Sociopath Community

Turncoat said: 

Kestrel said: 

Turncoat said: 

You handle politics like faith. 

You're really triggered by me becoming religious. I've answered every one of your points with a solid reason as well as supporting details.

No, I'm making a comparison. If you were not religious I'd be liable to still make this comparison, and have with you in the past, but it's only recently become this zealous and literal. 

We've spoken religion before, I've been able to watch a progression, and frankly it's alarming with clear parallels towards your mindset, much like your politics, views on gender, all of it. 

And when was the last time we talked about religion. You see a before and after, but know nothing about what's happened in the middle. You don't have enough ground to layout my inner narration and I don't trust your memory to not slip back into convenience over conversations we had going on 3+ years ago. Especially when they contradict what I remember. It's a very alarming thing that you're doing this, if this is true and you see these loopholes you use them as a vehicle to prove your points in the current argument. Not make the argument about this, can you understand why I see it as a desperate measure?

It's a consistent theme with you lately. It seems everytime I make a point you just happen to remember me having a contrary stance in some arbitrary conversation that's never really pinned down.

Not lately, over the entirety of our knowing eachother. 

COPE. Another sidestep. Keyword: Lately

What..? 

I have been questioning your choices for a while now, they just were not this extremist before. What is this, did you just forget the majority of our past talks? 

Questioning, different than trying to depict my inner narration. I've always had a problem with you being overconfident in your reads, but its recently now that you're reaching back on dated things that I can't even defend or it'll turn into a "I remember you" type deal. We had one other run in of this roughly 7 months ago I believe. This is a new variant that's been popping up recently.

I make comparisons, that's my thing, but you'll come up with any excuse as to how you can't possibly be the thing they're saying you are, and will straight up re-invent your perceptions of past events and realities to coast on the new self-concept's promises of comfort. 

You're afraid of facing yourself, even your past mistakes are just you saying you "were" immature, but you're "smarter" now. You aren't, you're just in a new spot and can't relate to your older stances from refusing to make comparisons. 

You make comparisons, provide vague points which you support with barebones philosophical concepts and provide another vague example when I contradict your testimony with real world examples while providing none of your own. 

I've made direct comparisons and otherwise conceptualized the problem as I've seen it this far into living. 

Are you already back to fighting strawmen..? 

You really don't. I've asked you in multiple instances to cite an instance where your middle pandering ideology has ever actually happened(this includes left and right oppress eachother equally bits) and I get nothing but more hot air.

What makes you think you have an accurate gauge on my internal narration anymore?

You display so much of yourself online that meeting you in person was only really surreal for the fleshy aspect of it. 

You're fairly forward and transparent, so I don't think it's that weird that I, and others, could aim to gauge who you've become by comparison to who you once were. We've watched you grow and mutate over the years, give some level of credit. 

Not really. i'd say that's the case in the past but I really don't go in depth about things anymore here. This dive into my political ideology is probably the "deepest" thing I've wrote in a while. You can still know my consistent surface level traits of course. But your claims go farther than that with confidence that is only cited on years old events, there's been a lot of change since then.

We haven't had a real conversation in literally years even these back and forths are spaced half years apart. The idea that you are confident enough to claim that and use it in place of concrete evidence is scary.

"You can't possibly know me, you're saying negative things!" 

No, just that you can't read my mind. my last message above can serve as a response to this too.

I'm not the same person I was when we lived together, you're going to have to come to terms with that and not whip it out when you're in a corner.

No shit you're not, that's been my point. 

You aren't the same person, you're worse. 

 I disagree. I don't like doing this back and forth, it's really just a waste of time. I'm here to test the waters and see if holes can be poked in my newfound ideology. I really don't care what you think of my mental progress.

Xadem said: 

KEK a nigger turned white supremacist

ZOGGED

that aside, more authoritarianism is not the answer. The USA is growing towards a neo feudal state where the corporate aristocracy keeps the people chained via debt and the way to combat this is to first undo the deregulation of wallstreet that caused the financial crisis in the first place by electing people like Bernie Sanders

Bernie Sanders was a meme. His heart was in the right place but his policies didn't add up. Authoritariansim is literally the last option left on the board for the sort of swift political infrastructure uprooting that needs to happen. Other movements are more likely to get bought out by the existing system. A central movement will never happen and you should be glad it wont.

joining either dem or rep is just retarded and you should have voted for Bernie. Fun fact: many niggers voted for Biden because they assumed that white people wouldn't 'make the right choice' and vote for Bernie, effectively contributing to Sanders losing several states previously considered a safe win

why do BLACK NIGGERS even engage in politics? let the white man solve it 

 It's all retarded but wanting change and pissing your vote into the green party is the worst thing you can do

Kestrel said: 

Turncoat said: 

Kestrel said: 

Inquirer wrote an entire paragraph of hot air and got contradicted in a single sentence.

What?  Which sentence? 

I saw him put forth actual history, and then you spit out some random white dudes in response. He's being a historian, you aren't. 

What you saw was a counter point you haven't been able to refute.

Could you... quote the one sentence victory for me? 

I think you imagined it. 

You're at this point looking at how the point is structured instead of the actual point in an attempt to make sense of just being wrong. I'm not going to break out the powdered wig, formal english and a classical portrait but hopefully this is smart enough for you to understand.

I wasn't aware that accuracy within more of a base of more diverse information was pretending to be smart. For real, if you think the post he did was some sort of pretense, then you really don't spend much time studying real history and instead likely just read blog snippets and disjointed quotes that were sterilized of their bigger picture context. 

Does diverse information that doesn't conform to your preset idea of history confuse you? I'm starting to question your ability to perspective take when you've already admitted towards a discomfort with hypotheticals. 

It's starting to seem to me like you don't actually know much about those people, and don't feel like elaborating from how it's liable to make your points look worse. You're welcome to pat yourself on the back and call it spoonfeeding again if that gives you the courage to actually post some real history, as I'd really like to see the depths of your knowledge when it comes to this instead of just some racist flexing over half-baked ignorance. 

Firstly, argument goes from whites leading through most of allotted history(true), whites being the dominant innovators for the last 800 years(true) and finally my own quote saying this only really changes getting closer to the BC era(true). Which is where all of the inventions Inq listed were made with the exception of gun powder. Inquirer also cites the military conquest of the mongols as if it equates out to innovation, by this metric even Shaka Zulu's strong arm of Africa would be considered innovative. 

You did all of this in one sentence? 

You didn't even elaborate that much until pressed, by me. 

I listed an era that is synonymous with innovation over almost every other, there really isn't much to be said. The fact that you are dissuading my points because I listed some contributors really just shows your seething. 

You listed an era and a bunch of names, but didn't go into what any of them did. You were just like: "Well, these rando white dudes were in an Age of Enlightenment, so I win. Why people be so guilty about sayin' how the white folk are history's winners?" 

Can you see how he made a much more well formed point compared to yours? Do you see the difference, or is making a good point in a way that shows one's scholarly efforts "wearing a powdered wig" now? Imagine that you're having a discussion where you and the other person have room to learn something for a minute, like as if you were trying to write a small paper for a middle school teacher or something, that list of names would have not been enough to get your point across on it's own. 

Acting like this is some sort of intelligence gatekeep based on how well he presented the data avoids the fact that he also made a better, more elaborative point than you did. Why diss someone for their superior understanding in a matter? 

Also dude, if arguments that aren't your own will only read as "Hot Air", then you're truly insulating yourself towards the comfort within willful ignorance. I at least give your arguments the benefit of the doubt of having come from somewhere and challenge you to do a better job at presenting them, there's no need to sit here and call things you choose to not listen to "Hot Air" just because it goes against the grain of your currently believed information. 

It's as if you can't process what some others have been saying in here, reappraising the narrative in your head to more easily coast within your idea of "what must be going on here". 

You need to let yourself be more open minded before it's too late. 

Turncoat said: 

Kestrel said: 

Turncoat said: 

Kestrel said: 

Inquirer wrote an entire paragraph of hot air and got contradicted in a single sentence.

What?  Which sentence? 

I saw him put forth actual history, and then you spit out some random white dudes in response. He's being a historian, you aren't. 

What you saw was a counter point you haven't been able to refute.

Could you... quote the one sentence victory for me? 

I think you imagined it. 

My concern over you having a convenient memory: validated. Here.

 The claim was that Europe was clearly behind 800 years ago. The Renaissance began during that time. 

You're at this point looking at how the point is structured instead of the actual point in an attempt to make sense of just being wrong. I'm not going to break out the powdered wig, formal english and a classical portrait but hopefully this is smart enough for you to understand.

I wasn't aware that accuracy within more of a base of more diverse information was pretending to be smart. For real, if you think the post he did was some sort of pretense, then you really don't spend much time studying real history and instead likely just read blog snippets and disjointed quotes that were sterilized of their bigger picture context. 

Does diverse information that doesn't conform to your preset idea of history confuse you? I'm starting to question your ability to perspective take when you've already admitted towards a discomfort with hypotheticals. 

It's starting to seem to me like you don't actually know much about those people, and don't feel like elaborating from how it's liable to make your points look worse. You're welcome to pat yourself on the back and call it spoonfeeding again if that gives you the courage to actually post some real history, as I'd really like to see the depths of your knowledge when it comes to this instead of just some racist flexing over half-baked ignorance. 

Firstly, argument goes from whites leading through most of allotted history(true), whites being the dominant innovators for the last 800 years(true) and finally my own quote saying this only really changes getting closer to the BC era(true). Which is where all of the inventions Inq listed were made with the exception of gun powder. Inquirer also cites the military conquest of the mongols as if it equates out to innovation, by this metric even Shaka Zulu's strong arm of Africa would be considered innovative. 

You did all of this in one sentence? 

No. I'm giving a brief recollection of where the topic went to help you see where you are lost. I then cite a bit from his quote I responded to.

I listed an era that is synonymous with innovation over almost every other, there really isn't much to be said. The fact that you are dissuading my points because I listed some contributors really just shows your seething. 

You listed an era and a bunch of names, but didn't go into what any of them did. You were just like: "Well, these rando white dudes were in an Age of Enlightenment, so I win. Why people be so guilty about sayin' how the white folk are history's winners?" 

You're just really ignorant of history, I even specifically picked that bunch because they're well known.  I gave you real sources that contradicted the target time period Inq claimed Europeans were "far behind" and you're denying them for everything other than their validity. You reek of bias.

Turncoat said: 

Kestrel said: 

Can you see how he made a much more well formed point compared to yours? Do you see the difference, or is making a good point in a way that shows one's scholarly efforts "wearing a powdered wig" now? Imagine that you're having a discussion where you and the other person have room to learn something for a minute, like as if you were trying to write a small paper for a middle school teacher or something, that list of names would have not been enough to get your point across on it's own. 

Acting like this is some sort of intelligence gatekeep based on how well he presented the data avoids the fact that he also made a better, more elaborative point than you did. Why diss someone for their superior understanding in a matter? 

 Paraphrasing is a vital skill, it figures you would associate a long winded post with validity. My structure doesn't make my point presented any less accurate.

Also the hot air snark comment was hardly a real diss. Get your panties out of a bunch and quit stirring

Turncoat said: 

Also dude, if arguments that aren't your own will only read as "Hot Air", then you're truly insulating yourself towards the comfort within willful ignorance. I at least give your arguments the benefit of the doubt of having come from somewhere and challenge you to do a better job at presenting them, there's no need to sit here and call things you choose to not listen to "Hot Air" just because it goes against the grain of your currently believed information. 

It's as if you can't process what some others have been saying in here, reappraising the narrative in your head to more easily coast within your idea of "what must be going on here". 

You need to let yourself be more open minded before it's too late. 

 I've steered away from your psychology antics that were derailing the original conversation and have been sticking to real concepts based around sources. Before this you were derailing with your psudo reads I still disagree with. History isn't you area of expertise but you've constantly been trying to pull it to where you feel comfortable.

That isn't being close minded, that's being objective within the subject matter and staying on point

Kestrel said: 

Turncoat said: 

Kestrel said: 

Turncoat said: 

Kestrel said: 

Inquirer wrote an entire paragraph of hot air and got contradicted in a single sentence.

What?  Which sentence? 

I saw him put forth actual history, and then you spit out some random white dudes in response. He's being a historian, you aren't. 

What you saw was a counter point you haven't been able to refute.

Could you... quote the one sentence victory for me? 

I think you imagined it. 

My concern over you have a convenient memory: validated. Here.

Okay it's as I thought, you didn't win in one sentence and you're showboating a fake victory towards yourself to reaffirm your faith. 

You literally think "I disagree, the white renaissance was pretty bitch'n" is winning in one sentence, what? 

 The claim was that Europe was clearly behind 800 years ago. The Renaissance began during that time. 

You're at this point looking at how the point is structured instead of the actual point in an attempt to make sense of just being wrong. I'm not going to break out the powdered wig, formal english and a classical portrait but hopefully this is smart enough for you to understand.

I wasn't aware that accuracy within more of a base of more diverse information was pretending to be smart. For real, if you think the post he did was some sort of pretense, then you really don't spend much time studying real history and instead likely just read blog snippets and disjointed quotes that were sterilized of their bigger picture context. 

Does diverse information that doesn't conform to your preset idea of history confuse you? I'm starting to question your ability to perspective take when you've already admitted towards a discomfort with hypotheticals. 

It's starting to seem to me like you don't actually know much about those people, and don't feel like elaborating from how it's liable to make your points look worse. You're welcome to pat yourself on the back and call it spoonfeeding again if that gives you the courage to actually post some real history, as I'd really like to see the depths of your knowledge when it comes to this instead of just some racist flexing over half-baked ignorance. 

Firstly, argument goes from whites leading through most of allotted history(true), whites being the dominant innovators for the last 800 years(true) and finally my own quote saying this only really changes getting closer to the BC era(true). Which is where all of the inventions Inq listed were made with the exception of gun powder. Inquirer also cites the military conquest of the mongols as if it equates out to innovation, by this metric even Shaka Zulu's strong arm of Africa would be considered innovative. 

You did all of this in one sentence? 

No. I'm giving a brief recollection of where the topic went to help you see where you are lost. I then cite a bit from his quote I responded to.

I wouldn't play on the "your opponent has bad memory" card too much, lest someone play it back towards you (the "No U" wouldn't be pretty for your case more than many, trust me). This is me asking for clarification to see if I can understand the apparent absurdity of your current stance. You're at this point exaggerating and conflating the weight of things, again, as more of a measure of bolstering one's faith instead of one's mind. 

Sure enough your clarifications show me that I'm not imagining as much as I'd hoped in relation to your arguments and their current style, but I expect to need more clarification down the line so that I stop mistakenly giving your points more credit than their apparent worth. 

You aren't the first White Supremeist I've spoken with, and to their credit they were able to make points that leave the room to question reality and the formation of beliefs, but that's not what your display is doing here. You aren't being a Historian here, you're merely peppering your rhetoric with some Pop History you found somewhere as some sort of gatekeeping practice, and when people do a better job you accuse them of "powdered wigs" and other similar nonsense. 

I listed an era that is synonymous with innovation over almost every other, there really isn't much to be said. The fact that you are dissuading my points because I listed some contributors really just shows your seething. 

You listed an era and a bunch of names, but didn't go into what any of them did. You were just like: "Well, these rando white dudes were in an Age of Enlightenment, so I win. Why people be so guilty about sayin' how the white folk are history's winners?" 

You're just really ignorant of history, I even specifically picked that bunch because they're well known.  I gave you real sources that contradicted the target time period Inq claimed Europeans were "far behind" and you're denying them for everything other than their validity. You reek of bias.

You still refuse to elaborate on the list of names you gave, again, likely because it'd make your point fall apart. Listing "Columbus" screams "I need as many names as possible." 

Now, instead of doing gatekeeping practices to pat yourself on the back, why don't you describe their achievements so that we can have an actual debate? I mean, I'm sure you've done the research on them, and it wouldn't be that hard for you to give us your take, right? Isn't this what you do for fun, your 'hobby'? 

Come on, show off your History skills and feed me with that spoon, I want to judge your content for it's flavor instead of some rushed summary that no Historian would take seriously if left as is. 

Kestrel said: 

Turncoat said: 

Also dude, if arguments that aren't your own will only read as "Hot Air", then you're truly insulating yourself towards the comfort within willful ignorance. I at least give your arguments the benefit of the doubt of having come from somewhere and challenge you to do a better job at presenting them, there's no need to sit here and call things you choose to not listen to "Hot Air" just because it goes against the grain of your currently believed information. 

It's as if you can't process what some others have been saying in here, reappraising the narrative in your head to more easily coast within your idea of "what must be going on here". 

You need to let yourself be more open minded before it's too late. 

I've steered away from your psychology antics that were derailing the original conversation and have been sticking to real concepts based around sources.

They aren't antics they're legitimate concerns. It's always worth questioning the author of points to see where their bias is coming from, especially when they aren't being Historians when they need to vent.

I too have been asking for sources and elaborations, but you seem loath to give them. You've even dropped a "sources don't exist" in an earlier discussion which is just madness. 

Before this you were derailing with your psudo reads I still disagree with. History isn't you area of expertise but you've constantly been trying to pull it to where you feel comfortable.

That isn't being close minded, that's being objective within the subject matter and staying on point

No, dude, this is you being closed minded. You can't even allow yourself to question your own room for bias anymore, it's just "Might Makes Right" like something short circuited your former sense of reasoning. 

You behave as if more threatened, and it's affecting your ability to process and argue. You won't even elaborate on your points anymore, just spouting how "people are wrong" or are "just trying to look smart". 

If you'd elaborate on points like your list of white innovators, it'd be easier for me to stick to the subject, but you won't. To ask others to fill in those blanks for you is deceptive, yielding your lack of familiarity with the subject matter despite your willingness to spout it at us in lieu of blaming your opposition for not carrying a copy of your brand of knowledge in a mindbogglingly fascist way. 

Basically, being like "Well, don't you know?" is a trick that presents two apparent doors: 

A) They present the information in a way that supports your argument so that you don't have to, then you can claim you always knew this stuff even if you hadn't. 

B) They don't present the information (or present the wrong information), and then you can lord over how much they must not know while you yourself yield nothing to contradict the same reality. 

I refuse your doors and would instead ask for you to elaborate, which in turn will invite elaboration from others and research from myself and others once you are actually the king of this hill. As is, you aren't challenging people to see your viewpoint, you're guarding yourself with it to the point of misrepresenting other people. 

Kestrel said: 

Turncoat said: 

Kestrel said: 

Can you see how he made a much more well formed point compared to yours? Do you see the difference, or is making a good point in a way that shows one's scholarly efforts "wearing a powdered wig" now? Imagine that you're having a discussion where you and the other person have room to learn something for a minute, like as if you were trying to write a small paper for a middle school teacher or something, that list of names would have not been enough to get your point across on it's own. 

Acting like this is some sort of intelligence gatekeep based on how well he presented the data avoids the fact that he also made a better, more elaborative point than you did. Why diss someone for their superior understanding in a matter? 

 Paraphrasing is a vital skill, it figures you would associate a long winded post with validity. My structure doesn't make my point presented any less accurate.

Also the hot air snark comment was hardly a real diss. Get your panties out of a bunch and quit stirring

"Your point is too wordy for me to care (to understand), I prefer my information in one sentence or in the form of a haiku." 

You won't be impressing any scholars with this impatience.