Is there a name for this type of attitude/behavior?

[Josh]

The situation I am assisting with is not in a church setting. The "powers that be" have the attitude that if they do not acknowledge the problem, then there is no problem. In this particular situation, there is the potential for the law to get involved if it isn't handled right.

I really have no idea what to do in these situations, and my past activism doesn't seem to have born much positive fruit. There is a situation similar to this brewing that I have no idea how to proceed with, and at this point others have asked in a public setting for help with the situation, so it's even technically my business. And I'm still not sure what to do.

The attitude that seems to prevail with many people is... they don't want to be a "gossip", they don't want to interfere in other people's private lives or appear controlling, etc. etc., so then very bad situations happen and everyone is afraid to take a step to confront and stop a (potential) abuser.

[mike]

Does every bad behavior have to have some kind of new, chic name? What happened to good old terms like pride, envy, and what not. I get really tired of some of the terms that are thrown around these days. "Narcissism" or "gaslighting," for instance. Why not just call it pride and dishonesty or something else? It feels like there is a need to get extra attention on a problem, and these terms are just a means to get more people to shudder in horror and disgust.

[steve-in-kville]

Does every bad behavior have to have some kind of new, chic name? What happened to good old terms like pride, envy, and what not. I get really tired of some of the terms that are thrown around these days. "Narcissism" or "gaslighting," for instance. Why not just call it pride and dishonesty or something else? It feels like there is a need to get extra attention on a problem, and these terms are just a means to get more people to shudder in horror and disgust.

Someone has to justify their college degrees

[steve-in-kville]

"Narcissism" or "gaslighting," for instance. Why not just call it pride and dishonesty or something else?

I always had these as being controlling behaviors. But you're right: I had a college-level book on psychology back when I was an active EMT. After reading through that, everyone had a mental illness with a fancied-up name

[MaxPC]

Does every bad behavior have to have some kind of new, chic name? What happened to good old terms like pride, envy, and what not. I get really tired of some of the terms that are thrown around these days. "Narcissism" or "gaslighting," for instance. Why not just call it pride and dishonesty or something else? It feels like there is a need to get extra attention on a problem, and these terms are just a means to get more people to shudder in horror and disgust.

Narcissism is actually an old term to describe someone who is vain and self-centered to magnified degree. It comes from Ovid's poem Metamorphoses in the year 8 AD.

Gaslighting came from a 1940 movie in which the husband used extreme forms of manipulation to control his wife and have her committed to a mental institution. Many such terms came into use as a form of instant recognition of a condition, a form of diagnositic shorthand if you will.

Both conditions need to be diagnosed by a professional yet modern mass media pitches them about as though they are something new and to act as click-bait.

Back to the original topic: yes, it is difficult for those in fellowship to pursue interventions for a sexual predator. The notion that if they are wrong, then the person's life is ruined and presents a haunting prospect. No caring person wants to ruin another person's life.

It is this hesitation and concern among family and friends that the manipulative predator depends upon to continue his crime without punishment. This aspect of hesitation (and indeed false accusations) is why the American RCC Bishops in 2002 chose to turn all accusations and suspicions over to law inforcement for an independent investigation. If the person is cleared, the person is justified. If the person is found to be guilty, the burden of prosecution falls upon the civil authorities.

[mrbilliam]

They felt out of their depth and wished the problem didn’t exist so they just sort of wished it to the point where there was nothing they could really do about it anyway. “If we look into it could be bad—or it might not be—but if we don’t look then it can’t turn out to be bad. And so we’ll just convince ourselves we won’t even know what we’re looking at if we did look so why bother looking?” Call it ostrich syndrome or something.

A lot of people like to tell this as some conspiracy where powerful people cover up things for their friends or whatever but it really isn’t that. The same thing happens to “victims” all the time—a wife has pretty strong indications her husband is regularly cheating on her but she doesn’t want it to be true so she really can’t see it. Con men get their marks to send good money after bad money all the time, often while the victims are suppressing doubts they don’t want to let surface.

The situation I am assisting with is not in a church setting. The "powers that be" have the attitude that if they do not acknowledge the problem, then there is no problem. In this particular situation, there is the potential for the law to get involved if it isn't handled right.

So is the situation not in a church setting that a woman caught her husband with porn? Not really much you can do as porn is legal.
The awkward part of what I read here is that illegal sins and sins seem to be treated differently in attitude.