I love to read the different takes on issues and subjects based on age. With some events thise born aftenr the fact will see issues differently and some with more clarity. Jezebel has an article about Patty Hearst being in the Westminster Dog show.

For those of us as children like me in the 70s and older Patty Hearst was involved in the case of the decade. I knew virtually knew no adults who believed her. Teachers found her story bs but since they were nuns called them lies. The argument against her typically went like this "a young woman like many young people wanted excitement and got involved in the hippie/antigovernment crowd, she faked her kidnapping, got in over her head by getting arrested so clung to the kidnapping defense.". I was between grade school and jr high between her kidnapping claim to President Carter's commutation.

She claimed brainwashing. Yet were her beliefs that much different then theirs? I do not know. If so then it would be convincing her to take the next step. Is convincing brainwashing? She had ways to escape yet she did not. Of course was the entire kidnapping real? I think there are still questions. Although are my questions and skepticism a lingering affect from childhood? Was she simply coopting the idea of brainwashing?

Advertisement

What are your thoughts? I think no matter what this explores the concept of brainwashing, free will, and convincing. Convincing would mean she and SLA believed the same but they convinced her to take the next step. Brainwashing at least to me would mean they would have to make her believe the same as they do. I am to this day not sure of her.

Your thoughts or just an idiotic topic? For those younger who did not born during this era what do you think. I still see this case partly subjectively since I lived through it.

Here is a pretty good article on the case. http://www.sleuthsayers.org/2012/02/mind-c…