Sociopath Community

PalePeach said: 

Turncoat said: 

PalePeach said: 

Turncoat said: 

PalePeach said: 

Turncoat said: 

Like really, I don't understand what you get out of it. 

Is it empowering to run away from someone? 

I am above interacting with such filth

No you're not you're just tuning them out from them being too much for you to handle. Why can't you respond to it otherwise with indifference, because something they did personally affected you or something? 

This basically makes them the winner in your interactions with  him  them. 

Idc about how they treat me personally, i tune out turq and sugar for example. Jim and cawk are evil tho, and im not letting that kind of negative influence into my life anymore so i muted them/ any puppets i suspect to be them.

What influence would you imagine them having over your life if you didn't hide from them? 

Existing in my universe. They should be hung. You can fraternize with kiddie didlers all you want but I'm not going to.

I think you're mad at "them" for other reasons, as you weren't this motivated about avoiding "them" before. 

Why do you have to make it about them instead of about how they got to you? 

Inb4 "this thread is about misogyny not pedophiles" the venn diagram of pedophiles and misogynists on this forum is practically a circle.

How many people fall into that bill even, and is it fair to compare misogynists to pedophiles as if they were the same thing? 

Face it, you're too weak to face opposition, it triggers you and pisses you off, so you avoid it like a wuss. You're just dropping Ad Homs to not have to focus on your own part in this, and frankly that's sad. Even at this point you're mirroring Turquie's weaksauce arguments. 

Seriously, this is all about Jim, you don't need to hide behind archetypes and try to drag Cawk into this like he's still relevant. Jim got your goat, you lost, accept being a loser. 

Whorechata said: 

I don't understand the issue with blocking others, it's not censorship as other people (except the one that blocked you) can still read what you're saying.

Exactly, it's self-censorship, even more sad. It's literally covering your eyes and plugging your ears while others laugh at what's blatantly playing in front of them. 

I'm sure you understand how if someone beat you in an argument, and then you ran off and began yelling Ad Homs about them and blocking them, how that'd make you look like a chump? 

I think it's definitely the "Gotcha!" Of the internet and the way many people were raised on the web to believe blocking someone means the other person wins. 

It's true in real life too. If someone confronts you, you run from it like a pussy, and then say you're never going to places that that one person attends? 

That's weak shit, it's avoidance. 

"Is it empowering to runaway from someone?" 

Lol, it's not running away. It's not engaging with someone that you dislike for certain reasons. Peach explained her reasoning already- they're pedos. That's it.

You are just going to ignore how that reasoning came to pass, aren't you? 

It's a lazy strategy that serves for her to Ad Hom her opponent no differently than Spatial Mind does, than Turquie does. If she'd face the real problems here, she'd come out stronger. 

You're allowed to do that without having to go into full detail while a certain someone tries to poke you for reactions cos he's bored.

You could just be better than them by knowing how to handle them instead of just avoiding and empowering them. 

As for the topic it's just another nostalgia bait, the girls/ boys of this forum all go through some sort of hazing. 

Bingo, as it should be. 

If they can't take it, why the fuck are they even here? 

Turncoat said: 

Whorechata said: 

I don't understand the issue with blocking others, it's not censorship as other people (except the one that blocked you) can still read what you're saying.

Exactly, it's self-censorship, even more sad. It's literally covering your eyes and plugging your ears while others laugh at what's blatantly playing in front of them. 

I'm sure you understand how if someone beat you in an argument, and then you ran off and began yelling Ad Homs about them and blocking them, how that'd make you look like a chump? 

Not in this particular case, it's about preference isn't it. Her preference is to not have to engage with someone that has certain 'tastes'. That's understandable. That hypothetical scenario doesn't really work for it to make them seem like a chump when it comes to peach, unless I've missed an SC development?

I think it's definitely the "Gotcha!" Of the internet and the way many people were raised on the web to believe blocking someone means the other person wins. 

It's true in real life too. If someone confronts you, you run from it like a pussy, and then say you're never going to places that that one person attends? 

That's weak shit, it's avoidance. 

That's pretty extreme I'd say, you can choose who you want to engage with. And I don't think that particular thing is happening. This isn't avoidance it's about making the quality of what you're doing more enjoyable to you. I was limiting this to the internet but irl the person that presses on when the other has shown a clear disinterest in whatever confrontation they're trying to provoke is seen as the aggressor unable to contain themselves. 

 It almost sounds as if you're trying to say "if you don't allow me to treat you a certain way, you don't respond the way I want you to- you're weak." 

"Is it empowering to runaway from someone?" 

Lol, it's not running away. It's not engaging with someone that you dislike for certain reasons. Peach explained her reasoning already- they're pedos. That's it.

You are just going to ignore how that reasoning came to pass, aren't you? 

It's a lazy strategy that serves for her to Ad Hom her opponent no differently than Spatial Mind does, than Turquie does. If she'd face the real problems here, she'd come out stronger. 

This whole interrogation of why she can't respond in the same manner as you (not blocking) just seems like you're unable to or unwilling to accept any response that isn't like yours which is hilarious since you have a form of this with sugar by not directly responding to her. 

A bit kettle and pot of you.

As for the topic it's just another nostalgia bait, the girls/ boys of this forum all go through some sort of hazing. 

Bingo, as it should be. 

If they can't take it, why the fuck are they even here? 

 This isn't exactly the place it once was. People are still here for the memories of what it once was rather than for what it is and the occasional lols that is med.

I don't think it's that they can't take it, it's that at some point you realize maybe this has run its course and it's time to move on. The few that did leave because they couldn't take it are missed, and you truly don't know what you have until it's gone, eh

🤭

Have you watched Jim and Peach's interactions at all, or are you going with the idea that Peach just saw that Jim's a pedo and immediately broke contact? Jim's been clowning her for a bit now, she's clearly making external excuses for herself to not have to deal with him anymore. 

Otherwise you already know the Sugar situation, and I seem to recall you calling me weak for choosing to commit to radio silence. 

Whorechata said: 

 

It almost sounds as if you're trying to say "if you don't allow me to treat you a certain way, you don't respond the way I want you to- you're weak." 

Not quite. It's about knowing how to respond to it so that you actually thwarted them, or tolerated it, or actually, I dunno, faced the problem. This takes a willingness to lose enough times sometimes to gain the experience to see how to win the next one, and after so much of it comes enough experience and understanding to predict it better. 

If you just hide from your problems, all it teaches you is how to hide. 

Turncoat said: 

Have you watched Jim and Peach's interactions at all, or are you going with the idea that Peach just saw that Jim's a pedo and immediately broke contact? Jim's been clowning her for a bit now, she's clearly making external excuses for herself to not have to deal with him anymore.

I've seen some of it, I thought something new and specific had happened. Still going with it's not weak to block him based on her preference of not wanting to communicate with known Pedophiles. It's valid and  doesn't need any more explaining tbh

Otherwise you already know the Sugar situation, and I seem to recall you calling me weak for choosing to commit to radio silence. 

 Err, no I said you must be scared of her to not be able to communicate directly with her, instead of at her. You can say that it's just so much more fun the way you're doing it but it's more of a soft block isn't it? Bit of a passive aggressive move in a bid not to "lose". It was more of a bait than anything at the time.

Peach just prefers to not have to see whatever the person she chooses not to engage with, which is still more direct than what you're doing. 

Is that still weak?

Turncoat said: 

Whorechata said: 

 

It almost sounds as if you're trying to say "if you don't allow me to treat you a certain way, you don't respond the way I want you to- you're weak." 

Not quite. It's about knowing how to respond to it so that you actually thwarted them, or tolerated it, or actually, I dunno, faced the problem. This takes a willingness to lose enough times sometimes to gain the experience to see how to win the next one, and after so much of it comes enough experience and understanding to predict it better. 

If you just hide from your problems, all it teaches you is how to hide. 

 People don't have to tolerate certain things or people. I think it's just the difference in how you both see people and competitive natures. You see it like a game to win I think, peach is more likely to just let things go if they aren't particularly important to her 

Whorechata said: 

Turncoat said: 

Have you watched Jim and Peach's interactions at all, or are you going with the idea that Peach just saw that Jim's a pedo and immediately broke contact? Jim's been clowning her for a bit now, she's clearly making external excuses for herself to not have to deal with him anymore.

I've seen some of it, I thought something new and specific had happened. Still going with it's not weak to block him based on her preference of not wanting to communicate with known Pedophiles. It'svalid and  doesn't need any more explaining tbh

The pedophile factor is a red herring, it adds drama and justification in a way that shrouds the real issue. It's barely better than when Turquie reminds me that I'm stupid, it doesn't actually address the issues. Imagine this story without that detail if you're at least going to still principally go with this argument, as it otherwise serves to distract from the blocking point as a whole. 

If she just avoided him because pedophilia, that'd be one thing, but this is a clear post-justification. 

Otherwise you already know the Sugar situation, and I seem to recall you calling me weak for choosing to commit to radio silence. 

Err, no I said you must be scared of her to not be able to communicate directly with her, instead of at her.

Weak, scared, roughly the same semantics in this case isn't it? 

You can say that it's just so much more fun the way you're doing it but it's more of a soft block isn't it? Bit of a passive aggressive move in a bid not to "lose".

Sometimes it's worth it to lose something in order to gain something else, and this consequently opens up the room for others to critique it based on how it appears. 

Sure you can compare this to her and say she picked what seems like a better choice to her, but we can still sit here and call it weak shit, just like you'd choose to do in my case. It's not like I'm making these arguments from a purely objective or group-oriented stance, I'm calling it like I see it. 

Peach just prefers to not have to see whatever the person she chooses not to engage with, which is still more direct than what you're doing. 

Is that still weak?

She doesn't "just", this was built off of a history that took milling her down to this point. Much like the Sugar situation, it's a matter of context, and that context speaks to those who bother to dig into the entire story. 

She is also engaging arguably as much as I'm willing to do towards the aforementioned Sug through insulting the person indirectly while refusing to address them. The only real comparison in this case is that I have the pleasure of reading the things she says about me alongside the room to comment towards others about what I'm seeing, while she can't even stand to see the things he's typing out of fear of her own trigger fingers. 

Effectively at the end of the day I have better self control, if we're really going to dig into it and compare the two. 

Turncoat said: 

PalePeach said: 

Turncoat said: 

PalePeach said: 

Turncoat said: 

PalePeach said: 

Turncoat said: 

Like really, I don't understand what you get out of it. 

Is it empowering to run away from someone? 

I am above interacting with such filth

No you're not you're just tuning them out from them being too much for you to handle. Why can't you respond to it otherwise with indifference, because something they did personally affected you or something? 

This basically makes them the winner in your interactions with  him  them. 

Idc about how they treat me personally, i tune out turq and sugar for example. Jim and cawk are evil tho, and im not letting that kind of negative influence into my life anymore so i muted them/ any puppets i suspect to be them.

What influence would you imagine them having over your life if you didn't hide from them? 

Existing in my universe. They should be hung. You can fraternize with kiddie didlers all you want but I'm not going to.

I think you're mad at "them" for other reasons, as you weren't this motivated about avoiding "them" before. 

Why do you have to make it about them instead of about how they got to you? 

Inb4 "this thread is about misogyny not pedophiles" the venn diagram of pedophiles and misogynists on this forum is practically a circle.

How many people fall into that bill even, and is it fair to compare misogynists to pedophiles as if they were the same thing? 

Face it, you're too weak to face opposition, it triggers you and pisses you off, so you avoid it like a wuss. You're just dropping Ad Homs to not have to focus on your own part in this, and frankly that's sad. Even at this point you're mirroring Turquie's weaksauce arguments. 

Seriously, this is all about Jim, you don't need to hide behind archetypes and try to drag Cawk into this like he's still relevant. Jim got your goat, you lost, accept being a loser. 

 Someone's on her first period

Whorechata said: 

Turncoat said: 

Whorechata said: 

It almost sounds as if you're trying to say "if you don't allow me to treat you a certain way, you don't respond the way I want you to- you're weak." 

Not quite. It's about knowing how to respond to it so that you actually thwarted them, or tolerated it, or actually, I dunno, faced the problem. This takes a willingness to lose enough times sometimes to gain the experience to see how to win the next one, and after so much of it comes enough experience and understanding to predict it better. 

If you just hide from your problems, all it teaches you is how to hide. 

People don't have to tolerate certain things or people.

People don't have to be strong or tough either, they have choices, but those choices come with costs and one of those costs, as trivial as it is, is me calling out weakness as it plays in front of me. 

I think it's just the difference in how you both see people and competitive natures. You see it like a game to win I think, peach is more likely to just let things go if they aren't particularly important to her 

What is she looking for when she comes here?

I also see her rip into people who struggle with mental disorders and addiction and shit, why should she get any more pity than the rest of us? She's no innocent or martyr, she's someone who can dish but can't take it, and blocks when it proves to be too much. 

Also have you watched her? She doesn't let shit go, she just wants to be someone who can.