79% of stalkers are people the victim knows [1]- not parasocial famous relationships. Of parasocial stalkers, erotomanic is most common: men who have power and wealth and older than the stalker are the common victims. Erotomaniacs tend to be women from lower socio-economic classes, as I said in my other comment—I would guess that this means they have less access to mental health support, may in fact be victims of domestic violence of some sort, have low self-confidence or control over their own lives which leads them to project fantasies onto someone, such as David Letterman, whom she might see every night from the television in her home, while she is drifting off to sleep.
Stalkers tend to be crazy people
I think that’s unnecessarily dehumanizing and doesn’t cut at the joints of reality because ignores a huge body of research that does in fact tell us about the various different types of stalking profiles and what precipitates them. Most stalkers are motivated by personal connection, not fame—tiny or otherwise—at all. I elaborate on that in this comment. Those who are motivated by fame it is not “tiny fame” but repeat exposure, usually by the media, that amplifies relevance to the stalker. Not a “tiny bit of fame.”
79% of victims were acquainted with their pursuer (N = 62), and half of all stalking emerged specifically from romantic relationships (M = 49%, N = 53). (meta-analysis of 175 studies)
The state of the art of stalking: Taking stock of the emerging literature. Brian H. Spitzberg. William R. Cupach.
79% of stalkers are people the victim knows [1]- not parasocial famous relationships.
But that’s not relevant to what we’re discussing here, which is the scenario where someone acquires a stalker (or multiple stalkers) as a consequence of publicly revealing things about themselves (“coming out”).
Of parasocial stalkers, erotomanic is most common: men who have power and wealth and older than the stalker are the common victims. Erotomaniacs tend to be women from lower socio-economic classes, as I said in my other comment—
Seems plausible.
Stalkers tend to be crazy people
I think that’s unnecessarily dehumanizing and doesn’t cut at the joints of reality because ignores a huge body of research that does in fact tell us about the various different types of stalking profiles and what precipitates them.
The “huge body of research” tells us that stalkers tend to be crazy people.
There’s nothing “dehumanizing” about that. Crazy people are people, i.e., humans. They’re not aliens, robots, animals, inanimate objects, etc. But they’re still crazy. (And we’re not talking about, like, depression, anxiety disorders, autism, etc.; stalkers—particularly “parasocial stalkers”, as you aptly put it—are crazy in an absolutely central sense of the word.)
But that’s not relevant to what we’re discussing here, which is the scenario where someone acquires a stalker (or multiple stalkers) as a consequence of publicly revealing things about themselves (“coming out”).
A scenario which is statistically unlikely. Not all 21% of non-personal stalkers are triggered by a single internet post. For example, erotomaniacs, most of them fixate on people who are famous.
Can you point to even a single instance of a “confessional” “out of the closet blog post” causing someone to become a stalker with no prior personal contact, and the person who wrote the blog post not having a previous history of revealing things about their life.
There’s nothing “dehumanizing” about that
The dictionary definition of dehumanizing is “To deprive of human qualities such as individuality, [1]compassion, or civility.”—whenever you dismiss a large group of people as “crazy” you are depriving them of their individuality, therefore dehumanize them. I think my assessment was correct.
And the research shows that most people who seek out information on someone have a preexisting relationship with them, a smaller group become fixated on famous people—neither conform to a single “out of the closet” post.
Cambridge Dictionary: “to remove from a person the special human qualities of independent thought...” Merriam-Webster: “To address or portray (someone) in a way that obscures or demeans that person’s humanity or individuality”
Can you point to even a single instance of a “confessional” “out of the closet blog post” causing someone to become a stalker with no prior personal contact, and the person who wrote the blog post not having a previous history of revealing things about their life.
Of course not, but how likely is that? Take the post that we’re commenting under. Can John be described as someone who just wrote one blog post about himself, and has no prior history of revealing things about his life, and has no other claim to fame at all? No, none of those things are true.
And this is going to be the norm. Nobody’s just writing one blog post where they say “btw here is a fact about me” and otherwise it’s radio silence.
It’s very easy, these days, to gain enough internet fame to acquire stalkers. A bit of social media activity / blogging / other forms of poasting, a few of people talk about you a few times, and bam—you’re there.
The dictionary definition of dehumanizing is “To deprive of human qualities such as individuality, [1]compassion, or civility.”—whenever you dismiss a large group of people as “crazy” you are depriving them of their individuality, therefore dehumanize them. I think my assessment was correct.
Seems like a fully general argument against ever describing anyone as being crazy. I reject it.
Some people are crazy. “Parasocial stalkers” usually are. That’s facts.
It’s very easy, these days, to gain enough internet fame to acquire stalkers. A bit of social media activity / blogging / other forms of poasting, a few of people talk about you a few times, and bam—you’re there.
No it’s not easy to gain internet fame. I know. I’ve tried it.
Some people are crazy. “Parasocial stalkers” usually are. That’s facts.
What is a fact exactly, what specifically do you mean by they are “crazy”? Why is that the most unambiguous word you can think of?
No it’s not easy to gain internet fame. I know. I’ve tried it.
I don’t know what to tell you; I’ve tried it too, and it’s pretty easy.
What is a fact exactly, what specifically do you mean by they are “crazy”?
Regular, ordinary-person meaning of the word.
Why is that the most unambiguous word you can think of?
Well, now, this is a new complaint. Is it the most unambiguous word I can think of? Maybe, maybe not. I don’t make that claim.
But it is a perfectly ordinary, straightforward word, which conveys my meaning.
Anyhow, I’m done litigating my word choice here. I don’t believe that you don’t know what I mean, so this isn’t about ambiguity or a failure to communicate.
79% of stalkers are people the victim knows [1]- not parasocial famous relationships. Of parasocial stalkers, erotomanic is most common: men who have power and wealth and older than the stalker are the common victims. Erotomaniacs tend to be women from lower socio-economic classes, as I said in my other comment—I would guess that this means they have less access to mental health support, may in fact be victims of domestic violence of some sort, have low self-confidence or control over their own lives which leads them to project fantasies onto someone, such as David Letterman, whom she might see every night from the television in her home, while she is drifting off to sleep.
I think that’s unnecessarily dehumanizing and doesn’t cut at the joints of reality because ignores a huge body of research that does in fact tell us about the various different types of stalking profiles and what precipitates them. Most stalkers are motivated by personal connection, not fame—tiny or otherwise—at all. I elaborate on that in this comment. Those who are motivated by fame it is not “tiny fame” but repeat exposure, usually by the media, that amplifies relevance to the stalker. Not a “tiny bit of fame.”
79% of victims were acquainted with their pursuer (N = 62), and half of all stalking emerged specifically from romantic relationships (M = 49%, N = 53). (meta-analysis of 175 studies)
The state of the art of stalking: Taking stock of the emerging literature. Brian H. Spitzberg. William R. Cupach.
But that’s not relevant to what we’re discussing here, which is the scenario where someone acquires a stalker (or multiple stalkers) as a consequence of publicly revealing things about themselves (“coming out”).
Seems plausible.
The “huge body of research” tells us that stalkers tend to be crazy people.
There’s nothing “dehumanizing” about that. Crazy people are people, i.e., humans. They’re not aliens, robots, animals, inanimate objects, etc. But they’re still crazy. (And we’re not talking about, like, depression, anxiety disorders, autism, etc.; stalkers—particularly “parasocial stalkers”, as you aptly put it—are crazy in an absolutely central sense of the word.)
A scenario which is statistically unlikely. Not all 21% of non-personal stalkers are triggered by a single internet post. For example, erotomaniacs, most of them fixate on people who are famous.
Can you point to even a single instance of a “confessional” “out of the closet blog post” causing someone to become a stalker with no prior personal contact, and the person who wrote the blog post not having a previous history of revealing things about their life.
The dictionary definition of dehumanizing is “To deprive of human qualities such as individuality, [1]compassion, or civility.”—whenever you dismiss a large group of people as “crazy” you are depriving them of their individuality, therefore dehumanize them. I think my assessment was correct.
And the research shows that most people who seek out information on someone have a preexisting relationship with them, a smaller group become fixated on famous people—neither conform to a single “out of the closet” post.
Cambridge Dictionary: “to remove from a person the special human qualities of independent thought...”
Merriam-Webster: “To address or portray (someone) in a way that obscures or demeans that person’s humanity or individuality”
Of course not, but how likely is that? Take the post that we’re commenting under. Can John be described as someone who just wrote one blog post about himself, and has no prior history of revealing things about his life, and has no other claim to fame at all? No, none of those things are true.
And this is going to be the norm. Nobody’s just writing one blog post where they say “btw here is a fact about me” and otherwise it’s radio silence.
It’s very easy, these days, to gain enough internet fame to acquire stalkers. A bit of social media activity / blogging / other forms of poasting, a few of people talk about you a few times, and bam—you’re there.
Seems like a fully general argument against ever describing anyone as being crazy. I reject it.
Some people are crazy. “Parasocial stalkers” usually are. That’s facts.
No it’s not easy to gain internet fame. I know. I’ve tried it.
What is a fact exactly, what specifically do you mean by they are “crazy”? Why is that the most unambiguous word you can think of?
I don’t know what to tell you; I’ve tried it too, and it’s pretty easy.
Regular, ordinary-person meaning of the word.
Well, now, this is a new complaint. Is it the most unambiguous word I can think of? Maybe, maybe not. I don’t make that claim.
But it is a perfectly ordinary, straightforward word, which conveys my meaning.
Anyhow, I’m done litigating my word choice here. I don’t believe that you don’t know what I mean, so this isn’t about ambiguity or a failure to communicate.