I know it's been said before but: if Chris or other Andy stans have sat down and seriously read through Andy's well documented history (i.e. the amazingly thorough Google doc link collation) how could they come the conclusion he's a misrepresented innocent victim? Has Andy somehow stopped them going online and doing their own digging?
Manipulation, and carefully rewriting history wherein Andy makes it less about his abuse and more about 'Oh woe! I was a mentally ill babe in the woods, taken advantage of by adults when I didn't know better and was mentally ill and needed help!' That's how.
Yeah, I guess that it must be *somewhat* easy to dismiss a bunch of evidence on the internet if you've already been primed to see it through a lens of: bitter ex and pitchfork mob stirring up wank. But still...the online records are consistent and generally unequivocal wheras Andy actually changes his self serving narrative as the wind blows.
But then, I've been watching this car crash since tentmoot, so it's hard to imagine coming upon the edifice of info as it stands, with a primer from the man himself.
Yeah but that takes time to absorb and time to think about it rationally without someone whispering in your ear that this is all a concerted effort by a bitter ex and a pitchfork mob.
Chris seems to actually calm down a moment, on occasion, and admit that ok, yeah, that's not good and doesn't match what he's being told by Andy. Radio silence for a bit. Then suddenly he bursts back on scene, delusional thinking renewed and doubled down.
He may claim he's manipulation proof, but watching this scene play out again and again shows otherwise.
I think this is what I get stuck on. Andy isn't constantly there *physically* to whisper in their ear and direct their browsing so I have trouble envisaging the sustainable level of buying into his narrative that must be maintained in his absence.
But of course, I'm admittedly a distant anon watching all this unfold online. ...(Albeit, one who's had the experience of waking up from the gaslighting of a narcissistic abuser once I got out of their *exhausting and numbing* physical presence. Just adding this to say I fully appreciate the insidious nature of people who want to get into your mind and mess with your perceptions and self-will).
DA (who happens to be fascinated by con artists and the psychology of people vulnerable to con artists)
The funny thing is, Chris' self-image is what makes him especially vulnerable - he's basically the ideal mark, one who is so certain that he'd never fall for a con that once he has fallen for it he'll subconsciously protect himself from that self-shattering knowledge and deny, deny, deny. Many con artists are able to go back to the same victims multiple times because of this - what better way to convince yourself you COULDN'T have fallen for a scam by doubling down on your "investment?"
Chris might not even need that much nudging from Andy - he's so invested in himself as "manipulation-proof" that he's incentivized to continue to buy in to those manipulations as truth. Avoiding future manipulation from Andy would require him to admit that he isn't manipulation-proof, and in fact has been manipulated many times in the past.
This makes a lot of sense! Andy stans must be getting some emotional gratification or reward. Or are at least dodging uncomfortable self assessment. Or both. Of course Andy chases narcissistic supply and avoids introspection on a much magnified scale.
AYRT The problem with that line of thinking is you don't take into account the victim's emotional needs. It's why I always say that the stereotype of victims being stupid is outmoded and should die. Victims can be very intelligent (look at Abbey, very smart woman).
What a con artist like Andy looks for is emotional needs. Most of us have them, we're all human. Andy finds what that need is and exploits it, and that's clearly what he's done with Chris. And once a con artist has your number, it's not hard to keep hustling you.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2018-06-27 05:02 pm (UTC)(link)I know it's been said before but: if Chris or other Andy stans have sat down and seriously read through Andy's well documented history (i.e. the amazingly thorough Google doc link collation) how could they come the conclusion he's a misrepresented innocent victim?
Has Andy somehow stopped them going online and doing their own digging?
no subject
(Anonymous) 2018-06-27 05:08 pm (UTC)(link)no subject
(Anonymous) 2018-06-27 06:25 pm (UTC)(link)But still...the online records are consistent and generally unequivocal wheras Andy actually changes his self serving narrative as the wind blows.
But then, I've been watching this car crash since tentmoot, so it's hard to imagine coming upon the edifice of info as it stands, with a primer from the man himself.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2018-06-27 07:17 pm (UTC)(link)Chris seems to actually calm down a moment, on occasion, and admit that ok, yeah, that's not good and doesn't match what he's being told by Andy. Radio silence for a bit. Then suddenly he bursts back on scene, delusional thinking renewed and doubled down.
He may claim he's manipulation proof, but watching this scene play out again and again shows otherwise.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2018-06-27 07:37 pm (UTC)(link)I think this is what I get stuck on. Andy isn't constantly there *physically* to whisper in their ear and direct their browsing so I have trouble envisaging the sustainable level of buying into his narrative that must be maintained in his absence.
But of course, I'm admittedly a distant anon watching all this unfold online.
...(Albeit, one who's had the experience of waking up from the gaslighting of a narcissistic abuser once I got out of their *exhausting and numbing* physical presence. Just adding this to say I fully appreciate the insidious nature of people who want to get into your mind and mess with your perceptions and self-will).
no subject
(Anonymous) 2018-06-27 07:42 pm (UTC)(link)The funny thing is, Chris' self-image is what makes him especially vulnerable - he's basically the ideal mark, one who is so certain that he'd never fall for a con that once he has fallen for it he'll subconsciously protect himself from that self-shattering knowledge and deny, deny, deny. Many con artists are able to go back to the same victims multiple times because of this - what better way to convince yourself you COULDN'T have fallen for a scam by doubling down on your "investment?"
Chris might not even need that much nudging from Andy - he's so invested in himself as "manipulation-proof" that he's incentivized to continue to buy in to those manipulations as truth. Avoiding future manipulation from Andy would require him to admit that he isn't manipulation-proof, and in fact has been manipulated many times in the past.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2018-06-27 08:44 pm (UTC)(link)Andy stans must be getting some emotional gratification or reward. Or are at least dodging uncomfortable self assessment. Or both.
Of course Andy chases narcissistic supply and avoids introspection on a much magnified scale.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2018-06-27 10:16 pm (UTC)(link)What a con artist like Andy looks for is emotional needs. Most of us have them, we're all human. Andy finds what that need is and exploits it, and that's clearly what he's done with Chris. And once a con artist has your number, it's not hard to keep hustling you.