#Information System Control

[mostlysignssomeportents]

The majority of censorship is self-censorship

I'm on tour with my new novel The Bezzle! Catch me TONIGHT in SAN DIEGO (Feb 22, Mysterious Galaxy). After that, it's LA (Saturday night, with Adam Conover), Seattle (Monday, with Neal Stephenson), then Portland, Phoenix and more!

I know a lot of polymaths, but Ada Palmer takes the cake: brilliant science fiction writer, brilliant historian, brilliant librettist, brilliant singer, and then some:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/02/10/monopoly-begets-monopoly/#terra-ignota

Palmer is a friend and a colleague. In 2018, she, Adrian Johns and I collaborated on "Censorship, Information Control, & Information Revolutions from Printing Press to Internet," a series of grad seminars at the U Chicago History department (where Ada is a tenured prof, specializing in the Inquisition and Renaissance forbidden knowledge):

https://ifk.uchicago.edu/research/faculty-fellow-projects/censorship-information-control-information-revolutions-from-printing-press/

The project had its origins in a party game that Ada and I used to play at SF conventions: Ada would describe a way that the Inquisitions' censors attacked the printing press, and I'd find an extremely parallel maneuver from governments, the entertainment industry or other entities from the much more recent history of internet censorship battles.

With the seminars, we took it to the next level. Each 3h long session featured a roster of speakers from many disciplines, explaining everything from how encryption works to how white nationalists who were radicalized in Vietnam formed an armored-car robbery gang to finance modems and Apple ][+s to link up neo-Nazis across the USA.

We borrowed the structure of these sessions from science fiction conventions, home to a very specific kind of panel that doesn't always work, but when it does, it's fantastic. It was a natural choice: after all, Ada and I know each other through science fiction.

Even if you're not an sf person, you've probably heard of the Hugo Awards, the most prestigious awards in the field, voted on each year by attendees of the annual World Science Fiction Convention (Worldcon). And even if you're not an sf fan, you might have heard about a scandal involving the Hugo Awards, which were held last year in China, a first:

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/science-fiction-authors-excluded-hugo-awards-china-rcna139134

A little background: each year's Worldcon is run by a committee of volunteers. These volunteers put together bids to host the Worldcon, and canvass Worldcon attendees to vote in favor of their bid. For many years, a group of Chinese fans attempted to field a successful bid to host a Worldcon, and, eventually, they won.

At the time, there were many concerns: about traveling to a country with a poor human rights record and a reputation for censorship, and about the logistics of customary Worldcon attendees getting visas. During this debate, many international fans pointed to the poor human rights record in the USA (which has hosted the vast majority of Worldcons since their inception), and the absolute ghastly rigmarole the US government subjects many foreign visitors to when they seek visas to come to the US for conventions.

Whatever side of this debate you came down on, it couldn't be denied that the Chinese Worldcon rang a lot of alarm-bells. Communications were spotty, and then the con was unceremoniously rescheduled for months after the original scheduled date, without any good explanation. Rumors swirled of Chinese petty officials muscling their way into the con's administration.

But the real alarm bells started clanging after the Hugo Award ceremony. Normally, after the Hugos are given out, attendees are given paper handouts tallying the nominations and votes, and those numbers are also simultaneously published online. Technically, the Hugo committee has a grace period of some weeks before this data must be published, but at every Worldcon I've attended over the past 30+ years, I left the Hugos with a data-sheet in my hand.

Then, in early December, at the very last moment, the Hugo committee released its data – and all hell broke loose. Numerous, acclaimed works had been unilaterally "disqualified" from the ballot. Many of these were written by writers from the Chinese diaspora, but some works – like an episode of Neil Gaiman's Sandman – were seemingly unconnected to any national considerations.

Readers and writers erupted in outrage, demanding to know what had happened. The Hugo administrators – Americans and Canadians who'd volunteered in those roles for many years and were widely viewed as being members in good standing of the community – were either silent or responded with rude and insulting remarks. One thing they didn't do was explain themselves.

The absence of facts left a void that rumors and speculation rushed in to fill. Stories of Chinese official censorship swirled online, and along with them, a kind of I-told-you-so: China should never have been home to a Worldcon, the country's authoritarian national politics are fundamentally incompatible with a literary festival.

As the outrage mounted and the scandal breached from the confines of science fiction fans and writers to the wider world, more details kept emerging. A damning set of internal leaks revealed that it was those long-serving American and Canadian volunteers who decided to censor the ballot. They did so out of a vague sense that the Chinese state would visit some unspecified sanction on the con if politically unpalatable works appeared on the Hugo ballot. Incredibly, they even compiled clumsy dossiers on nominees, disqualifying one nominee out of a mistaken belief that he had once visited Tibet (it was actually Nepal).

There's no evidence that the Chinese state asked these people to do this. Likewise, it wasn't pressure from the Chinese state that caused them to throw out hundreds of ballots cast by Chinese fans, whom they believed were voting for a "slate" of works (it's not clear if this is the case, but slate voting is permitted under Hugo rules).

All this has raised many questions about the future of the Hugo Awards, and the status of the awards that were given in China. There's widespread concern that Chinese fans involved with the con may face state retaliation due to the negative press that these shenanigans stirred up.

But there's also a lot of questions about censorship, and the nature of both state and private censorship, and the relationship between the two. These are questions that Ada is extremely well-poised to answer; indeed, they're the subject of her book-in-progress, entitled Why We Censor: from the Inquisition to the Internet.

In a magisterial essay for Reactor, Palmer stakes out her central thesis: "The majority of censorship is self-censorship, but the majority of self-censorship is intentionally cultivated by an outside power":

https://reactormag.com/tools-for-thinking-about-censorship/

States – even very powerful states – that wish to censor lack the resources to accomplish totalizing censorship of the sort depicted in Nineteen Eighty-Four. They can't go from house to house, searching every nook and cranny for copies of forbidden literature. The only way to kill an idea is to stop people from expressing it in the first place. Convincing people to censor themselves is, "dollar for dollar and man-hour for man-hour, much cheaper and more impactful than anything else a censorious regime can do."

Ada invokes examples modern and ancient, including from her own area of specialty, the Inquisition and its treatment of Gailileo. The Inquistions didn't set out to silence Galileo. If that had been its objective, it could have just assassinated him. This was cheap, easy and reliable! Instead, the Inquisition persecuted Galileo, in a very high-profile manner, making him and his ideas far more famous.

But this isn't some early example of Inquisitorial Streisand Effect. The point of persecuting Galileo was to convince Descartes to self-censor, which he did. He took his manuscript back from the publisher and cut the sections the Inquisition was likely to find offensive. It wasn't just Descartes: "thousands of other major thinkers of the time wrote differently, spoke differently, chose different projects, and passed different ideas on to the next century because they self-censored after the Galileo trial."

This is direct self-censorship, where people are frightened into silencing themselves. But there's another form of censorship, which Ada calls "middlemen censorship." That's when someone other than the government censors a work because they fear what the government would do if they didn't. Think of Scholastic's cowardly decision to pull inclusive, LGBTQ books out of its book fair selections even though no one had ordered them to do so:

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/06/books/scholastic-book-racism-maggie-tokuda-hall.html

This is a form of censorship outsourcing, and it "multiplies the manpower of a censorship system by the number of individuals within its power." The censoring body doesn't need to hire people to search everyone's houses for offensive books – it can frighten editors, publishers, distributors, booksellers and librarians into suppressing the books in the first place.

This outsourcing blurs the line between state and private surveillance. Think about comics. After a series of high-profile Congressional hearings about the supposed danger of comics to impressionable young minds, the comics industry undertook a regime of self-censorship, through which the private Comics Code Authority would vet comings for "dangerous" content before allowing its seal of approval to appear on the comics' covers. Distributors and retailers refused to carry books without a CCA stamp, so publishers refused to publish books unless they could get a CCA stamp.

The CCA was unaccountable, capricious – and racist. By the 60s and 70s, it became clear that comic about Black characters were subjected to much tighter scrutiny than comics featuring white heroes. The CCA would reject "a drop of sweat on the forehead of a Black astronaut as 'too graphic' since it 'could be mistaken for blood.'" Every comic that got sent back by the CCA meant long, brutal reworkings by writers and illustrators to get them past the censors.

The US government never censored heroes like Black Panther, but the chain of events that created the CCA "middleman censors" made sure that Black Panther appeared in far fewer comics starring Marvel's most prominent Black character. An analysis of censorship that tries to draw a line between private and public censorship would say that the government played no role in Black Panther's banishment to obscurity – but without Congressional action, Black Panther would never have faced censorship.

This is why attempts to cleanly divide public and private censorship always break down. Many people will tell you that when Twitter or Facebook blocks content they disagree with, that's not censorship, since censorship is government action, and these are private actors. What they mean is that Twitter and Facebook censorship doesn't violate the First Amendment, but it's perfectly possible to infringe on free speech without violating the US Constitution. What's more, if the government fails to prevent monopolization of our speech forums – like social media – and also declines to offer its own public speech forums that are bound to respect the First Amendment, we can end up with government choices that produce an environment in which some ideas are suppressed wherever they might find an audience – all without violating the Constitution:

https://locusmag.com/2020/01/cory-doctorow-inaction-is-a-form-of-action/

The great censorious regimes of the past – the USSR, the Inquisition – left behind vast troves of bureaucratic records, and these records are full of complaints about the censors' lack of resources. They didn't have the manpower, the office space, the money or the power to erase the ideas they were ordered to suppress. As Ada notes, "In the period that Spain’s Inquisition was wildly out of Rome’s control, the Roman Inquisition even printed manuals to guide its Inquisitors on how to bluff their way through pretending they were on top of what Spain was doing!"

Censors have always done – and still do – their work not by wielding power, but by projecting it. Even the most powerful state actors are not powerful enough to truly censor, in the sense of confiscating every work expressing an idea and punishing everyone who creates such a work. Instead, when they rely on self-censorship, both by individuals and by intermediaries. When censors act to block one work and not another, or when they punish one transgressor while another is free to speak, it's tempting to think that they are following some arcane ruleset that defines when enforcement is strict and when it's weak. But the truth is, they censor erratically because they are too weak to censor comprehensively.

Spectacular acts of censorship and punishment are a performance, "to change the way people act and think." Censors "seek out actions that can cause the maximum number of people to notice and feel their presence, with a minimum of expense and manpower."

The censor can only succeed by convincing us to do their work for them. That's why drawing a line between state censorship and private censorship is such a misleading exercise. Censorship is, and always has been, a public-private partnership.

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/02/22/self-censorship/#hugos

[infosectrain03]

Certified in Risk and Information System Control (CRISC) certification training program at Infosec Train is developed for those professionals who identify and manage the enterprise risks by implementing information system controls.

[commodorez]

General Instrument rebranded Digital Computer Controls D-116/17

This clone of a Nova 1200 came out of a supermarket and has a number of 60 channel I/O cards in order to talk to all of the cash registers and scanners and check against the product pricing database. This is an incredibly decked-out system.

Large Scale Systems Museum (LSSM) - mact.io - Pittsburgh, PA

[coining-ramcoa-terms]

RAMCOA stands for Ritual Abuse, Mind Control and Organised Abuse. To be a victim of RAMCOA you do not have to have gone through all of these, and it's best to visualise them in a triangular way, as three tiers.

Organised Abuse is the bottom tier, it is abuse carried out by a group of people, for example in sex trafficking, cults, and rings. It is organised because each abuser is aware — to an extent — of what the other abusers are doing.

The next tier is ritual abuse. This is different to ritualistic abuse. Ritual abuse is abuse that is done as part of a ritual. Ritualistic abuse is abuse that happens with an aspect being the same (time, place, order of events). The distinction between ritual abuse and ritualistic abuse isn't often spoken about.

Mind Control is not the same as conditioning, for conditioning is learning. "Mind control is the process by which individual or collective freedom of choice and action is compromised by agents or agencies that modify or distort perception, motivation, affect, cognition and/or behavioral outcomes." (Sourced from the American Psychology Association). It is the highest tier for it is both OA and RA.

[furiousgoldfish]

I finished reading "Becoming Yourself: Overcoming Mind Control and Ritual Abuse" by Alison Miller, and it was filled with incredibly useful information for those who struggle with a dissociative identity disorder. It was also filled with descriptions of some of the most extreme and atrocious kinds of abuse, so to anyone wanting to read it, there's a trigger warning for cult abuse, rituals, childhood sexual abuse, satanic rituals, child trafficking, child murder, brainwashing, mind control, and every form of religion used against the mind of a child.

I was reading this book to figure out if I had gone thru any kind of abuse of the sort, and I didn't, one of my abusers was utilizing religion against me and had done enough of brainwashing to construct several brainwashed and controlled parts, who were still under the influence, but that was it. The book is extremely clear and it will not confuse you about what happened to you, it tells you the intention behind every type of abuse, and often, how to resolve the results. The books also notes that the word 'alter' is triggering to those who went thru ritual abuse and developed a dissociative identity disorder, for similarity with the word 'altar', which is used in rituals, so they prefer to use the terms 'insiders' and 'parts', which I found to enjoy as well.

One of the repeating points in the first half of the book was on insiders who pretend to be something else, for instance, insiders who pretend to be your abusers, pretend to be demons, pretend to be gods or powerful entities, who believe it's their job to hurt you, or to control you, who are made to bring out consequences if you attempt to act against your abusers. I had something like that in my head, but I had refused to believed it was an insider, because it looked just like a case of 'internalized abusive voice', and I had fought against it viciously and focused on shutting that voice down and keeping it scared, often via imagined torture if it was making me feel anxious. Reading about these other scary entities, who would, when asked, admit to just being an insider pretending, I became curious enough to engage with the abusive voice and ask it, 'are you just an alter pretending'? The voice laughed at me and admitted to being found out, and then promptly stopped pretending and showed themselves as a child part. It took me several weeks to admit to myself that this was real, because it was mortifying. I had fallen for the trick, and even tortured a child part for doing their assigned job – this part now believed their only function was to be tortured. I feel responsible for that. But there was no way for me to know. Insiders are good at keeping up a pretense.

You can sometimes recognize that an entity in your head that is scaring you, claiming to be able to control you or triggering you on purpose, or pretending to be evil, demonic, terrifying, animalistic, powerful, magical, godly, is actually a child part, just because they often act the version of that thing that a child would believe is real. If your entity is often repeating the same lines, only knows 1 way of behaviour and has predictive responses, believes to be your abuser or something similar to it, doesn't follow any real-life logic and seems to belong to another world that a child would think is accurate, then it's likely a child part, for some reason programmed or brainwashed to believe they're what they're pretending to be. I should note that when children think of these scary entities, they're often very creative, and put their whole heart in it, so it's going to be an entity that is engaging, feels powerful, doesn't back down easily. Parts who pretend to be evil or demonic will sometimes cling to what they think they are very dearly and will not allow themselves to think of themselves as humans or children, this is for their own emotional protection. All they had in their childhood was being tough. They cannot let that go.

Another incredibly useful information I got from the book was on how to process trauma if you are a multiple. I had never seen instructions on how to do this before, and I'm going to share them in another post that should be posted right after this one, and I'll put a link to it here.

[lilbittymonster]

@ all my mutuals who are reblogging that discord server poll with various tags to the theme of "discord fucking sucks for socialisation" I see you and I am /rainbowdote at you we are all so correct

[thatfrenchacademic]

It's kind of annoying to me that so many Americans think that knowing where a particular European country is is the same as knowing where a specific US state is. Like yeah I can't identify Idaho on a map, but I don't think that's comparable to Americans who can't identify Ukraine on a map???

Hi Anon!

I... will assume this is in response to the "can you name all European countries?" game going around ! And I have exactly two (2) thoughts about it:

1.Devil's advocate argument:

I agree with the general sentiment, BUT [pulls out my nerdy academic glasses], a fun thing I have noticed is that instead of

"knowing where a European state is (for USAmericans) = knowing where a US state is (for Europeans)",

what comes up is more often is:

"NOT knowing where a European state is (for USAmericans) = NOT knowing where a US state is (for Europeans)"

Like, this is the type of argument USAmericans pull out only when they fail to identify European state and we point it out. On the other hand, there is not such a strong expectation that I would ACTUALLY know where Idaho is, in my experience. A few times people have assumed I know where some State is, I point out I don't, and they go 'oh, yeah, it's in North/East/...". Very rarely has an American that I talked to in person truly, actually been in disbelief that I can't place a US State on a map.

"You don't eve know where Idaho is" comes up only once they have been faced with THEIR inability to place a European State. It feels to me like a cognitive (or just rhetorical? idk, not my field) defensive move, more than an actual expectation that I would even be able to name all US State, let alone place them.

2. They are straight up not taught.

I know the instinct is to point it out and laugh at it because the irony of coming from a regime that lords its superiority over all other countries with a population that cannot, actually pinpoint where the other countries are, is STRONG.

But like.

Whose fault is it that Mark, 20, WY, thinks being able to place Utah is much more important than being able to place Albania. Or even that it is equivalent.

I know it's tempting to tell Mark that he is being a fking idiot, especially if Mark is also an asshole. But sometimes, you just need to take a breath, look at someone who is the predictable result of a shitty system, and remember that you gain nothing by confronting them aggressively like it's solely their fault they turned out like that.

Even when they are an asshole.

And just... walk away. Especially if it's online.

[andromedism]

if glenn howerton is the people’s princess then that makes robert dale mcelhenney III her ex husband, k*ng ch*rles, which unfortunately tracks.

[eclaire-went-bam]

hey, what happened to the left believing in second chances? what happened to the belief that if somebody's tangibly doing better, they deserve that chance? you guys realise how common problematic beliefs were when the internet was younger? like, when gamergate was a thing? not that long ago? you guys realise most people on the internet are not from the same moral background as you? you guys realise keeping people out who have changed their beliefs, is only going to discourage more people from doing better? are you guys crazy? why are y'all bringing moral purity into this? it's a powerful thing to recognise things you've been taught were wrong & to then move away from it, especially when you're in a community around it either irl or online. being in a community is such a powerful force in most people's lives. not everyone had the perfect background & not everyone had access to being as educated on social issues as you did. it's fine to personally not forgive someone's problematic history & not interact with them, but to actively exclude them from the cause? get off your high horse, you're harming the movement by gatekeeping it to those with a perfect moral background.

[girderednerve]

i have once more Read a Book !

the book was jim morris' cancer factory: industrial chemicals, corporate deception, & the hidden deaths of american workers. this book! is very good! it is primarily about the bladder cancer outbreak associated with the goodyear plant in niagara falls, new york, & which was caused by a chemical called orthotoluedine. goodyear itself is shielded by new york's workers' comp law from any real liability for these exposures & occupational illnesses; instead, a lot of the information that morris relies on comes from suits against dupont, which manufactured the orthotoluedine that goodyear used, & despite clear internal awareness of its carcinogenicity, did not inform its clients, who then failed to protect their workers. fuck dupont! morris also points out that goodyear manufactured polyvinyl chloride (PVC) at that plant, and, along with other PVC manufacturers, colluded to hide the cancer-causing effects of vinyl chloride, a primary ingredient in PVC & the chemical spilled in east palestine, ohio in 2023. the book also discusses other chemical threats to american workers, including, and this was exciting for me personally, silica; it mentions the hawks nest tunnel disaster (widely forgotten now despite being influential in the 30s, and, by some measures, the deadliest industrial disaster in US history) & spends some time on the outbreak of severe silicosis among southern california countertop fabricators, associated with high-silica 'engineered stone' or 'quartz' countertops. i shrieked about that, the coverage is really good although the treatment of hawks nest was very brief & neglected the racial dynamic at play (the workers exposed to silica at hawks nest were primarily migrant black workers from the deep south).

cancer factory spends a lot of time on the regulatory apparatus in place to respond to chemical threats in the workplace, & thoroughly lays out how inadequate they are. OSHA is responsible for setting exposure standards for workplace chemicals, but they have standards for only a tiny fraction—less than one percent!—of chemicals used in american industry, and issue standards extremely slowly. the two major issues it faces, outside of its pathetically tiny budget, are 1) the standard for demonstrating harm for workers is higher than it is for the general public, a problem substantially worsened during the reagan administration but not created by it, and 2) OSHA is obliged to regulate each individual chemical separately, rather than by functional groups, which, if you know anything at all about organic chemistry, is nonsensical on its face. morris spends a good amount of time on the tenure of eula bingham as the head of OSHA during the carter administration; she was the first woman to head the organization & made a lot of reasonable reforms (a cotton dust standard for textile workers!), but could not get a general chemical standard, allowing OSHA to regulate chemicals in blocks instead of individually, through, & then of course much of her good work was undone by reagan appointees.

the part of the book that made me most uncomfortable was morris' attempt to include birth defects in his analysis. i don't especially love the term 'birth defect'—it feels cruel & seems to me to openly devalue disabled people's lives, no?—but i did appreciate attention to women's experiences in the workplace, and i think workplace chemical exposure is an underdiscussed part of reproductive justice. cancer factory mentions women lead workers who were forced to undergo tubal ligations to retain their employment, supposedly because lead is a teratogen. morris points at workers in silicon valley's electronics industry; workers, most of them women, who made those early transistors were exposed to horrifying amounts of lead, benzene, and dangerous solvents, often with disabling effects for their children.

morris points out again & again that we only know that there was an outbreak of bladder cancer & that it should be associated with o-toluedine because the goodyear plant workers were organized with the oil, chemical, & atomic workers (OCAW; now part of united steelworkers), and the union pursued NIOSH investigation and advocated for improved safety and monitoring for employees, present & former. even so, 78 workers got bladder cancer, 3 died of angiosarcoma, and goodyear workers' families experienced bladder cancer and miscarriage as a result of secondary exposure. i kept thinking about unorganized workers in the deep south, cancer alley in louisiana, miners & refinery workers; we don't have meaningful safety enforcement or monitoring for many of these workers. we simply do not know how many of them have been sickened & killed by their employers. there is no political will among people with power to count & prevent these deaths. labor protections for workers are better under the biden administration than the trump administration, but biden's last proposed budget leaves OSHA with a functional budget cut after inflation, and there is no federal heat safety standard for indoor workers. the best we get is marginal improvement, & workers die. i know you know! but it's too big to hold all the same.

anyway it's a good book, it's wide-ranging & interested in a lot of experiences of work in america, & morris presents an intimate (sometimes painfully so!) portrait of workers who were harmed by goodyear & dupont. would recommend

[spicy-vent-central]

If you are a Millennial or Gen Z in America and are genuinely taking the piss out of Gen Alpha for "not being able to read" I just want to let you know (as someone in your age group) that you're turning into your parents in a lot of unhealthy and harmful ways.

Who's fault is it that these kids aren't learning phonics pal? Look around yourself at who is responsible for our government/public schools and who is raising them. Kids are and have always been kids, adults however change drastically over time. You can't blame Boomers for your problems but not accept (at least partial) responsibility for Gen Alpha's problems. These are the children of our generation and it's our responsibility to give them a solid foundation and if we don't do that, we cannot blame them for not having it.

We are all victims of the larger political system and Gen Alpha is already being systemically repressed. They will grow up from birth with the whole sum of human knowledge and access to instant communication in the palms of their hands. This makes them EXTREMELY hard to control from a governmental standpoint. Why do you think we suddenly have this unwarranted, unprecedented and illogical change in how kids are being taught to read? The system is already trying to rob these kids of their power to make change by denying them access to information in the only ways it can. Instead of seeing that for what it is and helping empower the next generation, a lot of you are continuing the trauma cycle of "younger generation bad" and it's really disappointing. I see and hear your struggles, especially millennials. Y'all have been getting blamed for shit since you had no control over since you were kids, let's not do that to the next batch of kids though okay? It's our jobs to build these kids up.

[infosectrain03]

CRISC Exam Training

Certified in Risk and Information System Control (CRISC) certification training program at Infosec Train is developed for those professionals who identify and manage the enterprise risks by implementing information system controls.

CRISC Exam Training

[miiju86]

Defining femaleness as femininity - a set of man-made rules, roles and stereotypes - is still and always has been men's tool to ensure power and control over women. Gender - a.k.a. defining the naturally neutral state of being in a female or male body as 'femininity' and 'masculinity' - is nothing more than socially enforced patriarchy, plain and simple.

To control language & any communication down to complete silence, to isolate and to erase any history and references - total information control - are essential cornerstones of every exploitative hierarchy/class system - with patriarchy/androcracy being the root, blue-print and fundament of them all.

[coining-ramcoa-terms]

we sare a system that developed early in life and we don't know if we went through ROMCOA or not. Like be our parents abused us and knew it was abuse and didn't stopped because that's how they were raised and they made us attach to them no matter what they do to us (kinda like mind control). Because of that, we're not sure if we are a ROMCOA survivor

Ok. Idk what you want from me anon I am not a psychologist or a psychiatrist. All I can do is tell you what Ramcoa is.

I think its important to note a couple things you said though. All dissociative systems have disorganised attachment styles to the primary caregiver. That's not mind control, that's just the normal response to being severely and continually abused from a young age.

[icewindandboringhorror]

Everytime I face a new character limit on a website that didn't have them before/used to have really long ones... AUGHHhhh the modern social media world was not made for people like me (lovers of details, rambling, elaboration, thorough explanation, and nuance)

[secretsstash]

🏥