Sociopath Community

Tryptamine said: 

Turncoat said: 

Tryptamine said:

I hate when people break apart posts like this and respond line-by-line. Reason being, people end up just nitpicking over broken up statements, the general narrative is lost; a "can't see the forest for the trees" situation develops. So I am going to try to address you in a way that doesn't do that, but you're asking me a lot of very specific questions, so try to have a bit of patience with me.

It's always people who are easily distracted that seem to dislike people splitting apart their posts for their nuggets. 

I see splitting a post for it's content as useful for it's room to see the overall message, especially when it comes to splitting the wheat from the chaff for what portions are actually important. If you just respond to 'the overall message' it always misses things, typically just showing where the reader's eyes clung to the post while ignoring the rest of it, while a split shows the room to address each and every point made for their own individual merits. 

If someone makes three separate strong points, why not split it up instead of averaging out some rough impression? Your room for impressionism already has had you mistake events, so if anything splitting it apart should help you. 

I think I managed to address everything that he just said within a cohesive narrative, and I highly doubt I'm the only person capable of doing that. There didn't seem to be much distraction there. 

You technically (and conveniently) skipped this portion: 

Major Major said: 

Tryptamine said: 

Your fatalistic judgments are noted, but I'm not concerned what you think about me, so we can just skip that conversation.

I'm just honest about my opinion. I would be the first person to support you if I thought there was even a slim chance of you fixing things. But I've seen these types of situations so many times, and they always end up tragically. Unless there's something exceptional about you, I'll just assume your story ends up in a tragedy as well.

I would tell you to prove me wrong, but that would be unfair. You aren't the type of person who'd be up for it, and I don't feel like celebrating seeing you fail.|

I will give you the credit of having answered his points with more effort than your usual, you actually stuck to a topic instead of trying to have them do all the talking this time. I still however see more value in dissected post-discussion, and have gained the most conversational exchange out of those who aren't too inept to keep up with it. 

The thing I've noticed about when people choose to do that, is that things end up devolving into split up arguments over several things. And perhaps that is preferential to some, but not to me.

You can't focus on more than one topic at once? 

Maybe that's the difference between people like you and people like me. For those willing to have more than one conversation at once I've given them credit for being quick witted while able to retain multiple trains of thought at once, but if that's too much for you... I can understand your aversion towards it. 

Generally when I would do that in the past, my intention would purposefully be to create chaos out of the situation—not to reach a point of clarity. For the means of being clear, I think it is useful to point out particular quotes, but not to dissect each and every thing piece-by-piece.

You're projecting is why. It's difficult for you, so you assume doing this towards others will bring out your reaction. 

I definitely see a difference in caliber of person based on how well they can or can't follow more than one subject at a time. I tend to try to keep my splitting around one or two central topics, having each tidbit work as a mild jab that pokes towards an overall message, but I guess that's too hard for some people to follow. 

The way that those conversations tend to flow into an oblivion of side-arguments is basically what demonstrates my point. And there is probably some utility in that; it's just not my preferred style of conversation when I think someone is being serious about something. Simply because too many tangents causes a lack of overall cohesion.

The way 'The Right' argues is closer to a barrage of points meant to attack strawmen representatives of 'The Left'. More often than not they aren't actually reading what their opposition is saying, and then insist that "not being convinced" means they're winning. 

Turncoat said: 

Tryptamine said:

It was never my obligation to be kind to her, though I was quite often. I was perhaps even one of the kindest to her.

Starting to sound like Spatial a bit here. 

She was wrong all along, and probably too young to be associating with some of the folks that pass through.

Assuming Luna wasn't lying about her age. 

Well, she sure didn't act like she was lying about her age. And I think on the whole, I was quite nice to her. We got along well enough that she wanted me to do some marketing for her. But I have a tendency to choose alcohol over capitalistic pursuits.

Turncoat said: 

She was wrong all along, and probably too young to be associating with some of the folks that pass through.

Assuming Luna wasn't lying about her age. 

Fun fact: If Luna is who I think she is... she's married to a furry. 🤭

Tryptamine said: 

I think on the whole, I was quite nice to her.

Your need to point this out is a pat on the back more than anything, just like Spats. 

When you have to announce your own piety, it's not real. 

We got along well enough that she wanted me to do some marketing for her.

She gets along with anyone who promises her money or success. She tried her hardest to get along with me while I was being very forward about her behaviors and failures, but she cannot face critique to save her life. 

But I have a tendency to choose alcohol over capitalistic pursuits.

I can respect that you're at least trying to own up to the Alcoholic image instead of making those who care about you suspend their disbelief further, but it still reeks of self-enabling. 

Can you follow that I made three points, or is this erring into 'too much'? 

Turncoat said: 

Tryptamine said: 

Turncoat said: 

Tryptamine said:

I hate when people break apart posts like this and respond line-by-line. Reason being, people end up just nitpicking over broken up statements, the general narrative is lost; a "can't see the forest for the trees" situation develops. So I am going to try to address you in a way that doesn't do that, but you're asking me a lot of very specific questions, so try to have a bit of patience with me.

It's always people who are easily distracted that seem to dislike people splitting apart their posts for their nuggets. 

I see splitting a post for it's content as useful for it's room to see the overall message, especially when it comes to splitting the wheat from the chaff for what portions are actually important. If you just respond to 'the overall message' it always misses things, typically just showing where the reader's eyes clung to the post while ignoring the rest of it, while a split shows the room to address each and every point made for their own individual merits. 

If someone makes three separate strong points, why not split it up instead of averaging out some rough impression? Your room for impressionism already has had you mistake events, so if anything splitting it apart should help you. 

I think I managed to address everything that he just said within a cohesive narrative, and I highly doubt I'm the only person capable of doing that. There didn't seem to be much distraction there. 

You technically (and conveniently) skipped this portion: 

Major Major said: 

Tryptamine said: 

Your fatalistic judgments are noted, but I'm not concerned what you think about me, so we can just skip that conversation.

I'm just honest about my opinion. I would be the first person to support you if I thought there was even a slim chance of you fixing things. But I've seen these types of situations so many times, and they always end up tragically. Unless there's something exceptional about you, I'll just assume your story ends up in a tragedy as well.

I would tell you to prove me wrong, but that would be unfair. You aren't the type of person who'd be up for it, and I don't feel like celebrating seeing you fail.|

I will give you the credit of having answered his points with more effort than your usual, you actually stuck to a topic instead of trying to have them do all the talking this time. I still however see more value in dissected post-discussion, and have gained the most conversational exchange out of those who aren't too inept to keep up with it. 

---

The thing I've noticed about when people choose to do that, is that things end up devolving into split up arguments over several things. And perhaps that is preferential to some, but not to me.

You can't focus on more than one topic at once? 

Maybe that's the difference between people like you and people like me. For those willing to have more than one conversation at once I've given them credit for being quick witted while able to retain multiple trains of thought at once, but if that's too much for you... I can understand your aversion towards it. 

Generally when I would do that in the past, my intention would purposefully be to create chaos out of the situation—not to reach a point of clarity. For the means of being clear, I think it is useful to point out particular quotes, but not to dissect each and every thing piece-by-piece.

You're projecting is why. It's difficult for you, so you assume doing this towards others will bring out your reaction. 

I definitely see a difference in caliber of person based on how well they can or can't follow more than one subject at a time. I tend to try to keep my splitting around one or two central topics, having each tidbit work as a mild jab that pokes towards an overall message, but I guess that's too hard for some people to follow. 

The way that those conversations tend to flow into an oblivion of side-arguments is basically what demonstrates my point. And there is probably some utility in that; it's just not my preferred style of conversation when I think someone is being serious about something. Simply because too many tangents causes a lack of overall cohesion.

The way 'The Right' argues is closer to a barrage of points meant to attack strawmen representatives of 'The Left'. More often than not they aren't actually reading what their opposition is saying, and then insist that "not being convinced" means they're winning. 

 

Oh dear, we're doing this again.

The part you said I overlooked was not in the post that I responded to. The reason I had nothing to say about what he said (when he did say it), is because I have no comment on it. As I mentioned earlier, I am not invested in what he thinks about me, personally. He is welcome to his opinion, and I see no need to delve into that topic.

I've already explained my issues with that form of communication, and even acknowledged that it can be useful. And I explained my distaste toward it as well. Don't feel like it's a personal attack on you because that's what you tend toward. All I said in essence, is that I don't resonate with it.

Tryptamine said: 

Turncoat said: 

You technically (and conveniently) skipped this portion: 

Major Major said: 

Tryptamine said: 

Your fatalistic judgments are noted, but I'm not concerned what you think about me, so we can just skip that conversation.

I'm just honest about my opinion. I would be the first person to support you if I thought there was even a slim chance of you fixing things. But I've seen these types of situations so many times, and they always end up tragically. Unless there's something exceptional about you, I'll just assume your story ends up in a tragedy as well.

I would tell you to prove me wrong, but that would be unfair. You aren't the type of person who'd be up for it, and I don't feel like celebrating seeing you fail.|

I will give you the credit of having answered his points with more effort than your usual, you actually stuck to a topic instead of trying to have them do all the talking this time. I still however see more value in dissected post-discussion, and have gained the most conversational exchange out of those who aren't too inept to keep up with it. 

---

The thing I've noticed about when people choose to do that, is that things end up devolving into split up arguments over several things. And perhaps that is preferential to some, but not to me.

You can't focus on more than one topic at once? 

Maybe that's the difference between people like you and people like me. For those willing to have more than one conversation at once I've given them credit for being quick witted while able to retain multiple trains of thought at once, but if that's too much for you... I can understand your aversion towards it. 

Generally when I would do that in the past, my intention would purposefully be to create chaos out of the situation—not to reach a point of clarity. For the means of being clear, I think it is useful to point out particular quotes, but not to dissect each and every thing piece-by-piece.

You're projecting is why. It's difficult for you, so you assume doing this towards others will bring out your reaction. 

I definitely see a difference in caliber of person based on how well they can or can't follow more than one subject at a time. I tend to try to keep my splitting around one or two central topics, having each tidbit work as a mild jab that pokes towards an overall message, but I guess that's too hard for some people to follow. 

The way that those conversations tend to flow into an oblivion of side-arguments is basically what demonstrates my point. And there is probably some utility in that; it's just not my preferred style of conversation when I think someone is being serious about something. Simply because too many tangents causes a lack of overall cohesion.

The way 'The Right' argues is closer to a barrage of points meant to attack strawmen representatives of 'The Left'. More often than not they aren't actually reading what their opposition is saying, and then insist that "not being convinced" means they're winning. 

Oh dear, we're doing this again.

You really hate being noticed, I like that about you.

The part you said I overlooked was not in the post that I responded to.

Not in any way that's actually tangible.

The reason I had nothing to say about what he said (when he did say it), is because I have no comment on it.

Bullshit, you'd prefer no comment on it.

That's very different.

As I mentioned earlier, I am not invested in what he thinks about me, personally. He is welcome to his opinion, and I see no need to delve into that topic.

Do you even know who he is?

He's not some nobody.

I've already explained my issues with that form of communication, and even acknowledged that it can be useful. And I explained my distaste toward it as well. Don't feel like it's a personal attack on you because that's what you tend toward.

Useful as a weapon, but you don't see it as a 'real' form of communication over how it fucks with your perceptions. This to me shows me your ability to hold onto information, and when I compare you towards others who share your struggle with multiple quoted points at once... it doesn't sell a good image for your capabilities.

You're liable to do some sort of staged condescension in response to this so that you'll continue to feel in control, so I'm going to state this in the hopes that you'll try harder.

All I said in essence, is that I don't  resonate  understand  with  it.

Clearly. 

Turncoat said: 

Tryptamine said: 

Turncoat said: 

You technically (and conveniently) skipped this portion: 

Major Major said: 

Tryptamine said: 

Your fatalistic judgments are noted, but I'm not concerned what you think about me, so we can just skip that conversation.

I'm just honest about my opinion. I would be the first person to support you if I thought there was even a slim chance of you fixing things. But I've seen these types of situations so many times, and they always end up tragically. Unless there's something exceptional about you, I'll just assume your story ends up in a tragedy as well.

I would tell you to prove me wrong, but that would be unfair. You aren't the type of person who'd be up for it, and I don't feel like celebrating seeing you fail.|

I will give you the credit of having answered his points with more effort than your usual, you actually stuck to a topic instead of trying to have them do all the talking this time. I still however see more value in dissected post-discussion, and have gained the most conversational exchange out of those who aren't too inept to keep up with it. 

---

The thing I've noticed about when people choose to do that, is that things end up devolving into split up arguments over several things. And perhaps that is preferential to some, but not to me.

You can't focus on more than one topic at once? 

Maybe that's the difference between people like you and people like me. For those willing to have more than one conversation at once I've given them credit for being quick witted while able to retain multiple trains of thought at once, but if that's too much for you... I can understand your aversion towards it. 

Generally when I would do that in the past, my intention would purposefully be to create chaos out of the situation—not to reach a point of clarity. For the means of being clear, I think it is useful to point out particular quotes, but not to dissect each and every thing piece-by-piece.

You're projecting is why. It's difficult for you, so you assume doing this towards others will bring out your reaction. 

I definitely see a difference in caliber of person based on how well they can or can't follow more than one subject at a time. I tend to try to keep my splitting around one or two central topics, having each tidbit work as a mild jab that pokes towards an overall message, but I guess that's too hard for some people to follow. 

The way that those conversations tend to flow into an oblivion of side-arguments is basically what demonstrates my point. And there is probably some utility in that; it's just not my preferred style of conversation when I think someone is being serious about something. Simply because too many tangents causes a lack of overall cohesion.

The way 'The Right' argues is closer to a barrage of points meant to attack strawmen representatives of 'The Left'. More often than not they aren't actually reading what their opposition is saying, and then insist that "not being convinced" means they're winning. 

Oh dear, we're doing this again.

You really hate being noticed, I like that about you.

The part you said I overlooked was not in the post that I responded to.

Not in any way that's actually tangible.

The reason I had nothing to say about what he said (when he did say it), is because I have no comment on it.

Bullshit, you'd prefer no comment on it.

That's very different.

As I mentioned earlier, I am not invested in what he thinks about me, personally. He is welcome to his opinion, and I see no need to delve into that topic.

Do you even know who he is?

He's not some nobody.

I've already explained my issues with that form of communication, and even acknowledged that it can be useful. And I explained my distaste toward it as well. Don't feel like it's a personal attack on you because that's what you tend toward.

Useful as a weapon, but you don't see it as a 'real' form of communication over how it fucks with your perceptions. This to me shows me your ability to hold onto information, and when I compare you towards others who share your struggle with multiple quoted points at once... it doesn't sell a good image for your capabilities.

You're liable to do some sort of staged condescension in response to this so that you'll continue to feel in control, so I'm going to state this in the hopes that you'll try harder.

All I said in essence, is that I don't  resonate  understand  with  it.

Clearly. 

I eventually grow bored of this.

"Bored" is the loudest cope on the internet. 

Or possibly even a true sentiment. But people achieve understanding of themselves through how others piece together things. Let others be the judge on this.

Tryptamine said: 

Or possibly even a true sentiment. But people achieve understanding of themselves through how others piece together things. Let others be the judge on this.

You get bored of losing, it's obvious.