Narcissists' Niche & US Demise: How Political Witch-hunts Damage the Union

[Silhouette]

..I think this phenomenon is behind the chronic nihilism in the populace of the US. Nihilism breeds apathy. Apathy is bad for unity, for productivity and for overall wellbeing. Apathy leads to indigency, crime and expensive behaviors of all kinds. Will we continue to nurture a malignant culture of narcissism and calculated career-sabotage? Or will be be a nation of altruism, common sense, decency and due process?
It isn't an exaggeration to say then, that if we made avid attempts to eradicate political witch hunts, forbid them in the media until after the accused has gone through a trial and been convicted, or severly limit any speech that insinuates guilt or grave wrongdoing until after a trial, AND we learn to spot and weed out narcissists early in the political process, we could cure most of the ills currently plaguing this country.

It's certainly a nice thought, but I don't know how it's done. When you say "forbid" them, how would that be done, precisely?
The only way I see this happening, or for the narcissists to be marginalized, is if enough leaders (from all walks of life) lead a charge in demanding more honest, principled behavior from the media and from politicians. How would THAT be done? Beats the hell out of me.
.

Well a lawsuit or seven for starters. I think if governor McDonnell was acquitted as the 44 AGs are urging, he should sue any media personality who was engaging in "walking the fine line" on slander. I think one or two crossed that line. You send a message to the media talking heads that outright slander before a conviction will not be tolerated, set a threshold, a legal one, for "witch-huntery"...or "The witch-hunting statute" where one cannot use free speech in a media type setting (with access to major viewers as a slandering-stump) specifically to pre-emptively whip up a lynch mob or "already-convicted perception" of the target.

Something along those lines to both protect free speech, but to draw a clear line where the use of it on mass media to destroy someone's career before there is due process (including appeal time), would constitute malicious and harmful slander. Prescribe a litany of damages that could be awarded to the party that prevails. That type of thing?

As to narcissists, it's easier than you think to spot them if you are familiar with their quirks of behavior. Like I said in the OP, paramount of that is when you confront them and catch them off guard about a transgression, doesn't even have to be earth shattering or grave, they'll look you straight in the eye and tell you that it doesn't matter, you're imagining it etc. and then they'll come after you in a very nasty and confrontational way to smear you for even bringing it up.

If someone does that and exhibits no humble behavior or alarm, that person is a reptile and must not rise to the position of a public servant. For a narcissist serves only one person and it surely is not the general public.

The formula would be:

1. Catch the aspiring politician off guard.

2. Ask about a transgression that is known in their past.

3. Pay keen attention to body language/reactive pose.

4. If humble or embarassed, sweating, red in the face, any of these signs, the person is human and can submit to checks and balances.

5. If arrogant, unflinching, cool and launching an immediate smear upon their interview, red flag..

 

[HenryBHough]

Surrender to what?

Anything larger than a Yorkshire Terrier. Though Mexican Terrorists, aka Chihuahua puppies, are to be feared despite their size.

 

[Mac1958]

It's certainly a nice thought, but I don't know how it's done. When you say "forbid" them, how would that be done, precisely?

The only way I see this happening, or for the narcissists to be marginalized, is if enough leaders (from all walks of life) lead a charge in demanding more honest, principled behavior from the media and from politicians. How would THAT be done? Beats the hell out of me.

.

Well a lawsuit or seven for starters. I think if governor McDonnell was acquitted as the 44 AGs are urging, he should sue any media personality who was engaging in "walking the fine line" on slander. I think one or two crossed that line. You send a message to the media talking heads that outright slander before a conviction will not be tolerated, set a threshold, a legal one, for "witch-huntery"...or "The witch-hunting statute" where one cannot use free speech in a media type setting (with access to major viewers as a slandering-stump) specifically to pre-emptively whip up a lynch mob or "already-convicted perception" of the target.

Something along those lines to both protect free speech, but to draw a clear line where the use of it on mass media to destroy someone's career before there is due process (including appeal time), would constitution malicious and harmful slander. Prescribe a litany of damages that could be awarded to the party that prevails. That type of thing?

Boy, this is a difficult topic for me. I'm a passionate, psychotic, virulent, somewhat partially insane freedom of expression purist. I'm willing to make the "fire in a crowded theater"-type exception, but I start getting hives much beyond that.

Now, to your point - there may be some middle ground coming from the libel/slander approach, where a person tells a straight-up lie about someone, which is such a popular strategy of the partisans. So for example, if I say that you said X, perhaps I should be able to prove that you actually freaking said it.

Personally - and I know this most likely a pipe dream - I'd prefer to see us do this organically, through the culture, raising standards and expectations of public discourse as a society. Part of that would require partisans from the same side calling each other out on lies and expecting more.

I dunno. It may come to what you're talking about, though.

.

 

[Silhouette]

..Personally - and I know this most likely a pipe dream - I'd prefer to see us do this organically, through the culture, raising standards and expectations of public discourse as a society. Part of that would require partisans from the same side calling each other out on lies and expecting more.

I dunno. It may come to what you're talking about, though.

.

Right, well I don't think that's going to happen.. No kumbaya is going to stop this runaway freight train in time (see the bit on page 1 about the Russians and Chinese drooling)..

I'm loathe to put shackles on free speech. But the media has to be responsible in direct proportion to their ability to whip up public sentiments into "lynch mob" levels. Like if you have a certain number of viewers on prime time, you can't just use that stump to wantonly eviscerate someone before they've had due process.

 

[Mac1958]

..Personally - and I know this most likely a pipe dream - I'd prefer to see us do this organically, through the culture, raising standards and expectations of public discourse as a society. Part of that would require partisans from the same side calling each other out on lies and expecting more.

I dunno. It may come to what you're talking about, though.

.

Right, well I don't think that's going to happen.. No kumbaya is going to stop this runaway freight train in time (see the bit on page 1 about the Russians and Chinese drooling)..

I'm loathe to put shackles on free speech. But the media has to be responsible in direct proportion to their ability to whip up public sentiments into "lynch mob" levels. Like if you have a certain number of viewers on prime time, you can't just use that stump to wantonly eviscerate someone before they've had due process.

I can see a ton of potential problems with trying to quantify ethical behavior, i.e., the guy with 2 million viewers can't say this but the guy with 1.8 million viewers can, that kind of thing. A tighter leash on libel/slander law may be the only way to equitably do that.

A goddamn shame we're even in this situation.

.

 

[Silhouette]

I can see a ton of potential problems with trying to quantify ethical behavior, i.e., the guy with 2 million viewers can't say this but the guy with 1.8 million viewers can, that kind of thing. A tighter leash on libel/slander law may be the only way to equitably do that.

A goddamn shame we're even in this situation.

.

I know. I don't have all the answers but I feel like this really is a root problem for the continued preservation of the Union. The issue is reaching a critical mass; a thing our enemies are most certainly drooling over. Critical mass issues shouldn't step on the toes of rights to free speech, but they must be addressed if the Union is threatened.

I'm open to practical (not gee can't we all just get along?) legal solutions to curb the plague. It's nice chatting with someone who isn't calling me a bigot every third word. Had to compliment you on that.

 

[Mac1958]

I can see a ton of potential problems with trying to quantify ethical behavior, i.e., the guy with 2 million viewers can't say this but the guy with 1.8 million viewers can, that kind of thing. A tighter leash on libel/slander law may be the only way to equitably do that.

A goddamn shame we're even in this situation.

.

I know. I don't have all the answers but I feel like this really is a root problem for the continued preservation of the Union. The issue is reaching a critical mass; a thing our enemies are most certainly drooling over. Critical mass issues shouldn't step on the toes of rights to free speech, but they must be addressed if the Union is threatened.

I'm open to practical (not gee can't we all just get along?) legal solutions to curb the plague. It's nice chatting with someone who isn't calling me a bigot every third word. Had to compliment you on that.

Same here. Seriously, it's getting tougher and tougher to have a civil, adult conversation around here.

.

 

[Silhouette]

The witch hunting continues. I turn on the tube and each day there is some other politician being served with an idictment. The British, French, Canadians and others watch with their jaws on the ground in awe. They can scarcely imagine with all the complexities of governing, how we can get a single thing done when all we have are narsos running the fort and half of them being indicted every year on everything from serious offenses to receiving a pack of bubble gum without declaring it.