‘Psychic’ Bilks World’s Dumbest Man Out of More Than $700K

A Manhattan “psychic” bilked a marketing executive out of more than $700,000 because he was so desperate to get a woman he’d met to love him that he fell for some of the most ridiculous cons imaginable. By his own admission, the object of his affection “didn’t want to be with me, and the girl had categorically made that clear,” but he refused to take no for an answer.

On Aug. 24, 2013, he walked across the Williamsburg Bridge and wound up in front of 253 West 43rd Street. The neon sign in the window read “Psychic.”

Ms. Delmaro greeted him and assured him that he and Michelle were “twin flames,” but that negativity was keeping them apart. “Spirits talk to me,” she said, according to the man’s statement, but there was a price. He paid her $2,500 and, after a second visit, $9,000 more.

A month later, in September, Ms. Delmaro told him she needed diamonds to protect his energy. He paid $40,064 for a ring from Tiffany’s and gave it to Ms. Delmaro, who promised he would use it as an engagement ring someday, the man said.

Michelle lived in Los Angeles. Go to her, Ms. Delmaro said.

He went. He texted Michelle. I’m on a boat, she replied, but let’s meet tomorrow.

“I was ecstatic,” he wrote. They met and talked and made plans for that night. But she backed out.

“She felt I had been acting strange,” he wrote.

Imagine that.

Ms. Delmaro told him the trouble had come from a spirit that was stalking him. She needed $28,000, then $28,000 more. Michelle had grown cold so suddenly, he thought, that the spirit explanation sounded right, and so he paid.

A month later, Ms. Delmaro suggested they perform a fake funeral ritual to make the spirit think the man was dead. Another $40,000.

When that didn’t work, Ms. Delmaro said she needed a time machine to go back and cleanse his past. When the man balked, she said a suitable watch would do the job, and gave him a list of choices. He said he selected one of the cheaper ones: a rose gold Rolex for $30,000.

In December, Ms. Delmaro said that they had to lure the spirit over a bridge of gold in the other realm, so that it would become trapped. She said $80,000 would buy an 80-mile bridge.

Sold.

Ms. Delmaro, it should be noted, promised to return most of the money when her work was done. By year’s end, the bill had reached more than $320,000.

The spirit was crossing the bridge, “albeit very slowly,” the man wrote. Then Ms. Delmaro said they needed a second bridge, for Michelle’s spirit, and it needed to be 10 miles longer than the first one.

“I thought to myself, ‘I have the money just sitting in the bank,’ ” the man wrote, paying out $90,000.

The woman he was psychically stalking had, by that point, actually died. And he still came back for more:

“Delmaro then told me she was going to reincarnate Michelle,” the man wrote. The new Michelle “wouldn’t be exactly” like the old one, but her spirit would be placed into the body of a 31-year-old woman.

One year and many payouts passed. By then, Ms. Delmaro said she was working so many hours on his behalf that she had no time to tell fortunes and was behind in the rent. He sent money — even borrowing $28,000 from a colleague that he guaranteed with his future earnings — until he finally ran out.

I’m broke, he told Ms. Delmaro after selling his car and borrowing from friends and relatives in addition to the colleague.

The new Michelle was in Los Angeles, she told him. Go find her.

He met a woman in California that Ms. Delmaro later said was the new Michelle. But the woman was 24, not 31, and Michelle did not seem to be inside her.

Go figure. After he was dead broke, he went to the police. The “psychic” is now awaiting trial. As usual, I’m of two minds on this. On the one hand, screw that psychic, she’s a fraud and should go to jail so she can’t defraud others. On the other hand, am I really supposed to feel bad for this guy? It’s bad enough that he couldn’t just take no for an answer from a woman who didn’t want to be with him, but the fact that he was dumb enough to fall for all of these scams? Caveat emptor, you idiot.

POPULAR AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Artor

    Wow! Every grifter in the world must have wet dreams about meeting someone so stupid & gullible. And rich. Or soon-to-be-formerly-rich.

  • lldayo

    What am I doing so wrong that a person this stupid can somehow have that much more money stashed away than me? I guess common sense luck?

  • macallan

    ‘Psychic’ Bilks World’s Dumbest Man Out of More Than $700K

    Where does that put him on the Staver-Klayman Scale?

  • abb3w

    @0, Ed Brayton

    On the one hand, screw that psychic, she’s a fraud and should go to jail so she can’t defraud others. On the other hand, am I really supposed to feel bad for this guy?

    Split the baby. To protect the public good the law, the state should prosecute such phoneys to disincentivize fraud; to encourage social graciousness, the schmuck should have to convince a civil jury he deserves his money back.

  • kenn

    A fool and his money are soon parted…

  • http://www.ranum.com Marcus Ranum

    The psychic is a piker compared to the Roman Catholic Church.

  • peggin

    @6, I was just thinking, how is what this psychic did any worse than when the thousands of mega-churches around the country bilk people out of thousands of dollars with a promise of eternal life?

    But I agree with Ed, I’m torn between saying that the psychic is scum and should go to jail and feeling like anyone stupid enough to fall for this kind of con job deserves to lose their money. Add in the fact that the reason the creep was going to the psychic in the first place was because he refused to take “no” for an answer, and even though I still think that psychic was scum, the idiot who lost all that money may be the scummier of the two.

  • evodevo

    He sounds like a stalker to me … glad he lost all that money.

  • Cal

    I always wonder a few things when I read these types of stories:

    1 – How could anyone believe in the whole psychic nonsense.

    2 – How does someone this stupid manage to accumulate that kind of wealth?

    When I see the things some people throw money away on it just makes me wonder what is wrong with the world that some people struggle to make ends meet and this guy has $700,000 to blow on psychic stalking a dead woman.

  • eric

    @7: I think they are notably different. The typical pass-the-collection-plate donation is understood to go for exactly what it actually buys: church maintenance and priest salary. Nobody is being tricked to give money for A when it fact it goes for B. In this case, however, it seems pretty clear that the con artist wasn’t using the funds for what she claimed she was using them for. She didn’t go purchase rare incense or other magical ingredients, she wasn’t destroying the expensive watch and other items in some magic ritual or anything like that, they were spending the money on themselves and hocking the goods. So as a counterexample of why this isn’t merely caveat emptor, I think that If the medium had simply said they charge $10,000/hour for their time and billed 70 hours of mediumship for it, the guy might not have a case. That would be a case of caveat emptor. But here, she made him buy stuff like Rolexes and give them over for magic rituals…then she hocked them. That’s not caveat emptor (IMO).

  • anthrosciguy

    What am I doing so wrong that a person this stupid can somehow have that much more money stashed away than me? I guess common sense luck?

    Picked the wrong parents, probably.

  • peggin

    @10, I see what you’re saying about the difference, but I think the difference is largely superficial… I mean, would those people in those churches still be paying over all that money for church maintenance and priest salary if they hadn’t been fed a bunch of lies about how the church would bring them closer to god and they’d be rewarded with eternal life? I suppose some of them might just for the sense of community they get from the church, but I’m sure there are a lot of them who, if/when they became convinced that the whole “god/afterlife” thing was a pack of lies, would feel like they’d been duped out of thousands of dollars, every bit as much as if they’d been paying all that money to a psychic.

    I think the big difference may be that, in a church, oftentimes the priest/minister/reverend/whatever actually completely believes most of the garbage he’s selling. I highly doubt the psychic in the story believed she was doing anything for this guy other than emptying out his bank account.

  • eric

    would those people in those churches still be paying over all that money for church maintenance and priest salary if they hadn’t been fed a bunch of lies about how the church would bring them closer to god and they’d be rewarded with eternal life?

    (a) The priest isn’t selling them heaven for a donation. The priest is asking them to donate for infrastructure and salary and telling them being Christian (with or without donation) gets them heaven. I do see that as a different sort of thing. Less con, more ‘bad investment but your choice.’ We are not really trying to prevent foolish spending, only manipulation by con artists.

    (b) If the priest were lying about their claims in order to rake in money (which definitely happens – James Randi’s revealing Peter Popoff’s tricks is a classic example), then yes, I would agree that’s a con. However I think your run-of-the-mill priest is probably fairly sincere. The Creflo Dollars and Benny Hinns of the world are highly visible examples of the sort of person you’re talking about, but I would bet they only represent some very small percent of the total. For every one one of them, there’s a hundred or maybe thousand local priests earning crappy pay for doing something they really believe in. Those aren’t con artist by (IMO) any stretch of the imagination. They are giving a service you personally think is worthless; I get that. But they aren’t defrauding their customers by misrepresenting what the money is being used for.

  • grumpyoldfart

    I know a lot of street people living on social security. They worry a lot about money because they never have enough, and they find it hard to buy even the basic things like food.

    Many of them solve the problem by blowing their social security cash as soon as they get it – and that’s when they calm down! While they’ve got the money they are always worrying about how to spend it properly, but as soon as it’s all gone the panic is over. They no longer have to worry about how to spend the cash because they don’t have any cash (and they can always get free food at the various soup kitchens).

    Most of the people I know blow their cash on drugs, booze and gambling, but there are other ways. One guy goes to furniture stores and pays a deposit on things like a king-size bed (at a time when he’s living on the street!). Another guy just gives his cash away. If somebody asks him for a cigarette he gives them $20 to go and buy a whole packet.

    Maybe this guy with the $700,000 was suffering a similar type of panic attack (which he solved by giving away all his money).

  • vereverum

    He is a “marketing executive”.

    He took a course in marketing.

    Tuition seems rather high but he had an expert instructor.

    Here endeth the lesson.

  • leni

    I don’t see why feeling bad for the guy even has to enter the equation. Whatever you think of him, the fraud happened.

    Also, unless she has some unusual psychology, she probably thought the same things that most everyone else did. Something along the lines of “He is an asshole and a creep, so really by taking his money who cares, he deserves it, and maybe I’m doing this lady a favor.” I’m guessing these rationalizations conveniently broadened every time she realized she could bilk him for more.

    I don’t know. I wasn’t in her mind, but there’s a very good chance some dodgy rationalizations happened and there’s a good chance they sounded a lot like the ones most of us think: he deserved it.

    But really, why care if he did? It doesn’t change the crime.

  • http://www.facebook.com/KacyRay kacyray

    On the one hand, screw that psychic, she’s a fraud and should go to jail so she can’t defraud others. On the other hand, am I really supposed to feel bad for this guy?

    So when someone exercises horrendously bad judgment and winds up becoming victimized in the process, it’s entirely appropriate to hold that person morally (if not legally) responsible for their own irresponsibility, while recognizing that the responsibility for the crime rests entirely on the criminal. Two seperate acts, two seperate evaluations. Noted.

    But I agree with Ed, I’m torn between saying that the psychic is scum and should go to jail and feeling like anyone stupid enough to fall for this kind of con job deserves to lose their money.

    In other words you’re torn between evalutaing the entire affair by means of the criminals behavior and evaluating it by means of the victims behavior, because they are two different actions by two different people, each of which can and should be evaluated independently without conflating the two.

    And you’re feeling that if a victim is sufficiently irresponsible or gullible, they essentially deserve to be victimized. Noted.

  • lorn

    Sounds to me that while pursuing his ideal woman he really needed a friend. Someone who could and would impose a little reality in the form of a dope-slap. It is easy for people to become obsessed and lose perspective.

    One day I go over to a friend’s house and she is tearing the place apart looking for her glasses. She said she had been looking for almost an hour and was angry and frustrated. I even helped her look. After a bit I asked if the glasses on top of her head were the ones she was looking for … glasses found.

    Everyone needs a friend to observe the things we can’t or won’t see. Everyone has weaknesses and blind spots. Close friends look out for you.

    In this case tell the man that the woman of his dreams simply doesn’t want him, it happens, and that spirits have nothing to do with it. Then take him out for a drink so he can fall deeply, passionately, and irrevocably in love with a new ‘one and only’. The heart wants what the heart wants but the heart is like Mister Magoo, half-blind and generally satisfied by anything fitting the general description.

    No, I’m not suggesting that people in general, or women in particular, are interchangeable. They aren’t. That said notice that he didn’t really know Michelle very well. That he was very likely more in love with the idea of Michelle, than Michelle. People, as conceptual abstractions viewed from afar, are largely interchangeable. The guy was a gullible fool with a good job, a fair amount of money, and a willingness to spend it. Seems like there might be some women in the LA area who would like to spend some time with that sort of guy. Some kind woman might see him as something of a project.

    Everyone knows the old rhyme ‘for lack of a nail a rider was lost’. I reminds us that big events are contingent upon smaller events. That for ‘lack of a nail , the kingdom was lost’. Or, in this case, for lack of a friend, a fortune was lost.

  • http://www.facebook.com/KacyRay kacyray

    Leni:

    I don’t know. I wasn’t in her mind, but there’s a very good chance some dodgy rationalizations happened and there’s a good chance they sounded a lot like the ones most of us think: he deserved it.

    You said a mouthful.

    I don’t see why feeling bad for the guy even has to enter the equation. Whatever you think of him, the fraud happened.

    Absolutely. You’re speaking perfect sense.

  • Matrim

    I’m torn between saying that the psychic is scum and should go to jail and feeling like anyone stupid enough to fall for this kind of con job deserves to lose their money.

    Not a direct response to this person, but to all of their ilk (including Ed)

    Yeah, ok, so this guy was a creeper and was engaging in really shitty behavior. So, ha ha, laugh at the creepy guy who lost his money. Fine.

    However, it really, REALLY disturbs me when people start equating stupidity/gullibility (which are NOT the same things, by the way) and being deserving of being defrauded. Does my grandfather, who is a very sweet man that will essentially believe just about anything, deserve to be grifted because he’s not cautious enough? Do the intellectually disabled people I work with deserve to have their money taken from them simply because they lack the cognitive capacity to discern lies? (And before anyone goes into “well, this guy wasn’t disabled,” it shouldn’t matter. If he’s unable to discern the lie, he’s every bit as victimized as they) Does the parent who wants to contact their dead child deserve to be ripped off because of their desperation? Does the person who is dying of cancer who blows their money on alt med dreck in a last grasp at life deserve their fleecing?

    It really, really bothers me when people start saying that folks “too stupid” to know better deserve what they get. It reeks of the same odor as statements like “what did she expect walking home dressed like that?” Yeah, this guy was a sleeze, but why does that make him deserving of this? Wrong things that happen to bad people are still wrong.

  • culuriel

    That’s nothing. Scientology bilks more people out of even crazier amounts:

    http://tonyortega.org/2014/03/17/here-are-the-wealthy-people-keeping-scientology-alive/

    Seriously. They get trophies. And photo ops with the creepiest man alive (Miscavige).

  • http://www.facebook.com/KacyRay kacyray

    Matrim – the victim-blaming here is bit disturbing, isn’t it?

  • dingojack

    Yes, I’m sure all the women* who’ve been trapped into terrible (and often fatal) ‘relationships’ with MRAs think that it’s a mere nothing, he’s just being ‘a bit of a sleaze’, ‘creepy’ & etc. — I mean stalking someone, there’s nothing at all wrong with that, right? Just a typical over-reaction from an hysterical woman, ammiright? @@

    Let’s not down-play the fraud perpetrated on the MRA scum,or the stalking by the MRA scum himself. Both are wrong.

    Dingo

    ———

    * anecdotally, around 1 in every 6

  • leni

    Absolutely. You’re speaking perfect sense.

    If I ever incidentally agree with you again, which is doubtful but not impossible, please do me the simple courtesy of not condescendingly approving of it. Just fucking keep it to yourself. Thanks.

    Dingo:

    Let’s not down-play the fraud perpetrated on the MRA scum, or the stalking by the MRA scum himself.

    But saying he deserved it does downplay the fraud, even if it isn’t meant to. It makes what she did a joke and it makes it seem like spectacular fuckovers like this are funny and deserved. Surely this isn’t the only fraud she committed. I’m guessing a lot of decent people got bilked a lot less spectacularly that this asshole.

    She’s a criminal and what she did directly facilitated and encouraged his stalking behavior. If that guy had even an inkling of getting real professional help, she all but ensured that wouldn’t happen. Aside from the fraud, she actively endangered everyone around the target, including his victim and random people she instructed him to look for and knew he would “find”. She was basically firing a loaded weapon into crowds at random for profit, so if I have to pick one to condemn? I pick her.

  • dingojack

    So a guy holds up bank at gunpoint, terrorises the staff, blows the safe open, and hands the cash to another guy, who buggers off leaving the blagger to get caught.

    And it’s only the other guy who is the bad person in this scenario. Got it.

    Dingo

  • leni

    Well ok, dingo, gun analogies are problematic, I’ll give you that.

    But you sorta forgot to mention the minor detail about the “other guy” helpfully informing the asshole robber that the only way to open the safe was to terrorize random people unrelated to the actual safe or bank at hand.

    Look, I know you aren’t doing anything nefarious and I do know you mean well, but by bringing up what a deserving crime victim this guy was, you aren’t helping making the psychic’s crimes easier to prosecute.

    Whatever he did, her crimes are not his fault.

  • http://www.facebook.com/KacyRay kacyray

    If I ever incidentally agree with you again, which is doubtful but not impossible, please do me the simple courtesy of not condescendingly approving of it. Just fucking keep it to yourself. Thanks.

    You read condecention into my words. I was being 100% serious. You were making perfect sense, your clear hostility notwithstanding.

    But don’t worry… you have been added to my “ignore list”, so you don’t have to ever again worry about me pointing out to you that you’re apparently the only principled one among your tribe.

    dingo:

    — I mean stalking someone, there’s nothing at all wrong with that, right? Just a typical over-reaction from an hysterical woman, ammiright? @@

    Help me understand… are you saying that if a persons behavior is sufficiently (irresponsible? injudicious? unethical? distasteful?) that they merit any victimization they might incur? I’m just trying to understand the principle here.

    Nothng I read states that the victim in this case was breaking the law. Ed’s comment was “Am I really supposd to feel bad for this guy?” Other commenters have suggested that the guy deserved to be victimized. What’s your position on this? What’s the principle involved here?

    I mean, for me it’s easy. Everyone’s behavior can be evaluated independently, on its own merits. No behavior, however irresponsible, injudicious, or ethically suspect it might be makes one “deserving” of being victimized by another.

    The victim in this case was irresponsible, injudicious, and probably demonstrating a lack of stability and character… but that doesn’t mean that he deserved to be victimized. No one, by definition, deserves to be victimized. And this is exactly what I’ve said in here for years, amidst the imminent flames.

    So.. I wonder why it is that we’re suddenly allowed to comment on the behavior of the victim? I thought that was verboten around these here parts? Did I miss a meeting?

  • http://www.facebook.com/KacyRay kacyray

    Well, I guess no one is going to touch the fraud-apology and victim blaming going on here.

    But one thing we’ve lerned for certain is this – it *is* okay to question and evaluate the behavior of a crime victim. It *is* okay to call the victim names and put them down if their behavior merits it.

    I’ll bookmark this article for the next time I hear someone complaining about victim-blaming if I deign to question the judgment of someone who made themselves vulnerable to exploitation through their own stupidity. I like knowing FtB is on my side.

  • Azkyroth, B*Cos[F(u)]==Y

    I wonder if the psychic could argue that she was providing a public service?

  • Matrim

    @23 dingojack

    Nice straw man you’ve got there. Very high quality. Is that barley or alfalfa?

    Did I, pray tell, say anything that excused the man’s behavior? No, I called him a creep and a sleaze (not “a bit of a sleaze”…way to falsify a quote to make me look softer on him). Was my language not strong enough? I assume scum is sufficient, as it’s what you used.

    Yes, this dude is a scumbag, I don’t believe I’ve seen anyone claiming otherwise. Your statement that “Both are wrong” indicates that you seem to think people (specifically me, seeing as how I’m the one you’re replying to) are attempting to “down-play” this guy’s behavior. Again, I ask, where are you getting this? What possible part of my statement is so controversial? I also don’t think he should be shot in the head, does that mean I’m soft on stalkers?

    Look, my whole jam is this: it disturbs me that people are so quick to blame a victim for their victimization when they are disliked. Yeah, I get that it’s satisfying to see people you dislike suffer misfortune, I’m no stranger to schadenfreude, but it is important that we recognize that (despite what we may think of them) people do not deserve to be wronged.

    Now, go ahead and call this guy a scumbag asshole piece of shit. I’ll join you. I’ll invite you down to the bar where we can raise a toast to each other and how we both agree this guy is fucking horrible human being. But, if you believe it’s ok to victimize anyone, for any reason, I cordially invite you to take a flying fuck at a rolling donut.

  • peggin

    Matrim @ 30, I agree with you that it’s wrong the blame the victim, but I guess in this particular case, my problem is trying to decide when, exactly, this guy became a victim.

    I’m not saying he isn’t one — the psychic took him for $700,000 with promises she didn’t deliver on. (Or, at least, nothing in my belief system would allow me to believe she delivered, but I guess I can’t prove unequivocally that she *didn’t* build an 80 mile long solid gold bridge in another realm, but I have no evidence for such a bridge and I think the burden should be on her to prove she did build it.) To me, the fact that he lost so much money is compelling evidence that what she did was a crime.

    But my problem is, when did it become a crime? If this guy had only paid her $70, or even $700, would we still be saying she’s a criminal and he’s a victim? People go to psychics every day. They pay them money and ask them to read their palms, or their tarot cards, or to contact their dead loved ones, and IMO the only difference between all of those transaction and what happened in this case is there sheer volume of money this guy forked over. So, has a crime been committed every time that happens? Should we start prosecuting every so-called palm reader and fortune teller out there?

    I’m not saying I have an answer, or that he’s not the victim of a crime, I just don’t know where the line is. I know I would not be calling for this psychic to be prosecuted if he’d only given her $70 instead of $700,000, but I’m not sure where the line should be drawn. I’m curious as to where other people think that line should be, or if there should be no line at all — maybe I’m wrong about the $70 and we should prosecute these people who hold themselves out as psychics as soon as they charging any money at all.

  • leni

    I’ll bookmark this article for the next time I hear someone complaining about victim-blaming

    Emphasis added. Someone? Who exactly do you mean by that?

    if I deign to question the judgment of someone who made themselves vulnerable to exploitation through their own stupidity.

    You know what else you could do? Not deign to question the judgment of someone who made themselves vulnerable to exploitation through their own “stupidity”.

    You could just not do that. That is an option you can take at any time.

    Instead you are here looking for excuses with bookmarks. Wonder why that is.

  • http://www.facebook.com/KacyRay kacyray

    Matrim: Dingo’s response is reminiscent of every Bush apologist who, when confronted with the fact that our invasion of Iraq was based entirely on lies, responds with “Oh, you think Saddam Hussien was just a good guy then, HUH??”

    peggin: I’d say the guy was a victim the moment he paid for a service that the “service provider” could not actually provide. Psychics are frauds because they accept payment for services they cannot demonstrably provide. That should be against the law, and I’m still not sure why it isn’t.

    And for the record, I’m in agreement with *everyone here* on how foolish this victim was. I would argue that he was irresponsible, that he was gullible, that his motive was creepy, that his was probably unstable, and that his departure from his money was just a matter of time.

    But I would never argue that *anyone* deserves to be victimized, and I find it particularly amusing that right here, in a community that will normally brand you a victim-blamer if you even dare to mention the behavior of a victim, not only is there brazen victim-blaming going on, but it is being vehemently defended.

    And when I step in to politely point this out, the very first thing I get is ‘fucking keep it to yourself’ or something. And it seems the only commenters here that are arguing against victim blaming are the community antagonists… NOT the tribesmen.

    Indeed, there isn’t just victim-blaming, but victim-shaming going on here!

    “‘Psychic’ Bilks World’s Dumbest Man Out of More Than $700K”

    “the schmuck should have to convince a civil jury he deserves his money back.”

    “He sounds like a stalker to me … glad he lost all that money.”

    “anyone stupid enough to fall for this kind of con job deserves to lose their money.”

    “A fool and his money are soon parteed”

    So I thought it was worth pointing out that there is a manifest absence of principle going on here. I’ve argued among these hallowed halls that a victims behavior can be evaluated apart from the behavior of the person who victimizes them. When I presented that argument in much finer detail, I was branded as a victim-blamer, labelled with every pejorative acceptable in this forum, and told to fuck off and die (I declined this offer).

    But I knew that wasn’t a principled stance. I knew that evaluating the behavior of two seperate people for two seperate actions doesn’t actually require a degree in philosophy to understand. It’s pretty obvious that one can label a victim’s behavior as irresponsible, while NOT blaming the victim for their own victimization.

    No, the “victim-blamer” accusation was never honest, and it was never principled. It was always a means of attempting to relinquish a very specific set of victims from any responsibility for their behavior. That’s what it was about then, and that’s what it’s always been about.

    You see, if one *specific type* of victim made themselves vulnerable to exploitation due to their own irresponsibility… you’d better NEVER MENTION IT!

    But if any other type of victim makes themselves vulnerable to exploitation due to their own irresponsibility, then it’s open season on them here at FtB. Because they’re big dummies and they deseve it, right?

    So I’m curious to see if any of the tribesmen here are willing to question the tribal leader on this. I’m wondering if any of them would have the independence of thought to say “Hey man… maybe there’s somethng wrong with branding some people as ‘victim blamers’ for doing the exact thing we’re doing right now?”

    Victim blamers do exist. Victim blaming is real. It does go on (you’re seeing some of it here in this very thread). But evaluating the behavior of the victim on its own merits does not constitute victim blaming. So to be intellectually consistent, you either have to STOP accusing people who do so of being victim-blamers, or you have to START counting Mr. Brayton among them.

    I suggest you choose the former over the latter.

    (Or you could always choose option C: Flame me, stick your fingers in your ears, pretend you haven’t heard a word I’ve said, and go on with your tribalism.)

  • leni

    And when I step in to politely point this out, the very first thing I get is ‘fucking keep it to yourself’ or something.

    I deigned to question the judgment of someone who made themselves vulnerable to expletives through their own stupidity.

    Isn’t that good enough reason?