I suppose you have missed the irony in getting upset about people making observations about someone who makes nasty observations about people for a living.


The sociopath discussion is perfectly legitimate as Hopkins admits herself she doesn't do empathy.

Calling someone a sociopath is defamatory, and posting it on the internet could be considered publishing it, which makes it potentially libellous.

Why did you bring in the sociopath comment when it was not part of the article, unless you specifically wanted the suggestion that she's a sociopath to be discussed?


I haven't been able to find the particular comment you mentioned, to see if it was expressed as an opinion, but there are similar comments there that aren't.

I just don't think two wrongs make a right.

As I didn't read the comments my opinion is based on educated observation.
No-one is preventing you posting your opinions on the article.

Then may I suggest you don't partake. If a thread doesn't interest me - I generally just ignore it.

Moral and ethical considerations prevent me.

If someone starts a thread about the article, without bringing in mere comments on the Guardian site, and it does not become another discussion of the sociopath accusation, I will consider it.

I have always felt it wrong to make such accusations about housemates, and I think it is one of the nastiest things that ever happens here.

But ok, I will leave you to it.

(BTW, as soon as you start saying it's based on something like educated observation, it starts to stray from being presented as mere opinion.)

"Yes - I am a sociopath"

by Katie Hopkins


http://katiehopkins-apprentice.blogs...sociopath.html

I did want it discussed and not at any point have I said I didn't. The whole tenet of the article is her extreme views and her admitted lack of empathy or care for others' feelings and how at odds those seemed with the fact that she was, in the reporter's words, "good company".

Since the traits that Katie describes about herself (e.g. no fear, a lack of empathy and an emotional disconnect) are core traits of a sociopath, and since some of her cruelty is also suggestive of it, then it's neither unreasonable nor irrelevant to at least consider it. Ditto her epilepsy, her upbringing, the catholic school she went to, her social class, her time in the military... ALL of which have been discussed in here as well. Like it or not, Veri, sociopaths do actually exist and not all of them are murderous monsters. Some are in government, some are running big business, some are on telly and some have families they love. You obviously think this is a horrible slur whereas I'm a bit more clinical/dispassionate when it comes to debating anything psychological.

I think it probably is best if we leave it there now, as you've suggested. We're never in a million years going to agree.

She sees Alicia as weak and has a hang up about anyone being weak or vulnerable. Its the trait she hates most in others - because she fears it so much in herself. Hence her pathological need to keep appearing strong, in control and not fallible in any way.

Has major issues that probably relate back to her childhood. Comes from the sort of family home, school, and then Sandhurst where you weren't allowed to cry or break down. She sees that as a strength. More fool her - as this approach will effect her kids and also means she has no empathy with others.

Nice spot, cheers. An interesting read with an extra advantage of laying to rest any suggestion of defamation or libel.

Yes, because this is deadly serious:

"You ask me would I 'pass kittens through a mincing machine and barbecue my own children' if I thought it would help me get along in business?

"Absolutely!"

"After all, what you have to consider is that children and kittens are perishable, anyhow. Especially children. To get along in business - to get along in life, in fact - you must be ruthless, smashing every obstacle that lies between you and your goal, taking no hostages - be they kittens, your children or your rivals. Hostages, are baggage. And not Louis Vuitton, darling. Bump them off and bury them at the bottom of the garden - that's my motto. Just don't let anyone know."

Eh?

This is just one of her- trying-hard-to-be-funny-blogs though, not an interview, rather a mock one. I think it's her taking the piss. She must have been desperate back then. after the Apprentice, to get noticed. It's the building of the brand.

I don't think she is a sociopath, but I'd say she is quite enamored by the idea of it.

Like, duh. I'm not an idiot.

But since I've been accused of defamation (*rolls eyes*), it's worth stating that you can't actually defame someone for saying something they've said about themselves.... you actually have to say something that would lower their reputation or cause them to be the subject of ridicule or affect their business, and she does a bang up job of that all by herself.

I don't think anyone would take that interview seriously. But it was posted right after an accusation that discussing sociopathy in relation to Katie is defamatory. The woman is defaming herself in that case.

I agree. I don't think she would feel offended, never mind thinking she is being defamed, by being called a sociopath. She may even see it as a compliment...and go and have a little weep about it.

Thank you. If there were instead a discussion of the article alone, I might find it interesting. But I think putting such labels on housemates is nasty, irresponsible, and at least borders on libel (yes, even if someone digs up a "blog"). It is not nearly so easy to identify such disorders as is assumed in these discussions that talk of symptoms and try to get things they know about a HM to fit, and it would not be hard to make a case, using diagnostic criteria, that she is not a sociopath.


You say that, but then you don't. You've continued to make comments about what I've said.

Would explain why she looks so ravaged. She has nothing about her she has not the balls to say to their faces what she says behind their backs in fact she is sycophantic in her arse licking. What did she do at Sandhurst hide under her bed.

Thank you, I was looking for that article found it but you beat me to it.


See the above article. I stand by educated observation. Unless someone else spoke those words, of course. Once again this is a discussion forum, new aspects are introduced. Why you feel unable to post your thoughts on the article is puzzling me.

I meant leave it there as in me and you debating. Someone then posted a relevant link to the whole 'defamation' thing and I decided I wasn't quite finished being irked by what you said about me.

But now I'm fine. So bygones.

I've seen the article; you're missing my point about "educated observation"; and I've explained why I won't post my thoughts on the article in this thread. I am however, and unfortunately, in a sense discussing the other subject of this thread, the comment that labelled her a sociopath.

Ok. See you in other threads.

The World Health Organisation defines a sociopath as

characterized by at least 3 of the following:

Callous unconcern for the feelings of others;
Gross and persistent attitude of irresponsibility and disregard for social norms, rules, and obligations;
Incapacity to maintain enduring relationships, though having no difficulty in establishing them;
Very low tolerance to frustration and a low threshold for discharge of aggression, including violence;
Incapacity to experience guilt or to profit from experience, particularly punishment;
Marked readiness to blame others or to offer plausible rationalizations for the behavior that has brought the person into conflict with society.

If anyone thinks they can fit this definition to Katie Hopkins on the evidence they've seen - go ahead.

I haven't anything like enough experience of the woman to be able to tell.

I do, however, think that her mind, sharply honed though it may be, is narrower than a stick of spaghetti. And I think that's a shame.

Yes indeedy.

Just as well (oh was that awfully mean?)

Why are snobs who view a whole class of people as inferior any different from racists who view a whole race of people as inferior. Her elitest attitudes should be unacceptable
in any society that wants move forward in a fairer more just world.