Sociopath Community

aww wrub yow wittle eyes sweetie !! Q_Q

teeheehee

Tryptamine said: 

Turncoat said: 

Tryptamine said:

I see what you're doing as a different style of interaction. To put things in another perspective, I don't think every opportunity for criticism merits it.

What ratio would you throw at it though, like 20%? 

I've mostly seen you playing along until you hit points of frustration, showing some level of entitlement over the time you've spent listening to them. I see playing along like that to a certain degree as lying, even when it'd grant something convenient through omission and even when they are literally asking for enablers. 

I feel like being an enabler, even when it'd be circumstantially easier on me to do it, is a bad thing to do in casual settings. 

I don't know if I can put a percentage, it's more like I bring stuff up when it feels right. The points of frustration were probably all when I was drunk, though I do it sometimes sober—comes more from anger about something specific usually. It's not a sense of entitlement, I don't think I'm entitled to have people act a certain way, it's just frustration has boiled into anger.

You hit a boiling point where, drunk or sober, you've spent so much time listening to them without them listening back that you would begin lashing out. Bonus points if they continued to act out while you were effectively "warning them" about getting real. You've reflected themes over a believed lack of reciprocity during those times. 

This typically happens with whoever you're dating at the time or are otherwise involved with, so maybe that has something to do with it. Past a point you wanted easier company, but also began taking them less seriously, arguably treating them like children compared to your older crushes. 

I get how it can seem like I'm finally being honest or something, because if I'm angry I might want to actually hurt the person, which means hitting them where I know they're insecure.

Not even, you grit your teeth and play along with people until you can't anymore, then you're either forgetting or blaming yourself before ghosting them long enough to have them want you back. You think tons of negative things and keep them to yourself, likely over how you think they can't take it, and what comes out during those times isn't just more real over how all the notes you'd been taking on them for weeks are finally allowed to unload, but also the way you write doesn't sound so milquetoast and processed from a PSA. 

When you're trying to be a better person for other people, as a good listener and all that, it comes across as forced compared to what otherwise occurs naturally for you, and clearly after saying one too many truths you've felt like you "had to learn" how to play the game instead. You do it like you're following a template series of steps instead of just letting loose. 

There are people who fall into the politeness patterns to put on airs that they think are civilized, but when you do it it's more like you're trying to feel some semblance of control over the situation. 

Normally these insecurities are a non-issue, everyone has them. It's just that I have damage on my mind, which isn't something to be celebrated.

I'd figure your need to act nicer than you really are are the damages from presupposing that people are too weak to handle your thoughts, and each time that you end up shocking someone over it from them not being prepared for you to act like that likely reinforces your idea that it's "Bad" even further. 

The way you act here reminds me of how people are on forums with lots of rules, which is extra weird when this place doesn't have (m)any. If people stopped pretending to be polite to the point of censor we'd get a lot more across from both the freedom to speak and the tolerance for it that'd form from it being the norm. 

Not to say "let people be blind", but rather there are wrong settings.

Is it that, or is it a matter of patiently waiting them out for the few, rare, correct settings? Even if they are receptive at points, are they actually listening? Is it worth feeling like they can't hear you if they end up friendlier? 

I really don't see you being real with people too often, unless you've hit a boiling point of some kind, be it something anger or impatience. While you through your means are liable to be taken as friendlier for it, I see your pity for them or whatever might merit it having you rarely say what's actually on your mind. 

I think a good example of this is when I was absent here recently; I did make a few puppets, including that one that was calling Med mentally ill and broken, saying she was fated to an institution. Normally I would be more nice, though I do lash out at her occasionally.

Why do you figure it's better to do this on puppets, or to make posts that passive aggressively target who you're unhappy with without names? 

I'd just have made her feel even worse, if she emotionally registers that kind of stuff anymore.

...yeah I really question her retention, absorption, and recall. 

 

I think the main criticism I see levied toward you in this regard is probably best articulated by Spatial, who's expressed that your questions seem to be trying to pave a narrative that characterizes him a certain way.

So you don't agree with the things being said about him then, or are you moreso commenting on how having critical things to say about someone so sensitive is bound to be go poorly? 

Your choice of language here shows me that, for one reason or another, you choose to play along with Spatial's delusions rather than question them. 

The example case being when you were interrogating him about his good will—one of the things specifically being generosity with money in relation to family. 

You've lost me here, I don't recall him going on about generosity with money in relation to family. 

With the Spatial thing, I think he had a legitimate gripe in that it seemed like you were trying to pigeonhole him a certain way. I wouldn't remember the name of the thread, but he came to explain that parting money has gravity for him, because any money he expends could otherwise be put into crypto for profit. But despite that he helps family with loans, I think he mentioned something about helping with car payments as well. The whole thing may have started because he said he was altruistic, or generous. Your questions seemed pointed as if to arrive at the conclusion that he wasn't that way. At least that's the gestalt I had gotten, maybe he remembers it more clearly.

I'd need to see it myself, this seems like a misunderstanding. It seems like you've half-read multiple debates he and I have had. 

On one hand I've definitely gone on about him being a creature of greed, the guy is obsessed with money, but I'd have no reason to connect that to family. More likely that was him legitimizing how he wasn't greedy after the accusation, rather than before it, as he really doesn't like the idea that he sins on the regular with flashing dollar signs for eyes, like his plans to peddle sex dolls for profit as a self-professed Christian-esque. 

There's also the bit about him trying to buy people's love, rendering his relationships with people transactional with the room for entitlement problems down the line, but that's not related to the Greed argument beyond showing further fixations around money as a foundation for interaction. 

Canary said: 

Tryptamine said:

With the Spatial thing, I think he had a legitimate gripe in that it seemed like you were trying to pigeonhole him a certain way. I wouldn't remember the name of the thread, but he came to explain that parting money has gravity for him, because any money he expends could otherwise be put into crypto for profit. But despite that he helps family with loans, I think he mentioned something about helping with car payments as well. The whole thing may have started because he said he was altruistic, or generous. Your questions seemed pointed as if to arrive at the conclusion that he wasn't that way. At least that's the gestalt I had gotten, maybe he remembers it more.

 TC's claim that time is that I'm greedy. 

When I show charts I'm actually shairing my insights on projects. I've been talking about a certain project lately if you recall. Nothing wrong with giving a heads up on making money. 10,000x opportunity is coming, even in this bloody market.

TC claims that I've doxxed and hurt many people. If you ask him who, he'll squirm out of saying it. He'll say we've been through it countless times and refuse to say who I doxxed or damaged. No one else claims I've ever did that, but he still insists while claiming I have poor memory.

To me TC is dangerous, and what's obvious is he has the capacity to fabricate lies about me and serve it to anyone he can access around me.

He seems critical of you for, as he puts it, playing along with my delusions.

As far as TC's criticisms goes, they are obviously based on doubt and self projection.  He is after all guilty of what he accuses me of.

See what I mean about Spatial? 

People playing along with his delusions ultimately hurts him. 

Tryptamine said: 

It's a matter of degrees when it comes to omissions. There must be times where you say nothing, no?

I feel shitty every time it comes up, the easier answer is to just say it. 

Can you think of an example of this that would probably be striking to most?

What, like an example of where I couldn't stop myself from saying my truths rather than letting them comfortably be nutty? 

Yeah, something that sticks out to you perhaps.

I'd figure I usually struggle to withhold that stuff, even when playing along somewhat like I do with Turquie. 

There's a lot of people where it'd be seemingly easier to just "Mmhmm", with them sometimes even asking for that half-meta, but I blame myself for when that passive response lends to them doing something worse later. 

They have to be pretty far down the rabbit hole like Psycho Dave for me to drop all emotional investment, but this place caters to just enough reality sometimes to kill what's otherwise funnier over Youtube or Discord. 

Tryptamine said: 

Turncoat said:

Is challenging how one's mind works bad though?

It isn't always, but can be. Is it still good if the person shuts down?

I would have figured that said people shutting down would still remember what caused it once they've cooled off, and that past a certain extent that repetition would yield patterns even they might notice down the line. 

...I'm learning otherwise and it's really creepy. 

Yes, I would say it's more likely that the negative emotion they feel becomes bound to the sentiment. It's like telling a kid they can't do something, the mind rebels against what it's told. Maybe you haven't seen this one a lot, but I have: When someone is complaining to you about what someone else said about them, and it's kind of true, but they say "what an asshole!" and blow it off. Or, "what does he know?" The receptiveness to negative information has to make it to the ego without hitting a barrier. Some better at this than others. 

Even so I'd figure that your layman can remember what happened with some rough degree of accuracy, prone to deterioration slowly overtime like any other memory, but what we're seeing on this site are people who can outright amnesia or rewrite how the experience went over a period of minutes, or they are so unequipt for human speech that they are only picking out very specific keywords like fuel. 

What if it was done at a time when the person seemed more receptive?

If it's about getting people to do something, yeah, this makes sense. If it's about having people face things they don't want to hear, unless the person's capable of introspection it's never the right time. 

I've found a surprising lack of introspective thought since leaving college, and people entering their 30s seem to be becoming increasingly rigid. Even people who used to be open to all sorts of debates before don't have the same stamina anymore. 

I try to be more subtle with delivery, but like I said I see that style of communication as not wrong.

I've also noticed that about people in their 30s. It's not everyone, and I used to think it was an IQ thing. Which it probably is in part, but then I also realized that a lot of intelligent people are pretty narrow, and it makes sense if you think about Big 5 and Openness to Experience being its own dimension that is only loosely correlated to g factor. Cognitive flexibility seems like a matter of temperament, David Bowie probably had tons more than whichever kids could to differential equations when they were 6. Age makes who we are more clear.

I'd say age makes who we are reinforced through laziness over losing energy. 

It's not that people are that much more sure of themselves, it's that they don't have the patience to do what once came so easily for them. It shows the slow death that aging truly is on the mind. 

Don't really know what is normal when it comes to this.

I've found the people here to be surprisingly sensitive relatively, but I also wonder how much of it is over having to read it rather than hear it. 

I think tone and body language can be disarming, while the typed form has them typically project or presume the other person's tone and subtext. In person these talks have gone much better, and even this forum in it's earlier days seemed much more equipt for it. 

Did the people here get weaker or something overtime? We used to be able to be way more scathing than this as the norm and people got that as part of the social culture. 

It's a mix of things. The crowd of people, actual names being out in the open, more threatening behavior ever since the Cad fiasco.

I've mostly seen one dude on a series of puppets trying to make the culture of the site look scary enough to try to make people leave, taking both sides in such scenarios to try to bubble and simmer the passions further. Even back in our more scathing days doxes were done more as a roast of the ego, while now it's more that the conversations thematically around it do more harm than the events themselves. 

It's just weird to watch the same guy who's warning people being the one doing it on other names. 

I don't throw down much with most of the people here because we've become friends, and even when I roast them I have to be careful sometimes. sugar is basically carrying the torch.

Even there, no one really takes Sugar seriously anymore. 

Roasting here's become too gunshy over people feeling like it'll put the spotlight on them instead, their target has to practically be a pedophile for people to feel safe lashing out at them ala Bandwagon. 

Tryptamine said: 

Turncoat said: 

Tryptamine said:

One thing that I heard a long while ago that really caught my attention was like "why the fuck would you listen to the advice of friends who don't even have their own shit together."

I by contrast have seen many go with "Those who can't help themselves help others", like when someone is depressed and doesn't want that burden carried by those around them, or when someone who couldn't succeed in their field takes up teaching. Regardless of their level of success it still shows where their focus is, and within that focus will still be time. Even most of those in the field of Psychotherapy are themselves usually not neurotypical; something had to get them interested in the subject in the first place. 

When one's problems are unsolvable from otherwise above a certain threshold, the areas beneath that bar tend to be areas where they can still otherwise offer advice through experience. 

For those who immediately Ad Hom I always saw that as a cope, as with enough digging it's easy enough to construe that no one has their shit together, and if need be they will reinvent their perception of the one saying what they're hearing as to not have to take it in. 

That makes sense. I think people who lack direction in their life are probably not usually good at giving advice related to life direction. But their advice related to relationships might be fine. Each person has their own peaks and valleys of wisdom.

While I do agree that someone with weak areas is liable to have strengths elsewhere there is also something to be said about the effort put into what got them where they are. From their natural shortcomings they've likely had to adapt around what they could not otherwise fix, like a drifter knowing how to pinch pennies a bit more than someone who comes from wealth, and from witnessing others succeed they could still offer secondhand advice that may work for others that otherwise did not work for themselves. 

Sometimes the best aid people can give is parroting what helped someone else, rather than what helps themselves. People who can't fix their own issues still tend to have spent enough time fixating on that area to at least offer experience from their twist on it. 

Why do you say you can't solve your own issues?

That'd be a topic of it's own, moreover the question of what does and doesn't constitute issues. I have otherwise not been able to give advice when the problems people have are similar enough to my own, and being able to see problems without seeing solutions still has merit at least as half-baked progress (by contrast to completely ignoring it anyway). 

Ironically I hadn't read this before I wrote what I did above.

Would you say your biggest issue is depression? Or perhaps more elaborately a failure to see some grander scheme beyond being around for the sake of others?

I was raised in environments where my life supported asking questions and critique from age five to twenty-three from being in the arts. It invites a certain frankness, a cutthroat speech that gets to the point of things rather than wasting time dancing around it, and when they couldn't take critique they lost points until they could. 

Then I met people outside of that sort of environment who seemed strangely comfortable never asking questions, merely affirming who they are and what they're about while simply asking to not be interrupted, whether it's because they're narcy or simple, and somehow this far along they are still unaccustomed to roadblocks as grown adults. 

I don't get it. I see it but I just don't get it. 

Exactly, it's a bunch of lies people tell each other to feel more comfortable. 

I get that exposure to a person is supposed to have them codependently adapt off of what purpose you serve for them, but if someone is expressing a problem area then isn't my omission even more of a disservice? I'd prefer people tell me what I'm doing wrong even if I don't internalize it over that being the quote unquote "Better Way To Be". 

It's a matter of degrees when it comes to omissions. There must be times where you say nothing, no?

Only if I've otherwise "given up on them", meaning I'm still at least 1/5 invested. Enough of them lives in my brain, how do you ignore something like that? For me, I can't. 

I don't even know if there's a person I have no investment in, as if I don't I'm likely not noticing that. Dropping something is much more of a struggle for me than trying something new. 

No one with no investment? What do you mean by investment?

The opposite of investment in this case would be complete apathy over them, letting them be themselves to their own detriment and potentially even my own amusement. 

Some corrective itch though feels like they need to recognize the existence of their problems. Rather than be bitter that not everyone is equipt for critique however I should be appreciating those I know who otherwise aren't so weak. 

I agree with that. I also wonder if it might not be a detriment to be so involved with so many others. Spreading oneself thin and whatnot.

It's double-edged. 

On one hand, because I'd be that way with everyone there's people who won't take it as personally. They either expect that sort of tone from growing familiar enough with it to ignore it or they understand that what's being said towards them isn't specifically targeting them so much as spotlighting them for the moment. 

Then on the other hand... there's Impressionists. 

What makes you think I tried to buy people's love ?

Turncoat said:

You hit a boiling point where, drunk or sober, you've spent so much time listening to them without them listening back that you would begin lashing out. Bonus points if they continued to act out while you were effectively "warning them" about getting real. You've reflected themes over a believed lack of reciprocity during those times. 

This typically happens with whoever you're dating at the time or are otherwise involved with, so maybe that has something to do with it. Past a point you wanted easier company, but also began taking them less seriously, arguably treating them like children compared to your older crushes.

It's probably worth considering here who I've done that with. I think Blanc and Delora, was it anyone else?

I get how it can seem like I'm finally being honest or something, because if I'm angry I might want to actually hurt the person, which means hitting them where I know they're insecure.

Not even, you grit your teeth and play along with people until you can't anymore, then you're either forgetting or blaming yourself before ghosting them long enough to have them want you back. You think tons of negative things and keep them to yourself, likely over how you think they can't take it, and what comes out during those times isn't just more real over how all the notes you'd been taking on them for weeks are finally allowed to unload, but also the way you write doesn't sound so milquetoast and processed from a PSA. 

When you're trying to be a better person for other people, as a good listener and all that, it comes across as forced compared to what otherwise occurs naturally for you, and clearly after saying one too many truths you've felt like you "had to learn" how to play the game instead. You do it like you're following a template series of steps instead of just letting loose. 

There are people who fall into the politeness patterns to put on airs that they think are civilized, but when you do it it's more like you're trying to feel some semblance of control over the situation. 

I've seen you mention the taking notes thing before, which translates semantically in my head like someone really committing to memory or mind some aspects of a person for future use. This isn't really the case—I do get information about people, but mostly because I want to get to know them, so I ask questions. There is no endpoint in mind for this, it's just part of what I do and assume others do.

I can understand where you're coming from on the "keeping tons of negative things" part, but really it's not like a bottling up. Naturally you too can see things in all the people you interact with that you could chastise them for, but that's not how being social works.

I think you get the idea of bottling up or containing from the "unloading" part, which is probably a reflection of growing up in abusive environments. People didn't just have upset arguments in my formative years; it was more like knives out than gloves off (sometimes literally). I think people who grew up in a similar way can relate to what should be reasonable discussions turning instead into tearing each other apart. Blowing up is a bad habit I've moved away from over time, into something I don't think I've done for a long while now. I'm sure it does sound pretty lucid on the other end, because my mind is very focused when it happens.

As for politeness patterns and whatever else, yeah I use them at times. I think people are aware of when I am being polite, and it's not really that much of a facade. I think I probably break from conventional conversation more than most people, but that's for others to judge.

Normally these insecurities are a non-issue, everyone has them. It's just that I have damage on my mind, which isn't something to be celebrated.

I'd figure your need to act nicer than you really are are the damages from presupposing that people are too weak to handle your thoughts, and each time that you end up shocking someone over it from them not being prepared for you to act like that likely reinforces your idea that it's "Bad" even further. 

The way you act here reminds me of how people are on forums with lots of rules, which is extra weird when this place doesn't have (m)any. If people stopped pretending to be polite to the point of censor we'd get a lot more across from both the freedom to speak and the tolerance for it that'd form from it being the norm. 

No, I'm actually a nice person! People around me in real life think of me as the tech guy, so I take time for others when they come to me. Setting up TVs, routers, configuring their phones, helping them buy things online, getting printers to work, all sorts of stuff a teen who grew up with the Internet can probably do. I'm not getting anything out of it other than the satisfaction of helping someone out. Do I also know where people are vulnerable and could I hit them there if I really needed to? Yes, but it's not because I think poorly of them. There aren't very many people I feel genuine strong dislike for; only one comes to mind and it's someone I know in real life.

I also don't think I act overly polite—in fact I think several people here have genuinely hated me at some point or another.

Not to say "let people be blind", but rather there are wrong settings.

Is it that, or is it a matter of patiently waiting them out for the few, rare, correct settings? Even if they are receptive at points, are they actually listening? Is it worth feeling like they can't hear you if they end up friendlier? 

I really don't see you being real with people too often, unless you've hit a boiling point of some kind, be it something anger or impatience. While you through your means are liable to be taken as friendlier for it, I see your pity for them or whatever might merit it having you rarely say what's actually on your mind. 

I think a good example of this is when I was absent here recently; I did make a few puppets, including that one that was calling Med mentally ill and broken, saying she was fated to an institution. Normally I would be more nice, though I do lash out at her occasionally.

Why do you figure it's better to do this on puppets, or to make posts that passive aggressively target who you're unhappy with without names? 

I'm not sure if I had done this before then, but during that time I had made a few. I didn't want to be present on the site, making a puppet was a bit of cheating that didn't involve a formal presence. Ironically, Med was probably more responsive to that than she would have been if I wrote it under this name.

Turncoat said: 

Canary said: 

Tryptamine said:

With the Spatial thing, I think he had a legitimate gripe in that it seemed like you were trying to pigeonhole him a certain way. I wouldn't remember the name of the thread, but he came to explain that parting money has gravity for him, because any money he expends could otherwise be put into crypto for profit. But despite that he helps family with loans, I think he mentioned something about helping with car payments as well. The whole thing may have started because he said he was altruistic, or generous. Your questions seemed pointed as if to arrive at the conclusion that he wasn't that way. At least that's the gestalt I had gotten, maybe he remembers it more.

 TC's claim that time is that I'm greedy. 

When I show charts I'm actually shairing my insights on projects. I've been talking about a certain project lately if you recall. Nothing wrong with giving a heads up on making money. 10,000x opportunity is coming, even in this bloody market.

TC claims that I've doxxed and hurt many people. If you ask him who, he'll squirm out of saying it. He'll say we've been through it countless times and refuse to say who I doxxed or damaged. No one else claims I've ever did that, but he still insists while claiming I have poor memory.

To me TC is dangerous, and what's obvious is he has the capacity to fabricate lies about me and serve it to anyone he can access around me.

He seems critical of you for, as he puts it, playing along with my delusions.

As far as TC's criticisms goes, they are obviously based on doubt and self projection.  He is after all guilty of what he accuses me of.

See what I mean about Spatial? 

People playing along with his delusions ultimately hurts him. 

I was more hoping someone would remember the thread if I brought up some elements of it. Your guys' ongoing thing is something else entirely that has a lot of packaging.

Tryptamine said: 

Turncoat said: 

Canary said: 

Tryptamine said:

With the Spatial thing, I think he had a legitimate gripe in that it seemed like you were trying to pigeonhole him a certain way. I wouldn't remember the name of the thread, but he came to explain that parting money has gravity for him, because any money he expends could otherwise be put into crypto for profit. But despite that he helps family with loans, I think he mentioned something about helping with car payments as well. The whole thing may have started because he said he was altruistic, or generous. Your questions seemed pointed as if to arrive at the conclusion that he wasn't that way. At least that's the gestalt I had gotten, maybe he remembers it more.

 TC's claim that time is that I'm greedy. 

When I show charts I'm actually shairing my insights on projects. I've been talking about a certain project lately if you recall. Nothing wrong with giving a heads up on making money. 10,000x opportunity is coming, even in this bloody market.

TC claims that I've doxxed and hurt many people. If you ask him who, he'll squirm out of saying it. He'll say we've been through it countless times and refuse to say who I doxxed or damaged. No one else claims I've ever did that, but he still insists while claiming I have poor memory.

To me TC is dangerous, and what's obvious is he has the capacity to fabricate lies about me and serve it to anyone he can access around me.

He seems critical of you for, as he puts it, playing along with my delusions.

As far as TC's criticisms goes, they are obviously based on doubt and self projection.  He is after all guilty of what he accuses me of.

See what I mean about Spatial? 

People playing along with his delusions ultimately hurts him. 

I was more hoping someone would remember the thread if I brought up some elements of it. Your guys' ongoing thing is something else entirely that has a lot of packaging.

Most of it's just rehashing the same shit while he acts like it's the first time every time.