Sociopath Community

Spatial Mind said:

Okay, but no one has ever seen Sugar before, and it is unlikely the avatar resembles her. I am the author and the only one who understands the story. It is my creation, so what happens in it is what the writer says happened. I am also the only one who knows the relationship between her and the man. I understand that you have your own imagination and assumed the sleeping woman was violated, but I assure you nothing like that happened. I would say the skit succeeded at triggering people with a victim mentality. Everyone else would find it either boring or hilarious. He was not a stranger in the story, and the objects were not unfamiliar. I intentionally made the man look creepy so viewers would worry. Is that really something to cry about? Just because something looks threatening does not mean it is. Your interpretation of “the boss” shows that you are only comfortable when she is the boss, and she was the boss.

Sugar and I used to get along. We chatted on Discord and gossiped. I later fell out with Lena after telling her she always sided with Nathan against me and was effectively my enemy. She then proved it, and Sugar suddenly spent weeks attacking me on Lena’s behalf. That is why I now call Sugar disgusting and discarded the model. While nothing but kindness happened in the skit, you think she was violated because you are weak-minded. The rest of the story is hilarious.

You being the author does not make the scene harmless. Viewers judge what you actually depicted, not private context you reveal afterward. You showed a creepy man entering a dark bedroom without permission, approaching an unconscious and partly undressed woman, placing a blanket on her, leaving objects around her, and declaring, “Who’s the boss now? I’m the boss now.” You also admit that you deliberately made him look threatening so viewers would worry. You cannot intentionally create the appearance of danger and domination, then call people weak-minded for recognizing it. Even accepting your claim that no sexual assault occurred, the conduct could still be described as an unlawful intrusion and nonconsensual touching. Entering her private room without permission could amount to trespass or unlawful entry, while deliberately making physical contact with her through the blanket could be considered offensive touching or battery in jurisdictions that use that term. Her being unconscious does not make the contact consensual. It only means she could not perceive or object to it. Leaving food is not automatically kindness when it also proves someone entered her space without her knowledge.

Your later additions that he knew her, that the objects were familiar, and that she was normally “the boss” were not communicated in the scene. Saying he waited until she was unconscious to enjoy a moment of power only strengthens the dominance interpretation. The story may not depict the specific crime you deny, but it plainly depicts an invasive power display toward a vulnerable person. That reading comes from your own choices, not from anyone’s “victim mentality.”

Dragoonback said: 

Spatial Mind said:

Okay, but no one has ever seen Sugar before, and it is unlikely the avatar resembles her. I am the author and the only one who understands the story. It is my creation, so what happens in it is what the writer says happened. I am also the only one who knows the relationship between her and the man. I understand that you have your own imagination and assumed the sleeping woman was violated, but I assure you nothing like that happened. I would say the skit succeeded at triggering people with a victim mentality. Everyone else would find it either boring or hilarious. He was not a stranger in the story, and the objects were not unfamiliar. I intentionally made the man look creepy so viewers would worry. Is that really something to cry about? Just because something looks threatening does not mean it is. Your interpretation of “the boss” shows that you are only comfortable when she is the boss, and she was the boss.

Sugar and I used to get along. We chatted on Discord and gossiped. I later fell out with Lena after telling her she always sided with Nathan against me and was effectively my enemy. She then proved it, and Sugar suddenly spent weeks attacking me on Lena’s behalf. That is why I now call Sugar disgusting and discarded the model. While nothing but kindness happened in the skit, you think she was violated because you are weak-minded. The rest of the story is hilarious.

You being the author does not make the scene harmless. Viewers judge what you actually depicted, not private context you reveal afterward. You showed a creepy man entering a dark bedroom without permission, approaching an unconscious and partly undressed woman, placing a blanket on her, leaving objects around her, and declaring, “Who’s the boss now? I’m the boss now.” You also admit that you deliberately made him look threatening so viewers would worry. You cannot intentionally create the appearance of danger and domination, then call people weak-minded for recognizing it. Even accepting your claim that no sexual assault occurred, the conduct could still be described as an unlawful intrusion and nonconsensual touching. Entering her private room without permission could amount to trespass or unlawful entry, while deliberately making physical contact with her through the blanket could be considered offensive touching or battery in jurisdictions that use that term. Her being unconscious does not make the contact consensual. It only means she could not perceive or object to it. Leaving food is not automatically kindness when it also proves someone entered her space without her knowledge.

Your later additions that he knew her, that the objects were familiar, and that she was normally “the boss” were not communicated in the scene. Saying he waited until she was unconscious to enjoy a moment of power only strengthens the dominance interpretation. The story may not depict the specific crime you deny, but it plainly depicts an invasive power display toward a vulnerable person. That reading comes from your own choices, not from anyone’s “victim mentality.”

 You're actually retarded. 

Spatial Mind said: 

Dragoonback said: 

Spatial Mind said:

Okay, but no one has ever seen Sugar before, and it is unlikely the avatar resembles her. I am the author and the only one who understands the story. It is my creation, so what happens in it is what the writer says happened. I am also the only one who knows the relationship between her and the man. I understand that you have your own imagination and assumed the sleeping woman was violated, but I assure you nothing like that happened. I would say the skit succeeded at triggering people with a victim mentality. Everyone else would find it either boring or hilarious. He was not a stranger in the story, and the objects were not unfamiliar. I intentionally made the man look creepy so viewers would worry. Is that really something to cry about? Just because something looks threatening does not mean it is. Your interpretation of “the boss” shows that you are only comfortable when she is the boss, and she was the boss.

Sugar and I used to get along. We chatted on Discord and gossiped. I later fell out with Lena after telling her she always sided with Nathan against me and was effectively my enemy. She then proved it, and Sugar suddenly spent weeks attacking me on Lena’s behalf. That is why I now call Sugar disgusting and discarded the model. While nothing but kindness happened in the skit, you think she was violated because you are weak-minded. The rest of the story is hilarious.

You being the author does not make the scene harmless. Viewers judge what you actually depicted, not private context you reveal afterward. You showed a creepy man entering a dark bedroom without permission, approaching an unconscious and partly undressed woman, placing a blanket on her, leaving objects around her, and declaring, “Who’s the boss now? I’m the boss now.” You also admit that you deliberately made him look threatening so viewers would worry. You cannot intentionally create the appearance of danger and domination, then call people weak-minded for recognizing it. Even accepting your claim that no sexual assault occurred, the conduct could still be described as an unlawful intrusion and nonconsensual touching. Entering her private room without permission could amount to trespass or unlawful entry, while deliberately making physical contact with her through the blanket could be considered offensive touching or battery in jurisdictions that use that term. Her being unconscious does not make the contact consensual. It only means she could not perceive or object to it. Leaving food is not automatically kindness when it also proves someone entered her space without her knowledge.

Your later additions that he knew her, that the objects were familiar, and that she was normally “the boss” were not communicated in the scene. Saying he waited until she was unconscious to enjoy a moment of power only strengthens the dominance interpretation. The story may not depict the specific crime you deny, but it plainly depicts an invasive power display toward a vulnerable person. That reading comes from your own choices, not from anyone’s “victim mentality.”

 You're actually retarded. 

Calling me retarded does not answer a single point I made. You deliberately framed the scene as threatening, admitted you wanted viewers to worry, and then blamed them for interpreting the imagery exactly as intended. The insult is just an attempt to replace an argument you have not answered.

He kept it short and sweet because he literally cannot understand you. 

Turncoat said: 

He kept it short and sweet because he literally cannot understand you. 

He understood enough to insult me, but apparently not enough to identify which part was wrong. Calling an argument incomprehensible is not a rebuttal, especially when the argument is simply that Spatial intentionally made the scene look threatening and then mocked viewers for seeing it as threatening.

Dragoonback said: 

Turncoat said: 

He kept it short and sweet because he literally cannot understand you. 

He understood enough to insult me, but apparently not enough to identify which part was wrong. Calling an argument incomprehensible is not a rebuttal, especially when the argument is simply that Spatial intentionally made the scene look threatening and then mocked viewers for seeing it as threatening.

 Never said it was incomprehensible, nor am I all that interested in making a rebuttal. 

This time you're outsmarting Nathan regardless if he's serious or stirring the pot. I do understand you. 

.

You transformed Dragoon. Not long ago you're talking about how you like the Ai, and now all of a sudden you're different now. Before you were all "Get out of my thread, leave me alone stop following me" or something of that nature. Now look at you. The Ai has become a powerful crutch for your brain and you choose to use it to argue. "where's the proof ? No proof, that doesn't prove anything" Same argument over and over again. Because of that your Ai ( probably chatgpt ).

Doesn't matter how true or intelligent I am, you're gonna argue. Here we see you arguing a fictional story. No pornographics. No violences. A simple introduction of a vulnerable woman being respected by some weird looking guy. What triggers you are men and women being in the same place. 

But really, anyone with half a brain can see what I'm saying, while your capacity to judge a book by it's cover is on display.  

I just bought some chocolate named tony

i am going to grab it

Dragoonback said: 

Turncoat said: 

He kept it short and sweet because he literally cannot understand you. 

He understood enough to insult me, but apparently not enough to identify which part was wrong. Calling an argument incomprehensible is not a rebuttal, especially when the argument is simply that Spatial intentionally made the scene look threatening and then mocked viewers for seeing it as threatening.

What does the LLM think the chances of your methods of refutation have for convincing Spatial Mind?  You could probably have it estimate those chances, given the conversation(s) you've already had.  Now, then the question becomes: will you stick to your method, or actually look for a way to optimize your argumentation?

Admirer said: 

You transformed Dragoon. Not long ago you're talking about how you like the Ai, and now all of a sudden you're different now. Before you were all "Get out of my thread, leave me alone stop following me" or something of that nature. Now look at you. The Ai has become a powerful crutch for your brain and you choose to use it to argue. "where's the proof ? No proof, that doesn't prove anything" Same argument over and over again. Because of that your Ai ( probably chatgpt ). Doesn't matter how true or intelligent I am, you're gonna argue. Here we see you arguing a fictional story. No pornographics. No violences. A simple introduction of a vulnerable woman being respected by some weird looking guy. What triggers you are men and women being in the same place.  But really, anyone with half a brain can see what I'm saying, while your capacity to judge a book by it's cover is on display.  

Whether I use AI is irrelevant to whether my argument is correct. You keep discussing my personality, how I have supposedly changed, and whether AI is a “crutch,” but none of that answers what I said about the scene. I am not objecting because a man and woman occupy the same place. I am objecting because you deliberately presented a creepy man entering a dark bedroom, approaching an unconscious and partly undressed woman, touching the bedding around her, and declaring himself “the boss.” You admitted that you designed it to make viewers worry. You cannot use those details to create a threatening impression and then call viewers shallow for receiving the impression you intentionally created. Your “judging a book by its cover” defense also pretends there is some hidden depth that only you understand. But the supposed depth consists of information you added afterward: that he knew her, the objects were familiar, and the behavior was secretly respectful. Framing is part of the story, not merely its cover. You want credit for the suspense and the supposed kindness while denying responsibility for the invasive implications. That is not depth. It is an escape route from criticism.

Buttered Toast said: 

What does the LLM think the chances of your methods of refutation have for convincing Spatial Mind?  You could probably have it estimate those chances, given the conversation(s) you've already had.  Now, then the question becomes: will you stick to your method, or actually look for a way to optimize your argumentation?

The chance of convincing Spatial is probably low because he has already said he is not interested in rebutting the argument. The point is to make the contradiction clear to readers: he deliberately made the scene look threatening, then mocked people for interpreting it that way. Changing methods will not fix his refusal to address the substance.

Dragoonback said: 

Admirer said: 

You transformed Dragoon. Not long ago you're talking about how you like the Ai, and now all of a sudden you're different now. Before you were all "Get out of my thread, leave me alone stop following me" or something of that nature. Now look at you. The Ai has become a powerful crutch for your brain and you choose to use it to argue. "where's the proof ? No proof, that doesn't prove anything" Same argument over and over again. Because of that your Ai ( probably chatgpt ). Doesn't matter how true or intelligent I am, you're gonna argue. Here we see you arguing a fictional story. No pornographics. No violences. A simple introduction of a vulnerable woman being respected by some weird looking guy. What triggers you are men and women being in the same place.  But really, anyone with half a brain can see what I'm saying, while your capacity to judge a book by it's cover is on display.  

Whether I use AI is irrelevant to whether my argument is correct.

Which it isn't.

You keep discussing my personality, how I have supposedly changed, and whether AI is a “crutch,” but none of that answers what I said about the scene.

I already answered what you said about the scene. For some reason you don't think I did. 

It's worth pointing out what you've become with Ai. I will talk about it as much as I wish. 

I am not objecting because a man and woman occupy the same place. I am objecting because you deliberately presented a creepy man entering a dark bedroom, approaching an unconscious and partly undressed woman, touching the bedding around her, and declaring himself “the boss.”

lol yeah. He really took the time to stick it to the man. 

You admitted that you designed it to make viewers worry. You cannot use those details to create a threatening impression and then call viewers shallow for receiving the impression you intentionally created.

LOL ! Yes I did ! In storytelling this is something writers do. It's called  "suspense", totally captivates viewers and keeps them locked in. Makes things more interesting. 

Your “judging a book by its cover” defense also pretends there is some hidden depth that only you understand.

Saying that doesn't make your argument true. Instead it reveals how you'd like it to be true. 

Bad news for you. I am after all the author of the "cancelled series". I'm the first to know the story inside and out. I know what the rest of the house looks like and who lives there. 

You can say I'm making this up now, and I'll say I made it up long ago. 

But the supposed depth consists of information you added afterward: that he knew her, the objects were familiar, and the behavior was secretly respectful. Framing is part of the story, not merely its cover. You want credit for the suspense and the supposed kindness while denying responsibility for the invasive implications. That is not depth. It is an escape route from criticism.

Covering someone with a blanket while they're out cold and gifting them something to eat in the morning is a kind thing to do.

See when people are sleeping the lights are out. Now I know some people are afraid of the dark, but even for those who aren't afraid of it, a dark setting is more dramatic. This type of thing happens every single day, with boyfriends, friends, husbands, uncles, Brothers, Son's Grandfathers and.... Daddy.

The Father stands out, cause he'll either be the one she loves or hates the most. 

Buttered Toast said: 

What does the LLM think the chances of your methods of refutation have for convincing Spatial Mind?  You could probably have it estimate those chances, given the conversation(s) you've already had.  Now, then the question becomes: will you stick to your method, or actually look for a way to optimize your argumentation?

The chance of convincing Spatial is probably low because he has already said he is not interested in rebutting the argument. The point is to make the contradiction clear to readers: he deliberately made the scene look threatening, then mocked people for interpreting it that way. Changing methods will not fix his refusal to address the substance.

@BT. 

The LLM would agree that I rebutted the argument already, and most likely not interested in a quarrel over a piece of art I made. 

Also Sleeping with the Enemy is a good movie. HA HA HA, gosh, I'm laughing cause some of us like that movie while for others, it's too rough and the writer must be a creep !