Your Garage Best Books of the Month STEM nav_sap_plcc_ascpsc Samsung S8 Launch Starting at $39.99 Luxury Beauty Handmade Mother's Day Gifts Shop Popular Services animespring animespring animespring  Introducing Echo Look Starting at $49.99 Kindle Oasis Nintendo Switch National Bike Month on Amazon disgotg_gno_17
Customer Discussions > Michael Jackson forum

Diane Demon - Mentally ill ??


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 52 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Dec 29, 2009, 4:57:25 PM PST
YANA Girl says:
I found this at the Vindication website and was wondering what you all think:

"I'm not being facetious when I say this. Diane Dimond is mentally ill. She suffers from cognitive dissonance-that is, mental conflict that occurs when beliefs or assumptions are contradicted by new information. The concept was introduced by the psychologist Leon Festinger (1919-89) in the late 1950s. He and later researchers showed that, when confronted with challenging new information, some people seek to preserve their current understanding of the world by rejecting, explaining away, or avoiding the new information or by convincing themselves that no conflict really exists.

This is the state of mind in which the Demon finds herself: despite an acquittal, 16 computers with nothing on them, a boatload of FBI files that say absolutely nothing to support the Demon's beliefs about Michael Jackson, and a line out the door of young boys who said Michael never touched them, she clings to her beliefs. If she wasn't getting paid to express those beliefs, she wouldn't hold them, but since lying about Michael Jackson has pretty much been her sole source of income for 15 years, she cannot now say, "I was wrong" or "I now believe otherwise." Even if Jordan Chandler or any of the Arvizos came forward and said, "Michael Jackson never touched me," the Demon would find a way to rationalize her belief, just as she now accuses the FBI of not being "motivated enough" to prosecute.

The theory of cognitive dissonance proposes that people have a motivational drive to reduce dissonance by changing their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors, or by justifying or rationalizing their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors. Cognitive dissonance theory is one of the most influential and extensively studied theories in social psychology.

A powerful cause of dissonance is an idea in conflict with a fundamental element of the self-concept, such as "I am a good person" or "I made the right decision." The anxiety that comes with the possibility of having made a bad decision can lead to rationalization, the tendency to create additional reasons or justifications to support one's choices. A person who just spent too much money on a new car might decide that the new vehicle is much less likely to break down than his or her old car. This belief may or may not be true, but it would likely reduce dissonance and make the person feel better. Dissonance can also lead to confirmation bias, the denial of disconfirming evidence, and other ego defense mechanisms.

You see, the Demon wants to believe of herself, "I'm a good person," while at the same time lying about Michael Jackson. It's impossible to think you're a good person while you're lying through your teeth, so your mind becomes unbalanced with cognitive dissonance.

She is to be pitied.

Source: Wikipedia"

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 29, 2009, 5:00:39 PM PST
nikki98 says:
Karen

Great post. I totally agree.

Nikki

Posted on Dec 29, 2009, 5:07:57 PM PST
Jean Holland says:
HI, interesting post. But, I think Ms. Dimond has definitely made a living out of villainizing others, especially MJ. This is a certain type of personality that has emerged in the post-Reagan era, with the extreme right. I do not think she is mentally ill. I think she is manifesting social illness that comes from an actor-President who figured out how to get people to turn on each other and be vicious.

The best remedy is compassion broadly manifested toward others. For Ms. Dimond, that would come in a way of asking her as kindly as possible, to think about why she is doing this, and to encourage her to not answer in a shrill or sensationalized voice. Just that slight change would be an improvement.

The woman is not imbalanced. She was given cultural permission to pursue wealth at the expense of others, with cruelty. From welfare queens (from Reagan) to the King of Pop (all of a certain race, mind you), she plays on these stereotypes and is a caricature of a journalist. With the permission of society.

The death of MJ sent lightening bolts to waken us. Vindication and other efforts to ask people to be accountable and impeccable with their words? Fabulous. won't our society be much more loving if we all do this? And the Dimond method will become so clearly ugly, that anyone practicing it will be marginalized, lovingly.

What a nice dream. Let's make it reality.

Posted on Dec 29, 2009, 5:18:26 PM PST
Meh says:
Karen...you hit the nail on the head and your analysis of Diane's dilemma as it relates to dissonance is bang on. I have posted several times on her website, pointing out that her information was erroneous as it was based on false information. She has a very long detailed post about how forensics don't lie. She based Michael's supposed autopsy results on rumors that were flying around at the time and not on the actual results, which as we all know disputed the rumors. She talked about his skeleton condition, his weight, that he was covered in needle marks, that he had a stomach full of pills.

Getting back to forensics don't lie. Perhaps they don't, but the results are certainly *interpreted*. If they were not interpretable then there would be no experts on both sides (as in a court case) to dispute the *facts*. I pointed that out to her. She never posted my post. I posted again and then dared her to post it because as a journalist she was practicing censorship by not doing so. Again, she never posted it. I won't even get into how a responsible journalist would have waited for the autopsy results. Perhaps, I thought, she had the inside track. Nope. What was important was the rumors fit her paradigm of who and what Michael Jackson is (I can't use past tense with him).

I have heard other journalists (on video and in a book) question not only her objectivity (and it is obvious she has none) but her sanity - in all seriousness. I saw her in a poorly done video that was supposedly in search of the "truth" about Michael. All of the interviews were with people who were Michael's distractors and of course Diane Demon was on of them. She relates a story about Michael that I will not repeat here. She relates it as fact. She provides no information that corroborates the story. The story is not as interesting as her telling of it and the absolute smug certainty in which she does. She does not use the word "allegedly" anywhere in this telling. She produced no photographs, video, or audio of the event. She tells it like she was a witness to it.

She is dangerous. Why? Because there are people who believe her. You have to see her website. She posts her resume on it. I am too lazy to research the information she posts. Like many resumes it is inflated, but it looks good. There are a lot of unintelligent people in the world, who think that if a "journalist" says it it must be true. If it's in a book it must be true. If it's on the web it must be true.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 29, 2009, 5:27:14 PM PST
Meh says:
Jean...you asked that Diane be approached with kindness and asked politely to consider a different view. See my post. I have posted to her. I didn't attack her. I just pointed out the fallacy of her thesis. It was a thesis, as she went gaily on for quite some time about the *facts* of Michael's autopsy. Despite the fact that the results have been publizied and were not what she based her thesis on, she has not changed one word of it, nor did she post my response as I noted it above.

She and people like her who were given the "power" to marginalize others have been in power too long with little repercussions and polite discourse does not seem the way to go. When it comes to Michael, you are a crazed and crazy fan. You don't know what you are talking about. *Common* people who defend him are dismissed as such.

Her sanity (when it comes to Michael) has actually been questioned by her own peers. She may not be "crazy" in the legal sense, but all sense of balance and propriety when it comes to Michael is an obsession and certainly seems to warrant some sort of "label" to describe it.

Posted on Dec 29, 2009, 5:33:57 PM PST
Boom Boom says:
Yes, she is as crazy as a bed bug... waiting to be swashed out of existance.

Posted on Dec 29, 2009, 5:38:22 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 29, 2009, 5:39:30 PM PST
Boom Boom says:
Her obsession with Michael may also be her own self loathing, because she was secretly in love with him (Michael ) a black man. (I may be nuts ) But, what if? Since she couldn't in a million years have him, she attacked him with crazy lies.

p.s. It's thin line btn love and hate....

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 29, 2009, 5:44:27 PM PST
Meh says:
Boom Boom...Oh honey they've done movies on that. She is certainly obsessed. What is the opposite of love is hate, the opposite of hate is indifference.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 29, 2009, 5:46:49 PM PST
nikki98 says:
True love has no opposite

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 29, 2009, 5:53:13 PM PST
Jean Holland says:
Paulie: I was just imagining how one would approach Dimond with compassion. Not saying it would "work" or should be done.
I also don't think that posting to her will be helpful in getting a change of behavior. It would have to be done in person, in public, by someone with a completely calm and compassionate demeanor and credentials of some sort.

I do not think she is crazy. I think she is money hungry. If she is labeled as mentally ill, she has an excuse for her behavior.

There is no excuse.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 29, 2009, 6:02:52 PM PST
Meh says:
Jean...she doesn't respond. She doesn't engage in a conversation. And she is surrounded by people who support her kind of behavior. There are many people who make a living off this (Perez Hilton, TMZ) type of journalism. She's over the top. It makes me think there's something in her past. Perhaps she was violated in some way. Or she started it and now can't stop because it is how she supports herself. Out of all the people, she seems most vile and hers is the only book I cannot read. I have read the good, the bad, and the ugly. There is a viciousness to her that I sense.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 29, 2009, 6:05:46 PM PST
Meh says:
nikki98 that was a quote from an ex boyfriend (he was mean)...in other words he was saying he was indifferent so there was no love, if there had been love, there would be hate (passion). He was wrong there was love and therefore passion (hate).

Posted on Dec 29, 2009, 6:07:27 PM PST
Jean Holland says:
PAULIE: I am agreeing with you, but I don't think she is mentally ill. She is vicious. There really is not a dx based on viciousness. She could have a personality disorder. But that is not mental illness. And it must be confronted as ugly and inappropriate.

I am aware that she doesn't respond. Again, not saying anything at all should be done, but if it were, that is what it would look like. Compassion does not insist on an appropriate response. It is simply an invitation.

For some, it festers into a self examination. I have high hopes for any person. But no expectations.

Posted on Dec 29, 2009, 6:08:09 PM PST
Meh says:
Jean...there was a time...when I was very very young that I could not understand why marriages broke up. Surely I thought there is no topic that two people cannot sit down and discuss and not come to an agreement, a consensu. There are things that make sense, are true, are fact, that are indisputable, that any two people can agree upon.

I no longer think that way.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 29, 2009, 6:11:56 PM PST
[Deleted by Amazon on Feb 14, 2010, 2:50:24 PM PST]

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 29, 2009, 6:18:47 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 29, 2009, 6:30:45 PM PST
Meh says:
Jean I know we are agreeing....Personality disorders are in the DSM (Axis II ?) and they do disrupt lives. Had a boyfriend once (mentioned him on here). He would get angry with me...his feelings were palpable. They would literally suck the air of the room. I would have to go outside the room to breath. He would give the silent treatment. Lay on the couch all day watching TV saying nothing but sending out the most vile vibes. I started to think of his mind as a spider's mind...just blackness. There are people you encounter and you look at them, and you think..there is no way of getting through. I think of her that way...but that's just me. I think there are people so distorted in their thinking so escounched in their way there is no amount of fact or figures or reason or anything. Not sure what you call it. Not mental illness. What is it? Stubborn? Personality disorder? Evil? Hate? Cracked? No, she may not be mentally ill. But she's something. She makes you want to put a label on her.

Posted on Dec 29, 2009, 7:12:23 PM PST
yves ddarth says:
There is much simpler explanation, Diane Demon is just a mean, mean person. Of course she doesn't realize that, I mean many bad people don't think they are bad, they have their own way to justify their behavior. Like Demon, she must rationalize what she did to Michael as fight for social justice. Those kind of people never question themselve, ever reflect, thus they could never improve. There is no use to ask her politely to think why and what she has done, simply because she is just a mean, vicious person. And I doubt it very much that she has any kind of mental disorder.

Posted on Dec 30, 2009, 5:16:45 AM PST
PV says:
Diane Dimond revels in the misfortunes of others. If you've seen her recently on Entertainment Tonight (where she peddles her brand of so-called journalism), she's all hopped up on the scandal du jour, from the David Letterman situation of a few months ago to Tiger Woods' troubles. I swear, she was stifling a smile as she spewed out Tiger Woods' stuff recently. It probably takes all her energy to not salivate while she's reporting these stories. This is how she makes a living. I think she is incapable of empathy. Her photo should be next to the word 'schadenfreude' in the dictionary.

But nature abhors a vacuum and that there is a yin/yang principle to the universe, so I fully expect all the negativity she's put into the world to repay her in kind. After all, look at all the misfortune that's befallen the Chandlers since they spun the original lie.

Posted on Dec 30, 2009, 5:45:26 AM PST
Saraswati says:
Thank you for posting this, Karen.

DD is a miserable, hateful woman. As I watched her spew on Entertainment Tonight each night immediately following Michael's death, I found myself wanting to spit at the television. (The only reason I didn't was that I hadn't wanted to soil my brand new flat screen.) The cruel vehemence of her "reporting" is so evident, and so off-putting (especially when she's reporting anything about Michael), I'm wondering how she continues to have a job. I hold her partly responsible for Michael's death.
My only comfort is in hoping that one day, in her old age, her conscience will catch up with her and that she will die feeling all the agony she caused Michael. Just as with Chandler, I have every faith that she'll get what she deserves.

I would include Nancy Grace and Gloria Allred in this as well. It seems to me that the three of them have mounted a campaign to have Michael declared "posthumously guilty".

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 30, 2009, 7:41:14 AM PST
Meh says:
PV....I like your Yin/Yang principle. There should always be balance in one's life and work and surely hers is completely out of balance. She has to tip over. Even if it were an "act" for ratings and her livelihood (and it is not - or she has become the part), there has to be some counterbalance. I believe in karma and she will "get" hers whatever that may be.

Posted on Dec 30, 2009, 8:32:37 AM PST
Wizard says:
I just checked and found out my local library spent my taxpayer dollars to buy a copy of the piece o' trash book written by this woman. Of course, they do not have the Aphrodite Jones book or the Geraldine Hughes book.

I've been intending for a while to buy some copies of the Aphrodite Jones book and give them to my local library but have hesitated because of the money. Having now found out they have the Dimond trash, I feel I have to counterbalance that, so I will go ahead and buy a few copies of the Aphrodite Jones book for the library. It's only money, after all.

I might even go overboard and buy a copy of the Opus for the library's reference collection.

Education is the key. Diane Dimond is able to ply her trade largely because she appeals to the mass of people in the U.S. who lack critical thinking skills and are unable to critically analyze what she says. She has the gift of a writer who knows how to skirt the edge of the truth and lead uncritical minds to the conclusions she wants them to draw.

I feel like I have to fight this kind of thing in whatever small way I can. Maybe the next person who checks out the Dimond piece o' trash at the library will be inclined to also check out the Aphrodite Jones book. Change a mind here, change a mind there. It all adds up.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 30, 2009, 8:36:33 AM PST
Jean Holland says:
Lena: Unfortunately, I doubt that DD will, in her old age, have her conscience catch up with her or that she will die in agony. If she can act like this now, she will not change unless something changes in the incentive structure to which she is responding. She is simply an example of the dumbing down of America...
and as long as people tune in to watch her or read her stuff, she is fed and her employers are happy.
as for the topic of this thread, Mean? Cruel? Yes. Mentally ill? No. Our culture is rewarding meanness and cruelty right now. And DD is simply responding to operant conditioning.

Posted on Dec 30, 2009, 8:38:02 AM PST
Jean Holland says:
Wizard: you are a one-woman social justice movement! you go!

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 30, 2009, 8:39:00 AM PST
Tina Marie says:
Agreed, PV. I remember a clip on youtube where Diane Demon seems to relish her description of Michael's so-called downfall. As she describes it, she uses the word "splat", as if to compare his fall from popularity to a physical fall, like from a high place to the sidewalk. The way she says the word "splat" with such vigor was really chilling. It seemed that she really enjoyed describing it just this way. She sort of slapped her hands together while saying "splat" to mimic the sound of the impact. It was at this moment that I thought something might be wrong with her because she seemed to enjoy that so much.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 30, 2009, 8:51:19 AM PST
Wizard says:
Jean, I'm trying to move past the "ain't it awful" stage. I think the upcoming trial (assuming there is one) will be an opportune time. I'm gearing up! Yeah!
‹ Previous 1 2 3 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the Michael Jackson forum

 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Michael Jackson forum
Participants:  14
Total posts:  52
Initial post:  Dec 29, 2009
Latest post:  Jan 3, 2010

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 3 customers