Sociopath Community

Turncoat said: 

Whorechata said: 

Turncoat said: 

I'm capable of changing my mind, and you know as well as I do that 'truth' is an individual thing. 

---

 Why couldn't my mind be changed over this from the presentation of superior evidence? 

 Because I currently fit the idea you have of me and no proof will ever be enough, so i see no need to try to fight it at this point as nothing will come from it 

You don't have to fight over it, but if you want the misconception to be fixed it's not some impossibility, it's just somewhat defensively uphill. Once it's done it'll be done, too, rather than some rift from not bridging the two areas at least far enough to see where these other ideas are coming from. 

 I've already explained myself to you in private a year ago, you've since then still push that i did it for petty reasons and are unable or unwilling to accept my own reasons or make connections to it. It's far too much effort to fight it than just accept it. People that have read this will either accept why I did it or accept the one you keep pushing. 

Either way there's no point in arguing it with you any longer.

If that's how you'd prefer it. 

Whorechata said: 

 

Are...are you saying med is dull?

What's interesting about her? 

What. 

She's spectacular in the same way luna is, 

Luna was an unpredictable bundle of chaos while Med's a monster of consistency clauses, the latter more why characters like Homer Simpson can be fun. It's Chaos vs Lawful tropes here in spite of them both coming from blindly self-centered aims. Med's closer in resemblance to TK, but if you replaced TK's audacity over edgelording with a nutbar trying to look normal. 

why have you been orbiting her then??

I orbit consistency cases over how they give me the most room for repeated trials with less variation, otherwise out of some fascination over it's persistence. 

By having someone who is fairly unbudging, it also works as a good foundation for seeing how others react to the repetition (again much like TK). 

Still though, how are these two lists of people just one list to you? 

Turncoat said: 

Whorechata said: 

Are...are you saying med is dull?

What's interesting about her? 

What. 

She's spectacular in the same way luna is, 

Luna was an unpredictable bundle of chaos while Med's a monster of consistency clauses. It's Chaos vs Lawful tropes here in spite of them both coming from blindly self-centered aims. Med's closer in resemblance to TK, but if you replaced TK's audacity over edgelording with a nutbar trying to look normal. 

Med doesn't try to look normal, if anything she attempts to be eccentric for how that fits in her rich girl persona and wanting to be unique. 

That's like her thing and luna was never unpredictable, she was incredibly predictable as we could always expect her to ban meltdown at certain times 

Whorechata said: 

Turncoat said: 

Whorechata said: 

Are...are you saying med is dull?

What's interesting about her? 

What. 

She's spectacular in the same way luna is, 

Luna was an unpredictable bundle of chaos while Med's a monster of consistency clauses. It's Chaos vs Lawful tropes here in spite of them both coming from blindly self-centered aims. Med's closer in resemblance to TK, but if you replaced TK's audacity over edgelording with a nutbar trying to look normal. 

Med doesn't try to look normal, if anything she attempts to be eccentric for how that fits in her rich girl persona and wanting to be unique. 

I see it more as 'normal' within the range of rich and successful. Remember when she was trying to prove to Chapo that she could be house wife-y? 

Suggestions of her abnormality only fly with her if it's over classism, like the supermarket thing. She otherwise thinks she's quite normal and functional with only her artistic bent as her means of attempting to be distinctive. 

That's like her thing and luna was never unpredictable, she was incredibly predictable as we could always expect her to ban meltdown at certain times 

Luna's triggers were obvious, but how she'd respond to it was a Pandora's box. It was the inconsistency that gave it an edge, especially once people'd begin working her over. 

She was a loose canon, while Med's more like a canon with a few screws loose. 

Turncoat said: 

Whorechata said: 

Turncoat said: 

Whorechata said: 

Are...are you saying med is dull?

What's interesting about her? 

What. 

She's spectacular in the same way luna is, 

Luna was an unpredictable bundle of chaos while Med's a monster of consistency clauses. It's Chaos vs Lawful tropes here in spite of them both coming from blindly self-centered aims. Med's closer in resemblance to TK, but if you replaced TK's audacity over edgelording with a nutbar trying to look normal. 

Med doesn't try to look normal, if anything she attempts to be eccentric for how that fits in her rich girl persona and wanting to be unique. 

I see it more as 'normal' within the range of rich and successful. Remember when she was trying to prove to Chapo that she could be house wife-y? 

Suggestions of her abnormality only fly with her if it's over classism, like the supermarket thing. She otherwise thinks she's quite normal and functional with only her artistic bent as her means of attempting to be distinctive. 

That's like her thing and luna was never unpredictable, she was incredibly predictable as we could always expect her to ban meltdown at certain times 

Luna's triggers were obvious, but how she'd respond to it was a Pandora's box. It was the inconsistency that gave it an edge, especially once people'd begin working her over. 

She was a loose canon, while Med's more like a canon with a few screws loose. 

 Disagree, both are in the same tier

Lena is doing the right things for the wrong reasons. It seems she cares more about her ego than actual pedophilia, attacking vulnerable people that she personally dislikes first.

Meanwhile she laughs and jokes with Jim. Because

1. He compliments and prasises Lena, (while CS attacks her and is rude)

2. Lena can't get sadistic satisfaction out of bullying him.

Cavalier said: 

Lena is doing the right things for the wrong reasons. It seems she cares more about her ego than actual pedophilia, attacking vulnerable people that she personally dislikes first.

Meanwhile she laughs and jokes with Jim. Because

1. He compliments and prasises Lena, (while CS attacks her and is rude)

2. Lena can't get sadistic satisfaction out of bullying him.

Is this what you call projection?

Whorechata said: 

Cavalier said: 

Lena is doing the right things for the wrong reasons. It seems she cares more about her ego than actual pedophilia, attacking vulnerable people that she personally dislikes first.

Meanwhile she laughs and jokes with Jim. Because

1. He compliments and prasises Lena, (while CS attacks her and is rude)

2. Lena can't get sadistic satisfaction out of bullying him.

 

Is this what you call projection?

It doesn't take away from my point. At least I do care about the kids. Meanwhile you use "the kids" purely as a casus belli.

Let this be a lesson to anyone that pms Lena: she will post it, and is not reliable.

Cavalier said: 

casus belli

I really hope CK3 makes that phrase trend more.