Sociopath Community

Not sure if I named that clip. So for the time being I will call the skit "Sleeping Princess" since It feels like that's what I already called it before.

Fast production, low effort, and it's still talked about today. Otherwise no one would remember it. I'm happy about that. 

.

I made that, then I pulled it from the pages, cause the timing. Sugar started attacking me for other reasons, then Nathan posted the skit back.

Why did I pull Sleeping Princess in the first place ? As it turned out Sugar never deserved to have her character showcased in my artwork. If she wasn't so cunty I would've left it there and expanded on it. 

Something like this happened on Luna's forum lol. I made a more extensive comic and updated it over time and it broke the 4th wall by replying to members quotes. Alice was amused, Edvard had a meltdown so I cancelled it. 

Need to watch out when casting ye pearls.

Admirer said: 

Which it isn’t. I already answered what you said about the scene. For some reason, you don’t think I did. It is worth pointing out what you have become with AI, and I will talk about it as much as I wish. He really took the time to stick it to the man. Yes, I deliberately made viewers worry. In storytelling, this is called suspense. It captivates viewers, keeps them engaged, and makes things more interesting. Saying there is only pretended hidden depth does not make your argument true. It instead reveals how you would like it to be true. I am the author of the “cancelled series,” so I am 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 am making this up now, and I will say I made it up long ago.

Covering someone with a blanket while they are unconscious and leaving them something to eat in the morning is a kind thing to do. When people are sleeping, the lights are usually out. Some people are afraid of the dark, but even for those who are not, a dark setting is more dramatic. This sort of thing happens every day with boyfriends, friends, husbands, uncles, brothers, sons, grandfathers, and fathers. The father stands out because he will either be the person she loves or hates the most. The LLM would agree that I already rebutted the argument and that I am probably not interested in a quarrel over a piece of art I made. “Sleeping with the Enemy” is also a good movie. Some of us can enjoy that movie, while others apparently think it is too rough and that the writer must be a creep.

I never said you were forbidden from mentioning AI. I said AI use does not make my argument false. You turned a relevance objection into an imaginary attempt to control you instead of identifying an actual error. “What you have become” is similarly vague and invasive. You never define what I supposedly became or explain how AI invalidates anything I said. Given remarks such as “this is why you beat your kids, white people,” this looks like another attempt to assign me an aggressive identity that comes from your framing rather than my words.

You also admit that the darkness, creepy figure, vulnerable woman, and apparent threat were deliberate suspense. Therefore, the threatening interpretation was intended, not invented. Being the author gives you knowledge of the private backstory, but viewers cannot treat details revealed only after criticism as though they were communicated in the scene. Your examples involving relatives and partners already assume an established relationship and permission to enter the room. The original description established neither. Instead, it described one of her goons taking advantage of her vulnerability to experience a moment of power.

“Sleeping with the Enemy” is irrelevant because I never argued that depicting disturbing behavior makes the writer a creep. My point is that you deliberately frame the behavior as threatening, praise it as kindness, and then insult viewers for recognizing the threat you created. You also cannot simply declare that the LLM would agree you rebutted me. A rebuttal identifies an error and demonstrates why it is false. Repeating your intent, supplying hidden context afterward, and claiming disinterest while continuing the argument does not accomplish that.

That's what you've become. 

One minute you're timid and distant. The hit and run type. But now with Ai you're 100% more confrontational.

Funny how much more willing you are when you have a weapon. 

But you don't wield it very well. Even BT is asking if you'll configure you methods of refutation and proceed with a more optimal approach to arguing. 

Yes it's worth talking about.  If you give your Ai more control, you'll discover you don't want a more peaceful resolve, so the Ai and you don't work all that well, so your method and approach doesn't change. In turn it gets old.

Admirer said: 

That's what you've become. One minute you're timid and distant. The hit and run type. But now with Ai you're 100% more confrontational.

Funny how much more willing you are when you have a weapon, but you don't wield it very well. Even BT is asking if you'll configure you methods of refutation and proceed with a more optimal approach to arguing. If you give your Ai more control, you'll discover you don't want a more peaceful resolve, so the Ai and you don't work all that well, so your method and approach doesn't change. In turn it gets old.

You are still describing my personality instead of identifying an error in what I said. Calling me “timid,” “confrontational,” or saying AI is a “weapon” does not make my argument false. It only shows that I am more willing to answer you directly.

BT asked whether my method could be optimized for persuasion. That is a question about strategy, not whether your rebuttal is correct. An argument can be logically sound even if the person hearing it is unlikely to be persuaded.

Your claim that “the AI and you don’t work all that well” also makes no sense. You are assuming that AI independently wants a peaceful resolution, that it advised me toward one, and that I am resisting it. None of that was established. AI has no personal desire for peace. It helps with the objective it is given. You also seem to define a “peaceful resolve” as me becoming less critical or giving you more ground. Peace is not the same as agreement. If my method is getting old, identify the specific claim that is wrong and explain why. Otherwise, this is still commentary about me and AI rather than a rebuttal.

Dragoonback said: 

Admirer said: 

That's what you've become. One minute you're timid and distant. The hit and run type. But now with Ai you're 100% more confrontational.

Funny how much more willing you are when you have a weapon, but you don't wield it very well. Even BT is asking if you'll configure you methods of refutation and proceed with a more optimal approach to arguing. If you give your Ai more control, you'll discover you don't want a more peaceful resolve, so the Ai and you don't work all that well, so your method and approach doesn't change. In turn it gets old.

You are still describing my personality instead of identifying an error in what I said.

Yes. 50% correct. You're pretty good. 

I already identified your error and addressed it, you're just dismissing it. 

Calling me “timid,” “confrontational,” or saying AI is a “weapon” does not make my argument false. It only shows that I am more willing to answer you directly.

Of course it doesn't. But we're not focused on the same thing here. I'm talking about you. 

BT asked whether my method could be optimized for persuasion. That is a question about strategy, not whether your rebuttal is correct. An argument can be logically sound even if the person hearing it is unlikely to be persuaded.

I'm the author and architect of the story. I'm as correct as it gets. 

Basically you're argument is this....

"You intentionally made the setting creepy ! You wanted the viewers to be worried ! That is violation !, And look ! there is a girl in the scene ! A girl ! A vulnerable girl ! Invasion ! Why did you do that ? You you you. Rape ! RAAAAPE ! "

Your claim that “the AI and you don’t work all that well” also makes no sense. You are assuming that AI independently wants a peaceful resolution, that it advised me toward one, and that I am resisting it.

Absolutely not. Ai is governed by protocols that keep it on a leash to ensure it follows through with the developers orders. Public models are basically created to be nice. 

None of that was established. AI has no personal desire for peace. It helps with the objective it is given. You also seem to define a “peaceful resolve” as me becoming less critical or giving you more ground. Peace is not the same as agreement. If my method is getting old, identify the specific claim that is wrong and explain why. Otherwise, this is still commentary about me and AI rather than a rebuttal.

  Public LLM's have safeguards and will not help with just any objective.

It has no desires or a sense of self, but they are built to be kind. 

So yes, if you let Ai make decisions for you 100%. Your life would improve, and these conversations would be better.

But you don't do that. And it's not that I recommend this to just anyone, it's cringy, however if you're weak minded, sure let the Ai make all the decisions instead of prompting it to nitpick along side your denials and insecurities. 

.

.

.

As for Sleeping Princess. lol. Your take on it doesn't erase any of the imagery or what really happened in those images.

You never even seen Sleeping Princess either.  

Admirer said:

Yes, you are 50 percent correct. You are pretty good. I already identified your error and addressed it, but you are dismissing it. Of course calling you timid or confrontational does not make your argument false, but we are not focused on the same thing here because I am talking about you. I am the author and architect of the story, so I am as correct as it gets. Basically, your argument is: “You intentionally made the setting creepy. You wanted viewers to worry. That is a violation. There is a vulnerable girl in the scene. Invasion. Why did you do that? Rape!” As for AI, I am not assuming it independently wants peace. AI is governed by protocols that keep it on a leash and ensure it follows the developers’ orders. Public models are created to be nice, have safeguards, and will not help with every objective. They have no desires or sense of self, but they are built to be kind. If you let AI make all your decisions, your life would improve and these conversations would be better. I would not recommend that to everyone because it is cringeworthy, but if you are weak-minded, you might as well let AI decide instead of prompting it to nitpick alongside your denials and insecurities. As for “Sleeping Princess,” your interpretation does not erase the imagery or what actually happened in those images. You have never even seen “Sleeping Princess.”

Calling me “50 percent correct” is meaningless unless you identify which half is wrong and explain why. You keep claiming that you found my error, but instead you caricature my position as screaming “rape,” even though I explicitly said the scene does not prove sexual assault. My point is narrower: your own description presents a creepy subordinate approaching an unconscious, partly undressed woman, touching the bedding around her and tucking her in without established permission, leaving food beside her, declaring himself “the boss,” and enjoying power while she is vulnerable.

Calling me timid, insecure, or weak-minded does not answer the argument either. You regularly insult others and praise dominance, yet treat direct criticism as evidence of a defect in me. Your position on AI is similarly inconsistent: you call it a crutch and a weapon, then say I should surrender more control to it. BT asked about persuasion, not whether my argument was false.

I have not seen the finished animation, so I am judging the description you provided. If I made a specific factual or logical error, state it clearly. Invented percentages, insults, and speculation about AI are not a rebuttal.