I was merely interpreting your comments and writing about why that behaviour is unacceptable. You have been extremely rude to me and I’m not going to let you just erase that so you can feel better about yourself. I have not mentioned anyone by name in my posts (other than referring to yesterday’s comment), nor have I made information available that would allow people to be tracked down, so you have no case and you are just going to have to put up with the consequences of what you have said to me in public (there is an option to email me privately, you chose not to take it). If you truly regret what you said, as you seem to but are trying to wriggle out of accepting that you are in the wrong, you need only apologise to me as publicly as you have berated me with your groundless accusations against me. Further abusive comments and threats will also be kept on file.


    • Angela says:

      It was sarcasm Anna! Yes I noticed you had decided to delete everything, then obviously decided to put it all back on again as you just couldn’t help yourself. I do not give a monkeys if you want to keep my comments on here for all to see, that’s perfectly fine with me! I haven’t demanded removal of anything – just my name/info linking me to your blog! You are very good at twisting things to make them suit you, maybe you should be a politician! You obviously thrive on the attention you are getting from this. Further more, I am not in the wrong – they are my views and I don’t regret what I said to you. Keep it on here – that’s cool with me love! Oh and as for an apology – pah! You’re in for a long wait……! Wish you the best of luck with your degree.


  3. Angela says:

    Anna, I have a few choice words for you – blog on and good luck with your life. I do not want to get in to an online debate over who cares and should not care about matters that do not affect them directly. I have a family to care for and more important things to be getting on with in my life – and do not want to give you any more material for you to use in tomorrow’s blog! Thank you for spending a vast amount of time writing about me in the blog above, I’m extremely flattered that you feel my comments have made such an impact on your everyday life these past few days that you feel the need to publicise your feelings towards me by dedicating a whole blog to me. Oh, and I would also like to add that I think you’ll find that the comments you have made about me above can be seen as being slanderous, therefore allowing me to seek legal action if I deem appropriate. So at risk of incurring further onslaught from you and being branded ignorant, yet again can I please ask you to remove anything above that contains my name or details of the playgroup that I facilitate. Before you climb back on your soap box to berate me with your sentiments on ‘censorship’, I am not asking you to delete your views, just my name linking me to your views. Thank you and kind regards.


    • Yet you have time to scan through and demand removal of evidence of your own bad attitude and behaviour in public comments are erased by the person you have been hurling unfounded accusations at? It’s the behaviour in general that is the subject of my post, you chose to continue to make the example of yourself. Slander is false spoken charges. As the information in my blog is neither false, nor spoken and is coupled with the evidence of your own comments, you will be hard pressed on that one. Threats of legal action when you can’t get your way is actually behaviour typical of a control freak. Have a nice life, and create some drama elsewhere, I have no time for it.


Please also rate this post. Thanks

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s