Sociopath Community

Turncoat said:

You two didn't take it to PMs or even DMs, so..?

 Why would I bother, when it's easier to reply here?

Turncoat said:

You're attempting to display an inauthentic version of yourself during your cry for help, it clashes.

 My "cry for help"? Is that what my OP is? No, it's not that. It was supposed to be a venting of frustration.

Turncoat said:

 There's always ego involved, and my points span based on your behavior across topics, not merely in this one.

You have a construct sense of self, and when people see otherwise you reassure yourself towards us. It gives the impression that you're afraid of letting others get too close to you out of some subconsciously believed sense of vulnerability, and it showcases itself in your corrective nature.

 Pardon? But of course I am afraid of people that dox others, and interfere with their personal lives behind the safety of the internet getting too close to me. In fact, I would avoid sharing identifying information to the point of being too paranoid about it. Your observation might actually be correct, I do not wish for people here to get close to me, however, what you deem to be the underlying issue is clearly a reach.

I do not want faggots online to ruin my actual life. Seems sensible enough to me, doesn't it seem sensible to you? How could I be completely genuine about my issues, and who I am with you, when doing that would get me in such a vulnerable situation.

Turncoat said:

The need to be fake is in itself the defense.

 As a personal point, I disagree. I know not what me being genuine looks like. It's all purely fake and artificial. Those are my genuine thoughts about it. No matter how much I try to be non-fake, I fail miserably, as I simply don't know how to act non-fake. Anywhere, with anyone. It's simply all a larp.

Are you going to claim that this is a subconcious defense? Please explain how that would work. I could easily claim I'm a transexual that faps to sissy porn out here. And it would not affect me whatsoever. Can quote me on this. If all of you, were to think, user is a "x, y, z" that does "t, w, q". It would not matter to me.

Turncoat said:

Are you not a fan of change?

I'm typically aiming to incite introspection by asking the questions they aren't.

 Is that what you're truly doing? My view has always been that you're asking the exact difficult questions that conflict with their world-view. Nobody has a logical consistent world-view. So of course, if they're they type to fully believe thier own bullshit, they will have difficulty understanding why they can't justify their answers to those questions.

I'm a fan of self-betterment, not of change for the sake of change.

Turncoat said:

I'm not trying to change everyone, just the people displaying obvious examples of weakness.

 Ouch. Is this to say I'm weak in your eyes then? This poke of yours changes nothing.

Turncoat said:

Insecurity.

Regarding what exactly? Any person is insecure in one area or another. I believe the only thing leaking out insecurity in my replies, is the fact that they exist so far. But, as I've said. They're only here on a whim, they're forced. Normally no reply would've been extracted out of me.

Are you going to counter this by "haha insecure about being called insecure?". Could work, but it's simply not true.

I'm not gonna fall in this trap of saying "NOOOO I'm NEVER insecure". It's just that this "cope for insecurity" claim of yours is baseless.

Turncoat said:

It applies bias to your points that, if rid of, will give you the room to try again with more potential objectivity. It has otherwise tainted your interactions between people on here for a while now, and each time you go on about it it's clear justifications instead of tongue-in-cheek reasoning purely.

We have people on here who are genuinely just here for teh lolz, but you put just enough of yourself into it to show that it's meant to protect yourself as opposed to push others. If it were more about teh lolz, you'd be willing to take bigger risks with less defensive posturing and nihilistic canceling.

If I had the means, I'd be prescribing you a run through I <3 Huckabees.

 I'mma have to take a step back, and actually see what the greater picture is here.

So, the cope, being "insecurity" applies bias to my points. Interesting. Basically, I'm disagreeing, and countering your bs, because I'm insecure, not because it's bs. That doesn't seem right. I'm bothering to point out it's bs because I'm insecure? That's also not right.

I am justifying myself. Sure. So what? It's simply that I decided to do so here and now. No random narrative-slinging allowed would be the premise.

"It has otherwise tainted your interactions between people on here for a while now" .Generalising without examples to make it seem like it's the case, cute, but an empty statement.

I put enough of myself into it, after my <absolutely fake personality> claims? How come. You know. I can't be both fake and real at the same time, make up your mind, will ya. I agree that if this specific thing were for the lolz I wouldn't bother with defense like this. But as I've said. It's an exercise. You spout bullshit, I call it out. That's how the game works.

I <3 Huckabees seems like a fun comedy to watch. However, empty metaphors will get you nowhere. Engaging in them, will not mask how incorrect your assumptions are, for someone willing to dig into what's actually being said. A metaphor is not proof, regardless of how artistically beautiful you make it seem.

Some cursory thoughts after reading over the original post:

Society can be difficult to adapt to in some ways if you're on the fringe. I had a less-than-ideal background where schools were forcing me to see psychologists, and also I would end up in rooms with psychologists over things my brothers would say. Add on top of that, that I ended up stealing and manipulating from a young age, and also that I rapidly changed schools. Basically I was invisible and never formed bonds. I was generally a negative person, with underdeveloped social skills.

My level of integration with society hit an all-time-low in my mid 20s. By that point, I felt like other people around me were basically NPCs. I was going to work high off methoxetamine or some other research chemical, and I would steal at work. And I would go to other stores to steal after work. My interactions with others only went as deep as how much I could control or influence them.

That all changed a lot recently, because I'm way more relaxed and less angry. I tend to put the blame for things going wrong on myself rather than on others. And I don't expect others to be paragons of reason, because I know I can be pretty unreasonable myself. I'm more focused on fairness, and I find this way of being to be far more satisfying.

The thing about putting on an image all of the time is that it's exhausting. You can only do it for so long. I'm so used to being straightforward now that I don't think I could go back to being fake. Yeah, I still lie sometimes. But being able to control social dynamics is a hard thing to drop.

So if my experience informs me of anything, you need to be able to shed some of the layers of how you present yourself, and allow yourself to say what you mean. It's a process, but I'm sure you can handle it fine.

user33313 said: 

Turncoat said:

You two didn't take it to PMs or even DMs, so..?

 Why would I bother, when it's easier to reply here?

So that interlopers like me won't put in their two cents on a public forum, which seems to be what you want? 

Turncoat said:

You're attempting to display an inauthentic version of yourself during your cry for help, it clashes.

My "cry for help"? Is that what my OP is? No, it's not that. It was supposed to be a venting of frustration.

Looks like the former to me, and I'm sure you have ways of venting frustration without the need for an audience, but I guess the two aren't really that different. 

Turncoat said:

 There's always ego involved, and my points span based on your behavior across topics, not merely in this one.

You have a construct sense of self, and when people see otherwise you reassure yourself towards us. It gives the impression that you're afraid of letting others get too close to you out of some subconsciously believed sense of vulnerability, and it showcases itself in your corrective nature.

Pardon? But of course I am afraid of people that dox others, and interfere with their personal lives behind the safety of the internet getting too close to me. In fact, I would avoid sharing identifying information to the point of being too paranoid about it.

You don't have to identify your IRL stuff to act as yourself. You don't have to say where you live and your eye color and junk to be an authentic human being. 

Why even bother clarifying for us that this "dumb act" isn't really you? It's this need to correct how you're seen that shows the fearful need to cultivate a sense of image, even if said image is supposed to look blank. 

Your observation might actually be correct, I do not wish for people here to get close to me, however, what you deem to be the underlying issue is clearly a reach.

I do not want faggots online to ruin my actual life. Seems sensible enough to me, doesn't it seem sensible to you? How could I be completely genuine about my issues, and who I am with you, when doing that would get me in such a vulnerable situation.

Nothing bad's happened to me since my info was outed, or many of the others who were discovered here, but even there I refer to the above. 

You don't have to give anything identifying away to otherwise express your truths. 

Turncoat said:

The need to be fake is in itself the defense.

As a personal point, I disagree.

Any "need" is inherently a weakness, but the need to be fake roots towards a discomfort with being real. 

Most of the time that I see it, it's over a sense of considering others' eyes oppressive, preferring to fit comfortably into their boxes instead of challenge them to fit into yours. 

It's very Beta. 

I know not what me being genuine looks like.

It looks like what you'd do if you weren't putting on a front. 'Living the Mask' can make it easy to forget who you actually are if you do it too often, but who you are is the somewhere in the subtext of the mistakes you've made in your life, the things you've done that seemingly went against convention enough to challenge your setting. 

Where you don't fit into situations or groups is where some of the genuine stands to be found, and being genuine comes from possessing a willingness to be that in spite of how others might see it, and in spite of how you might imagine others would see it. 

A lot of it looks worse in one's own head than it does in reality for over-planners. Finding comfort in the room to make mistakes meanwhile is how to relax. 

It's all purely fake and artificial. Those are my genuine thoughts about it. No matter how much I try to be non-fake, I fail miserably, as I simply don't know how to act non-fake. Anywhere, with anyone. It's simply all a larp.

Are your thoughts just silence when you're alone? 

Are you going to claim that this is a subconcious defense? Please explain how that would work.

I'm just saying it's a defense, as the behavior itself is by design meant to create a smokescreen. 

It's not too different from being 'Anon' honestly. 

Turncoat said:

Are you not a fan of change?

I'm typically aiming to incite introspection by asking the questions they aren't.

Is that what you're truly doing? My view has always been that you're asking the exact difficult questions that conflict with their world-view.

Clash makes for introspection, while repeating what they said in different words is just reinforcing. Reinforcement's nice and all for forcing a sense of friendship, but preaching to the choir's mostly a waste of time. I think conversations should be either relational in how they form bridges between people that were once believed to be non-existent, or otherwise contrasting for the room to seek newer ideas overall. 

I dunno, to me people need to have their ideas challenged or else they'll just harden into something stupid and half-baked. It's the exchange of information that lets us adapt and see more of the potential boundaries of our identity, and without an outside set of eyes there's bound to be tons of oversights. If Turquie and I for exampled hadn't done so many debates on Wiccan stuff, I wouldn't have re-stumbled upon Symbology. 

In a sense, being challenged by a variety of ideas paves the way for depth, even if their opinions otherwise never change from the encounters. It's cerebral experience that allows growth of some form from all parties who otherwise participate, generally leading to a more open mind as others means are accounted for. While the act of being fake can still yield truths about the person over what fake choices are made, it still otherwise makes for shallower conversation that only serves limited forms and functions.

Nobody has a logical consistent world-view. So of course, if they're they type to fully believe thier own bullshit, they will have difficulty understanding why they can't justify their answers to those questions.

I'm a fan of self-betterment, not of change for the sake of change.

It takes change to even see what would make yourself better, and it takes further change to then become better. 

How do you even know what "better" really is? If you did, wouldn't you be better now? 

Turncoat said:

I'm not trying to change everyone, just the people displaying obvious examples of weakness.

 Ouch. Is this to say I'm weak in your eyes then? This poke of yours changes nothing.

Everyone's weak. It's really more about how they're weak and to what degrees. 

I'll cover the rest later, it's approaching the character limit. 

Sounds like you grew quite a lot Tryptamine. I rarely see people like you capable of changing themselves or their situation. You've always given me a strange vibe, like you acted differently to how your background/environment should've compelled you to act.

I think we've only ever chatted once, but I can remember it well. I wasn't expecting you to pay much attention to me, because our interests differ so much. But you acted genuinely interested in the things I said, despite the fact that you weren't familiar with the topic -- which was confusing to me. I would've expected it of a very `different` type of people.

I feel like your background story explains a lot.