Sociopath Community

Xadem said: 

stop bullying my dames 

 All five fingers of them.

ScionReborn said: 

Xadem said: 

stop bullying my dames 

 All five fingers of them.

 I mastribate with ur mom's ass bitch

Turncoat said: 

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. 

 I don't think it's a red herring as she's clearly stated her dislike of pedophiles long ago. Cawk and Jim are the most notable ones so it makes sense what she's saying. You think she would want to block him because he's what? Bullying her? 

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? 

Weak and scared aren't the same things at all, first. Not even hete

I said scared as you would only communicate at her if you felt you had the backing of an 'audience',most cases Jim, discussing her posts or behavior with others rather than engaging- safety in numbers kinda. 

You're calling peach weak for not wanting to see or respond to Jim and discarding her reasoning completely based on how you feel about Pedophiles(which you have an extensive history to be otherwise okay with them). 

If you want those two words to be roughly the same for your scenario then I'd have to say peach would be the stronger one with having blocked, she's made it known that she's done it and meanwhile you haven't and can only run a commentary on someone you seem to show a clear dislike for from a distance. 

 

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. 

I'm not calling you weak but in using your standards for this I would have to. I'm of the position that blocking someone isn't weak it's just an indication of preference and it's not censorship. Imagine having to look at something you dislike everyday, having the ability to not look at it and not using it. The mute/block function is there for a reason. 

 

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. 

 Lol god this is just you self justifying why you're not weak by your own standards while trying to shame peach. 

Whorechata said: 

You think she would want to block him because he's what? Bullying her? 

Bullying her successfully, yes. 

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? 

Weak and scared aren't the same things at all, first. Not even hete

Not the same, but being scared is an expression of weakness isn't it? When is it strong to be afraid? 

It's like how blood orange is still a shade of orange. 

I said scared as you would only communicate at her if you felt you had the backing of an 'audience',most cases Jim, discussing her posts or behavior with others rather than engaging- safety in numbers kinda. 

Why even talk about her without an audience though? 

You can argue "safety in numbers" as if it was about me trying to gather up forces instead of just stand on a soapbox and shoot out insults, but ask yourself: Why would someone say blatantly dramatic things towards an empty dark cave? 

This place is great for it's audience, it adds way more drama and lulz, so as long as I'm not relying on them to argue for me how is it a problem? Would you see Med for example taking heat this harshly if there wasn't an audience? No, many people need to see a wide variety of people reacting to it to take it seriously if the person making those points isn't otherwise an intimate connection to their lives. 

You're calling peach weak for not wanting to see or respond to Jim and discarding her reasoning completely based on how you feel about Pedophiles(which you have an extensive history to be otherwise okay with them). 

Based on her history, yes. 

If she joined this forum as a moralfag it'd be one thing, but as Slay pointed out it's obviously a front of weakness. Even if she believes herself at this point our chat logs and forum posts make a case of butthurt fleeing with ad homs as excuses. 

Again, remove the pedophilia from him and she'd just be yelling "Misogynist". Get rid of the misogyny and it'd just be another excuse. The only real factor here is that she feels targetted and beaten down by someone who's "beneath her", unlike how she treated Delora and BR. 

If you want those two words to be roughly the same for your scenario then I'd have to say peach would be the stronger one with having blocked, she's made it known that she's done it and meanwhile you haven't and can only run a commentary on someone you seem to show a clear dislike for from a distance. 

I didn't make it known that I was doing a silly game of radio silence that'd make her sperg for like 2+ years? Weird, I thought my stating that was part of the problem for you. 

Meanwhile, how do you see Jim reacting to her blocking him, yet constantly feeling the need to remind him? 

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. 

I'm not calling you weak but in using your standards for this I would have to. I'm of the position that blocking someone isn't weak it's just an indication of preference and it's not censorship. Imagine having to look at something you dislike everyday, having the ability to not look at it and not using it. The mute/block function is there for a reason. 

The preference is over weakness depending on the reasons that led to said preference. Peach shows clearly short sighted contradictions by comparison to more principled people, she's about as legit as her Aries rival on this forum. 

Lol god this is just you self justifying why you're not weak by your own standards while trying to shame peach. 

It wasn't until you tried to create the comparison, it'd be another story if the Sug stuff was coming up without your help. You however have all the room to continue calling me weak about the Sugar drama, I'm not stopping you and I've already said my peace on it. I however don't feel like I have to block people I find, as Peach puts it, "beneath me". 

I'm not so weak that I can't take you calling me weak, that's just weak. 

To be honest, this kinda reads to me at first glance as being pushed by your own blocking of Jim. You relate to her and want to make arguments that would be good enough for you as if that were their reasoning, and through defending them you can enable your own weakness. 

Turncoat said: 

Whorechata said: 

You think she would want to block him because he's what? Bullying her? 

Bullying her successfully, yes. 

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? 

Weak and scared aren't the same things at all, first. Not even hete

Not the same, but being scared is an expression of weakness isn't it? When is it strong to be afraid? 

It's like how blood orange is still a shade of orange. 

I said scared as you would only communicate at her if you felt you had the backing of an 'audience',most cases Jim, discussing her posts or behavior with others rather than engaging- safety in numbers kinda. 

Why even talk about her without an audience though? 

You can argue "safety in numbers" as if it was about me trying to gather up forces instead of just stand on a soapbox and shoot out insults, but ask yourself: Why would someone say blatantly dramatic things towards an empty dark cave? 

This place is great for it's audience, it adds way more drama and lulz, so as long as I'm not relying on them to argue for me how is it a problem? Would you see Med for example taking heat this harshly if there wasn't an audience? No, many people need to see a wide variety of people reacting to it to take it seriously if the person making those points isn't otherwise an intimate connection to their lives. 

You're calling peach weak for not wanting to see or respond to Jim and discarding her reasoning completely based on how you feel about Pedophiles(which you have an extensive history to be otherwise okay with them). 

Based on her history, yes. 

If she joined this forum as a moralfag it'd be one thing, but as Slay pointed out it's obviously a front of weakness. Even if she believes herself at this point our chat logs and forum posts make a case of butthurt fleeing with ad homs as excuses. 

Again, remove the pedophilia from him and she'd just be yelling "Misogynist". Get rid of the misogyny and it'd just be another excuse. The only real factor here is that she feels targetted and beaten down by people who are "beneath her", unlike how she treated Delora and BR. 

If you want those two words to be roughly the same for your scenario then I'd have to say peach would be the stronger one with having blocked, she's made it known that she's done it and meanwhile you haven't and can only run a commentary on someone you seem to show a clear dislike for from a distance. 

I didn't make it known that I was doing a silly game of radio silence that'd make her sperg for like 2+ years? Weird, I thought my stating that was part of the problem for you. 

Meanwhile, how do you see Jim reacting to her blocking him, yet constantly feeling the need to remind him? 

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. 

I'm not calling you weak but in using your standards for this I would have to. I'm of the position that blocking someone isn't weak it's just an indication of preference and it's not censorship. Imagine having to look at something you dislike everyday, having the ability to not look at it and not using it. The mute/block function is there for a reason. 

The preference is over weakness depending on the reasons that led to said preference. Peach shows clearly short sighted contradictions by comparison to more principled people, she's about as legit as her Aries rival on this forum. 

 

Lol god this is just you self justifying why you're not weak by your own standards while trying to shame peach. 

It wasn't until you tried to create the comparison, it'd be another story if the Sug stuff was coming up without your help. You however have all the room to continue calling me weak about the Sugar drama, I'm not stopping you and I've already said my peace on it. I however don't feel like I have to block people I find, as Peach puts it, "beneath me". 

I'm not so weak that I can't take you calling me weak, that's just weak. 

---

To be honest, this kinda reads to me at first glance as being pushed by your own blocking of Jim, you relate to her and want to make arguments that would be good enough for you as if that were their reasoning, and through defending them you can enable your own weakness. 

 Jesus sugar drama? what happened there?

To make a long story short (and see others baited to say their longer version in their defense)...

There was a time I wasn't online for a few hours while she and I were beefing and Sug took it personally. I laughed at it openly from the current state of affairs, and then decided to see how long I could keep it up to see if she'd continue to deliver. 

She did, and through a series of mini games it's gone on for years. She for a while was something I could wake up to in the  morning  afternoon and see tabloids with my name splatter-painted all over them. 

Have you ever had someone be like that about you before? It feels amazing. 

Turncoat said: 

To make a long story short (and see others baited to say their longer version in their defense)...

There was a time I wasn't online for a few hours while she and I were beefing and Sug took it personally. I laughed at it openly from the current state of affairs, and then decided to see how long I could keep it up to see if she'd continue to deliver. 

She did, and through a series of mini games it's gone on for years. She for a while was something I could wake up to in the  morning  afternoon and see tabloids with my name splatter-painted all over them. 

Have you ever had someone be like that about you before? It feels amazing. 

 Ive had a few crazy brawds in my past stalk me.

I know you enjoy attention nathan it's your narrative and the apparition of this place fills that need...as well as the internet.

Because your real life isn't as interesting as the place we call the interwebs.

Turncoat said: 

Whorechata said: 

You think she would want to block him because he's what? Bullying her? 

Bullying her successfully, yes. 

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? 

Weak and scared aren't the same things at all, first. Not even hete

Not the same, but being scared is an expression of weakness isn't it? When is it strong to be afraid? 

It's like how blood orange is still a shade of orange.

No it's not an expression of weakness. Being scared is a fear response. Fear is a healthy normal brain response. I don't think fear should ever bee seen as a weakness.

I said scared as you would only communicate at her if you felt you had the backing of an 'audience',most cases Jim, discussing her posts or behavior with others rather than engaging- safety in numbers kinda. 

Why even talk about her without an audience though? 

You can argue "safety in numbers" as if it was about me trying to gather up forces instead of just stand on a soapbox and shoot out insults, but ask yourself: Why would someone say blatantly dramatic things towards an empty dark cave? 

This place is great for it's audience, it adds way more drama and lulz, so as long as I'm not relying on them to argue for me how is it a problem? Would you see Med for example taking heat this harshly if there wasn't an audience? No, many people need to see a wide variety of people reacting to it to take it seriously if the person making those points isn't otherwise an intimate connection to their lives. 

Because you are, above all things, the most theatrical/ dramatic lil shit I've ever come across. It's adorable really. It's cute and wonderful at time but good god you've gone on and had moments where you ramped up that theatrical and dramatic for no reason whatsoever. Or for reasons that only spiralled out in your head. 

You're calling peach weak for not wanting to see or respond to Jim and discarding her reasoning completely based on how you feel about Pedophiles(which you have an extensive history to be otherwise okay with them). 

Based on her history, yes. 

If she joined this forum as a moralfag it'd be one thing, but as Slay pointed out it's obviously a front of weakness. Even if she believes herself at this point our chat logs and forum posts make a case of butthurt fleeing with ad homs as excuses. 

Again, remove the pedophilia from him and she'd just be yelling "Misogynist". Get rid of the misogyny and it'd just be another excuse. The only real factor here is that she feels targetted and beaten down by someone who's "beneath her", unlike how she treated Delora and BR. 

But there's no need to remove the pedophilia as that is one of his biggest traits even if it was for shock value. You keep wanting to invalidate her reasoning by removing that but it's a well known fact that he's a Pedophile. 

If you want those two words to be roughly the same for your scenario then I'd have to say peach would be the stronger one with having blocked, she's made it known that she's done it and meanwhile you haven't and can only run a commentary on someone you seem to show a clear dislike for from a distance. 

I didn't make it known that I was doing a silly game of radio silence that'd make her sperg for like 2+ years? Weird, I thought my stating that was part of the problem for you. 

Meanwhile, how do you see Jim reacting to her blocking him, yet constantly feeling the need to remind him? 

She explains her reasoning and all you have to offer is that it's not good enough for you. Jim has made his own jab in this thread tho.

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. 

I'm not calling you weak but in using your standards for this I would have to. I'm of the position that blocking someone isn't weak it's just an indication of preference and it's not censorship. Imagine having to look at something you dislike everyday, having the ability to not look at it and not using it. The mute/block function is there for a reason. 

The preference is over weakness depending on the reasons that led to said preference. Peach shows clearly short sighted contradictions by comparison to more principled people, she's about as legit as her Aries rival on this forum. 

I had a response for this but seeing the horoscope term it's flown out of my head and quite honestly I hate this.

Lol god this is just you self justifying why you're not weak by your own standards while trying to shame peach. 

It wasn't until you tried to create the comparison, it'd be another story if the Sug stuff was coming up without your help. You however have all the room to continue calling me weak about the Sugar drama, I'm not stopping you and I've already said my peace on it. I however don't feel like I have to block people I find, as Peach puts it, "beneath me". 

I'm not so weak that I can't take you calling me weak, that's just weak. 

---

To be honest, this kinda reads to me at first glance as being pushed by your own blocking of Jim, you relate to her and want to make arguments that would be good enough for you as if that were their reasoning, and through defending them you can enable your own weakness. 

Again I'm not calling you weak but if you're forcing me to use your standard then I suppose that's what I would call you instead of scared. Again your not blocking is a personal preference just like peaches blocking of him is her own personal preference.

 I haven't blocked jim tho? So now you're just assuming I've got him blocked and making up reasons for that? 

For shame TC.

Also someone hit me up with that meta thread in suggestions, the text size is killing me. 

ScionReborn said: 

I know you enjoy attention nathan it's your narrative and the apparition of this place fills that need...as well as the internet.

Because your real life isn't as interesting as the place we call the interwebs.

Exactly, you get it. 

Real life can be interesting too, but it's a lot slower. 

Turncoat, you are a mentally ill loser dependent on handouts from the government who has attempted suicide from being so miserable. You are like, the definition of weak. I could definitely kick your ass in a physical fight. Sorry but someone needs to be honest with you about what your reality is.

Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones