Sociopath Community

Turncoat said: 

Buttered Toast said: 

Turncoat said: 

Yes, or you wouldn't bother. 

Rather than address him, the one acting out, you feel it makes more sense to address the one addressing him. What is there to gain from defending bad choices?

Perhaps I don't agree with the method of him being addressed.  Do I have to address him as well to also have a valid point about his being addressed?

How would you resolve it in this case if I weren't otherwise replying to him, by omitting your feelings to the point of neutering the message, or by simply not replying at all?

 

I think you're reacting more personally based on his language.  He sounds butthurt and overreacting, but not invalid in his grievances.

From what I've seen it'd be largely the same without the bravery to be insulting, which I guess in this case might stand out over how he keeps saying you're horrible to the point of you feeling the need to prove otherwise (unless I'm confusing him for someone else, this is the one who keeps being on your case about Steam right?).

 

Yeah, I do see much difficult in his approach and demeanor that gives me certain vibes I don't trust from this, but that's not to invalidate what he's saying here.

I personally believe in the full spectrum of conversation, people should have the room to be insulting to spur out further banter instead of feeling like they can't be that way over some sort of Ableism or whatever. In that sense I see more value in your Steam history with the guy being used as a tool over how it's at least not dishonest, rather than your invalidating that form of communication entirely before distancing yourself from it. 

On a somewhat unrelated note, this is probably where the 'White Knight' accusations others have made towards you comes from. To me it looks more like an aversion to tense situations and a general need to projectively defend 'The Weak' regardless of their character, but I can kinda see how others would confuse it as if otherwise. 

There may be some truth to this, but I'd rather be faulted for giving some this platform of defense than not.  If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but not for want of trying.  Sometimes I will see an angle not considered or thought for defense that's worth voicing, and they don't see.  Sometimes I see they may not word or express themselves from what I think they may be intending. I don't know.

Starting to think you're talking moreover a restlessness rather than anything about him. 

 Sounds like more invalidating.

Am I wrong though? I don't really see your motivation here beyond your habits. 

It remains for them to really speak up about it.  However, I foresee a derangement of language leading to misrepresentation or something.

(I'm really tired rn.)

I cannot comprehend 90+% of what you guys are saying. I don't care if you trust me or not. The ways you did things was bizarre and inflammatory. You weren't just like "no you can't add me on Steam I don't trust you." Not how things happened, you pretended like you were going to add me only to act shocked at the last minute and talk about how I'm after your friends list. Turncoat can cheaply dismiss the ableism but it's still there, using these social games to make me the big bad boogeyman when both of you make your little sabotaging snipes like girls. 

Also being condescending by talking about "enabling" me and "defending people." Get over yourselves.

And yes the steam thing is why I try to remember to ignore you.

Buttered Toast said: 

Turncoat said: 

Buttered Toast said: 

Perhaps I don't agree with the method of him being addressed.  Do I have to address him as well to also have a valid point about his being addressed?

How would you resolve it in this case if I weren't otherwise replying to him, by omitting your feelings to the point of neutering the message, or by simply not replying at all?

I think you're reacting more personally based on his language.  He sounds butthurt and overreacting, but not invalid in his grievances.

Way to not answer the question. 😋

From what I've seen it'd be largely the same without the bravery to be insulting, which I guess in this case might stand out over how he keeps saying you're horrible to the point of you feeling the need to prove otherwise (unless I'm confusing him for someone else, this is the one who keeps being on your case about Steam right?).

Yeah, I do see much difficult in his approach and demeanor that gives me certain vibes I don't trust from this, but that's not to invalidate what he's saying here.

What do you figure he's saying here? My point was over how he was avoiding answering Cav's question, then continued on the defensive to such a point as to act unlike how he is with me in discussions normally in other topics. 

I personally believe in the full spectrum of conversation, people should have the room to be insulting to spur out further banter instead of feeling like they can't be that way over some sort of Ableism or whatever. In that sense I see more value in your Steam history with the guy being used as a tool over how it's at least not dishonest, rather than your invalidating that form of communication entirely before distancing yourself from it. 

On a somewhat unrelated note, this is probably where the 'White Knight' accusations others have made towards you comes from. To me it looks more like an aversion to tense situations and a general need to projectively defend 'The Weak' regardless of their character, but I can kinda see how others would confuse it as if otherwise. 

There may be some truth to this, but I'd rather be faulted for giving some this platform of defense than not. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but not for want of trying.

I think it has a time and place, rather than being a habit worth keeping. 

When someone does something for too many people it starts to mean less over becoming the expectation. It flags a pattern instead of demonstrating anything about the other person in question, especially when it's less focused on the content itself and more on the individual. 

It's like when I'm taken less seriously overtime for seeming to always take an opposing camp over how the debates become more longwinded than the agreements. 

Sometimes I will see an angle not considered or thought for defense that's worth voicing, and they don't see.  Sometimes I see they may not word or express themselves from what I think they may be intending. I don't know.

From my POV at least, you find it easier to defend someone who resembles a struggle you may find yourself having than you would even defend it from yourself. 

Personally, I think being defended as if I were weak is more insulting than an argument, but maybe that's pride talking. It's as if to suggest they cannot defend themselves when it's pure defense rather than transformative posting content. 

 Sounds like more invalidating.

Am I wrong though? I don't really see your motivation here beyond your habits. 

It remains for them to really speak up about it.  However, I foresee a derangement of language leading to misrepresentation or something.

(I'm really tired rn.)

I see it more as using challenging language to dare answers out of people they'd never have in polite conversation. Adrenaline has a way of spicing conversations in ways it'd not be if neutered of it's passion. 

Tacky said: 

I cannot comprehend 90+% of what you guys are saying.

lol

Turncoat can cheaply dismiss the ableism but it's still there, using these social games to make me the big bad boogeyman when both of you make your little sabotaging snipes like girls. 

Who doesn't fall into quiet ableism though, other than the louder ones? Even neurotypicals have room to be pitied for what they can't relate to, there is room to pity everyone's problems. My point is moreover how not 'going there' because they are 'less fortunate' is kinda rude to the person it's over. 

Acting 'polite' enough to lie to the person over it to me strikes me as ruder, it's usually super transparent compared to if they just shoot off the cuff. The difference in appreciation for it though stems over how much it is or isn't relevant to the conversation, as if it's a tangent it tends to fall into Ad Hominem. 

Also being condescending  by talking about "enabling" me and "defending people."  Get over yourselves.

You first dude, be the change you wish to see in others or they'll instead model off of your problem traits. 

I don't care if you trust me or not. The ways you did things was bizarre and inflammatory. You weren't just like "no you can't add me on Steam I don't trust you." Not how things happened, you pretended like you were going to add me only to act shocked at the last minute and talk about how I'm after your friends list.

---

And yes the steam thing is why I try to remember to ignore you.

 /watches BT defend you harder

I'm seriously suspicious of this tendency of his' room to be a pattern when related others of his past, moreover those he's focusing on over having a stronger concern over the passage of their feelings. He tends to sort people into if they are part of one of two categories, Strong and Weak, and then acts on it as a defender rather than focusing plainly on the context. Others I've seen him defend were the sort to tell him off similarly (over some of the stupidest shit too sometimes dear lordddd). 

If someone is telling him off, like you're doing in the above quote, I think he might take it like Tsundere behavior... and he might not even be wrong about it in most cases. His dating history certainly liked to argue anyway. 

Beyond that it seems more like projective vibe equilibrium, he'd try to make things copacetic for his own peace of mind more than anything else. If someone is upset it's like 'how dare' towards the perceived cause. A common enough problem when people are defended in general is moreover those who are like "I don't need someone to defend me, I'm not as weak as you see me as". 

I never avoided Cav's question. I said no and addressed the suggestive nature of the question.

I don't think Toast is horrible just because I think he's a psychopath. Neurotypicals are challenging if not more so than psychopaths.(In which I face intense alienation as a needy deeply autistic person.)

It's also hard for me to stop simping especially if a guy shows me a bit of affection at one point.

Tacky said: 

I don't think Toast is horrible just because I think he's a psychopath.

Okay I'm going to need you to run through how he even fits that bill, as I don't see it at all. 

Turncoat said: 

Tacky said: 

I don't think Toast is horrible just because I think he's a psychopath.

Okay I'm going to need you to run through how he even fits that bill, as I don't see it at all. 

 

 He seems to deal better with the objective but not very well with the subjective. I'd say he has an amount of charm even if it's not the greatest, and he seems to evaluate people he leads on in that same objective way. He wasn't really hesitant to flirt with me and was very receptive to an explicit picture, and then dismiss me for example.

To be fair, neurotypicals and psychopaths are a lot alike from the perception of someone like me who is autistic.

Tacky said: 

Turncoat said: 

Tacky said: 

I don't think Toast is horrible just because I think he's a psychopath.

Okay I'm going to need you to run through how he even fits that bill, as I don't see it at all. 

 He seems to deal better with the objective but not very well with the subjective.

From my experiences with him I'd say he's fine with subjectivity, in fact if anything isn't subjectivity typically the easier one in most cases? 

He and I share opinions with eachother a lot. 

I'd say he has an amount of charm even if it's not the greatest, and he seems to evaluate people he leads on in that same objective way.

He tries to ask objective questions, but by the end of it lands on subjectivity. 

Like most people do. 

To be fair, neurotypicals and psychopaths are a lot alike from the perception of someone like me who is autistic.

Yeah NGL this seems a little like when scorned people call people psychopaths. 

FFS I've been called one, twice, and I very clearly am not. 

It has nothing to do with "scorned." You are a dumb drama vulture and your logic is fueled by that.

Tacky said: 

It has nothing to do with "scorned." You are a dumb drama vulture and your logic is fueled by that.

It's more likely that you possess bad self-awareness, which is pretty normal for people tbh.