Sociopath Community

Sintetika said: 

It's not just pedophiles, I include rapists and murders

So why not poachers, or the rich 1%, or petty thieves, or grifters, or your opposing political party, or door to door salesmen? 

There's a lot of reasons to hate a group of people, yet you specifically picked these ones for your daydreams. It's a practical choice, but one's daydreams don't have to be practical, that was a choice of your own. I could have a dire hatred towards Clowns, Mimes, and ICP fans, and daydream of smashing those to my heart's content just as readily as you can daydream your desire to destroy pedophiles, rapists, and murderers. 

What sets this lot apart? I assume it's not just mere law breaking escalation as that'd be really flimsy on it's own as a reasoning. 

Surely, through neurology maybe you could augment their brains, but does that exist yet?

We have the means of chemical castration and we have drugs that can reduce the libido, but for those who do it as a thing "about power"... it's not about how well their parts work or their libido being on the fritz, it's something deeper. 

It's a case-by-case sort of thing, and many of them go on to never commit an offense. 

Regardless, if they commit the crime of harming a child or person, or distribute pornography of children, then I can't see that as redeemable.

What about it though, these two are very different things with the only matching theme between them being "children". 

What are your thoughts on children in general? Lets start there. 

With murderers, it depends on the motive. I believe standard murderers can be rehab'd but it just depends on what the scenario was. 

If someone's of the mind that they are above everything else, the only way to appeal to them is to convince them how much that it's in their best benefit not to kill people. This is predictably temporary. 

Belkar from Order* of the Stick and Alex from A Clockwork Orange are strong examples of how they're more liable to adapt towards their new constraints than become better people. 

but those targets are within the realm of my own political views, and I'd rather not go into that. 

So there are other daydream demographics? 

There could be something in this. Your "rather not go into that"-ing is there for a reason, maybe that reason is connected to other reluctances you aren't addressing, even if just thematically? 

Turncoat said:

Is the presence of a moral code what splits us apart, solely?


I can't help but feel you refer to "society" as a more justifiable way of referring to yourself.

Regardless of it's truth, you're really saying that it'd be for the good of you.

I'm aware morality is different for differing individuals, but what I am explaining is that there are people in society that if they don't adhere to a level of civility in regards to the innocent people, then there is only two outcomes for them. Death or forced labor. 

You're definitely selling the "law and order" archetype (not the show, the alignment). It seems to be your comfort zone for explaining yourself, but I think it's a surface level distraction. 

There was a father who's daughter was raped and killed by a pedophile, the jury voted the pedophile innocent so that that father could seek vengeance for his child. At the airport when the police were escorting the pedophile onto a plane, the father was there with a gun. He shot and killed the pedophile, dropped the gun, and put his hands up. That kind of justice is what I believe in. 

This sort of thing has moments where it could be construed as "Justice", but once vigilanteism is justified the following cases serve to get increasingly murky. These stories also serve as embellished exceptions when compared to those who make it about other things that are otherwise being ignored for the sake of the argument's passion. 

It takes having a system that would punish vigilantes to force them to be desperate enough to go to those measures. The desperation however is something in common on both sides of the fence, and many criminals are the way they are because of a conditioned sense of a similar desperation. Justification behind violent acts is also a slippery slope that gets flimsier with repeated use, as the person through familiarity will begin to think of those brands of solutions before other "more complicated" paths. 

Allowing such a model to be the norm is how you cause future problems down the line. It's only "Justice" at first, then it becomes people simply doing as they please for their own perverted sense of it. 

I'm just a bit more radical in that I want to make them feel the pain that they inflict on others. 

They may be proxying a pain they already know when they do these things to others, if it's an abuse modeler type. Whatever pain you're giving them would be at best repeating themselves and at worst completely missed. 

This is more about you getting off to their suffering once you've been granted permission. "Being granted permission" is a dangerous thing to use as justification, and has been shown for it's less immediate dangers with The Milgram Experiment and The Stanford Prison Experiment. 

Perhaps that makes me corrupt. If I were to be tried one day, and the masses wanted me dead, then I accept said fate. 

You structure a lot of your rhetoric around permissions and laws, when those to me sound more like justifications for deeper realer reasons. 

Turncoat said:

So why not poachers, or the rich 1%, or petty thieves, or grifters, or your opposing political party, or door to door salesmen?

There's a lot of reasons to hate a group of people, yet you specifically picked these ones for your daydreams. It's a practical choice, but one's daydreams don't have to be practical, that was a choice of your own. I could have a dire hatred towards Clowns, Mimes, and ICP fans, and daydream of smashing those to my heart's content just as readily as you can daydream your desire to destroy pedophiles, rapists, and murderers.

What sets this lot apart? I assume it's not just mere law breaking escalation as that'd be really flimsy on it's own as a reasoning.


So there are other daydream demographics?

There could be something in this. Your "rather not go into that"-ing is there for a reason, maybe that reason is connected to other reluctances you aren't addressing, even if just thematically?

 I'd rather not have to comment on politics, because then this changes the theme of the discussion, but I guess I'm left without any other choice. 

Hopefully, this doesn't generate a complete political debate into my views, and stray off the rails. For simplicity, I will give a basic explanation as best I can. 

I am a Marxist-Leninist, I am against the very system of Capitalism. I consider it a cancer to humanity. I would gladly kill poachers, and the bourgeoisie. I dream off putting my boot on the heads of the of rich parasites that exploit the proletariat and engage in drug and sex trafficking behind the curtain. I hate the very idea of the Profit Motive being the core aspect of what drives our society. I hate Fascists as well, but I'm not going to go out like ANTIFA and start attacking them, most of them are people who have jobs. If they are militants like Atomwaffen, of course I'm going to kill them if I had the chance. 

As for general crime, my view and this applies to rapists and murders and pedophiles, I believe that most crime is generated by poverty via socio-economic conditions. Poverty breeds lack of education and suffering, which thus makes people have to be stronger to survive, which also leads to abusers in a family that could then harm people thus setting them on their own path of morphing into a monster. I don't consider greed an inherent human trait, more like a socially engineered trait. I consider Humans malleable. 

Also, other things like Marx's Theory of Alienation. 

Turncoat said:

If someone's of the mind that they are above everything else, the only way to appeal to them is to convince them how much that it's in their best benefit not to kill people. This is predictably temporary.

Belkar from Lord of the Stick and Alex from A Clockwork Orange are strong examples of how they're more liable to adapt towards their new constraints than become better people.

 Alright, I concede in this regard, perhaps it's not best to allow vigilantism everywhere, but in my goals in life, I won't stop, I have more goals than just to purge scum, it's just that purging scum is within that path, and there's not the question of removing them. I'd choose not to go into my goals and my path on life, as that is my personal route. 

Turncoat said:

They may be proxying a pain they already know when they do these things to others, if it's an abuse modeler type. Whatever pain you're giving them would be at best repeating themselves and at worst completely missed.

This is more about you getting off to their suffering once you've been granted permission. "Being granted permission" is a dangerous thing to use as justification, and has been shown for it's less immediate dangers with The Milgram Experiment and The Stanford Prison Experiment.

 So, I have my own cravings, I'll admit I have my justifications. I know I am flawed. That is why I'll accept my fate when my time comes. 

Turncoat said:

What about it though, these two are very different things with the only matching theme between them being "children".

What are your thoughts on children in general? Lets start there.

 Both can harm a child mentally, which can lead to them to developing mental illness if not becoming like their abuser. If a child found out that their body is being spread all over the internet, the shame the guilt that comes with that, but I'd consider actually being raped and harmed to be a far worse thing. Both I consider disgusting acts. 

Sintetika said: 

Turncoat said:

So why not poachers, or the rich 1%, or petty thieves, or grifters, or your opposing political party, or door to door salesmen?

There's a lot of reasons to hate a group of people, yet you specifically picked these ones for your daydreams. It's a practical choice, but one's daydreams don't have to be practical, that was a choice of your own. I could have a dire hatred towards Clowns, Mimes, and ICP fans, and daydream of smashing those to my heart's content just as readily as you can daydream your desire to destroy pedophiles, rapists, and murderers.

What sets this lot apart? I assume it's not just mere law breaking escalation as that'd be really flimsy on it's own as a reasoning.


So there are other daydream demographics?

There could be something in this. Your "rather not go into that"-ing is there for a reason, maybe that reason is connected to other reluctances you aren't addressing, even if just thematically?

 I'd rather not have to comment on politics, because then this changes the theme of the discussion, but I guess I'm left without any other choice. 

Hopefully, this doesn't generate a complete political debate into my views, and stray off the rails. For simplicity, I will give a basic explanation as best I can. 

Alright, I'll try to avoid the actual politics portion itself and stick to themes:

I am a [Politics A], I am against the very system of [Politics B]. I consider it a cancer to humanity. I would gladly kill [people I don't agree with], and the [class I don't like]. I dream off putting my boot on the heads of [people richer than me] that exploit the [disenfranchised] and engage in [deviant practices] behind the curtain. I hate the very idea of [Politics B Ethics] being the core aspect of what drives our society. I hate [Politics C] as well, but I'm not going to go out like [somewhat relatable activist group] and start attacking them, most of them are people who have jobs. If they are militants like [Extremist Party], of course I'm going to kill them if I had the chance. 

You use a lot of sociological labels and groupings to justify individual psychological aspects of yourself. The parties themselves do not matter, what matters is what led you to come to these conclusions. 

So I take it you're a person who enjoys reading and history, and as a result you associate it strongly with your exterior identity? What initially inspired this? 

As for general crime, my view and this applies to rapists and murders and pedophiles, I believe that most crime is generated by poverty via socio-economic conditions.

This alone saves me a bunch of time, awesome. 

Poverty breeds lack of education and suffering, which thus makes people have to be stronger to survive, which also leads to abusers in a family that could then harm people thus setting them on their own path of morphing into a monster. I don't consider greed an inherent human trait, more like a socially engineered trait. I consider Humans malleable. 

How malleable would you say? 

Nature vs Nurture, how much would you say one is stronger or weaker than the other for overall "self"? 

Turncoat said:

If someone's of the mind that they are above everything else, the only way to appeal to them is to convince them how much that it's in their best benefit not to kill people. This is predictably temporary.

Belkar from Lord of the Stick and Alex from A Clockwork Orange are strong examples of how they're more liable to adapt towards their new constraints than become better people.

In my goals in life, I won't stop, I have more goals than just to purge scum, it's just that purging scum is within that path, and there's not the question of removing them. I'd choose not to go into my goals and my path on life, as that is my personal route. 

You can't have them stress tested versus other accepted realities if you keep it to yourself. 

There's no telling how much the perspective makes sense if you're the only one reflecting initial bias on it. Speaking as one who is otherwise prone to delusions, it helps to have other sets of eyes to relatively compare yourself to. 

Turncoat said:

They may be proxying a pain they already know when they do these things to others, if it's an abuse modeler type. Whatever pain you're giving them would be at best repeating themselves and at worst completely missed.

This is more about you getting off to their suffering once you've been granted permission. "Being granted permission" is a dangerous thing to use as justification, and has been shown for it's less immediate dangers with The Milgram Experiment and The Stanford Prison Experiment.

 So, I have my own cravings, I'll admit I have my justifications. I know I am flawed. That is why I'll accept my fate when my time comes. 

That's another justification in itself for giving up. It contradicts your desire to try otherwise. 

Turncoat said:

What about it though, these two are very different things with the only matching theme between them being "children".

What are your thoughts on children in general? Lets start there.

Both can harm a child mentally, which can lead to them to developing mental illness if not becoming like their abuser. If a child found out that their body is being spread all over the internet, the shame the guilt that comes with that, but I'd consider actually being raped and harmed to be a far worse thing. Both I consider disgusting acts. 

Why towards children though? Do you feel like there's a more acceptable age for someone to face abuse, and if so what age? 

Turncoat said:

You use a lot of sociological labels and groupings to justify individual psychological aspects of yourself. The parties themselves do not matter, what matters is what led you to come to these conclusions.

So I take it you're a person who enjoys reading and history, and as a result you associate it strongly with your exterior identity? What initially inspired this?

The first part of the sentence, what lead me to come to these conclusions as in my views? Through reading and learning about the ideology I currently am. Unless you're meaning something else? Admittedly, for some reason, I can't entirely understand the wording. 

I just enjoy reading history and politics. I would say I don't read enough, I haven't read in a long time, I absorb most of my information through videos explaining the same concepts found within the books. I used to not be as sadistic as I am now, before I was the same ideologically but I guess. It's hard for me to explain what inspired it. I guess it's possible to say that my outlook and political and philosophical beliefs intertwine in how I act and such heavily. Outside of politics and my world-view, I don't actually know what true substance I have. I believe some stuff I used to know like fond childhood memories and the like have withered. This could just be me being delusional however. 

Turncoat said:

How malleable would you say?

Nature vs Nurture, how much would you say one is stronger or weaker than the other for overall "self"?

 I consider humans a social species one with more sentience than other species, hence how we've gotten to the point of today. As such, I believe in my eyes, that humans are naturally meant to work together, which is how our first instances of society worked, a primitive commune, with people working together for the benefit of all. To pick which one is stronger than the other? I consider nurture. 

Turncoat said:

You can't have them stress tested versus other accepted realities if you keep it to yourself.

There's no telling how much the perspective makes sense if you're the only one reflecting initial bias on it. Speaking as one who is otherwise prone to delusions, it helps to have other sets of eyes to relatively compare yourself to.

 My path in life isn't entirely able for me to go into detail because I'm not at the liberty to speak of such. There are external factors in this regard that prevent me from speaking on it, because of loyalty. I know this is vague, but in this case, I cannot give my word on what exactly this path is and what it represents. 

Turncoat said:

That's another justification in itself for giving up. It contradicts your desire to try otherwise.

 All I want is the ability to control not completely cure, because I don't hate what I am, and I have my goals. 

Turncoat said:

Why towards children though? Do you feel like there's a more acceptable age for someone to face abuse, and if so what age?

 No one at any age should face abuse, that is what I'm against, the abuse I want to inflict on others, doesn't necessarily involve them living in the end, or just not in a functional state at all. I'm saying children are probably the most malleable from a young age, and I'd say that it's youth where the affects of harmful events is what molds them into becoming whatever they are, i.e. serial killers and how from a young age there's a trend of abuse and how they form into what they are. Anyone who is abused should be helped, and their abuser punished. 

Sintetika said: 

Turncoat said:

You use a lot of sociological labels and groupings to justify individual psychological aspects of yourself. The parties themselves do not matter, what matters is what led you to come to these conclusions.

So I take it you're a person who enjoys reading and history, and as a result you associate it strongly with your exterior identity? What initially inspired this?

The first part of the sentence, what lead me to come to these conclusions as in my views? Through reading and learning about the ideology I currently am. Unless you're meaning something else? Admittedly, for some reason, I can't entirely understand the wording. 

Your distaste towards [Politics B] and [Politics C] are specifics, and you've now demonstrated a broad enough range of people you desire to see destroyed, suffering, or enslaved, that it's clearly not actually about the politics nor the faults of the person, but rather through these filters you've allowed yourself to justify these feelings as an outlet.

This telegraphs a sense of guilt or worry over your natural inclination, but why do you figure it's there? You even go into defeatist rhetoric as if you might "lose control" when you're otherwise discussing how justified it is for [Politics B], [Politics C], and [Extremist Group]. 

Outlets can expand. The fact that some reading and watching about demographics is enough to make for these feelings means any source of reading could inspire similar sentiments (unless you're Anchoring). As you've stated, most crime, and really, most behavior in general, has some modeling aspects of class and the conveniences present within. Everyone is entitled to their own lot in life and tend to misunderstand where others are selfishly coming from. Doesn't this denote being cut from the same cloth within your understanding of how one's environment can change people? 

I say "selfishly" knowing selfishness is inevitable and spread into each and every one of us. Any motivation can be construed to be a selfish one from how life itself is based on a projectively flawed understanding. 

I think this demonstrates my point broadly enough: 

I just enjoy reading history and politics. I would say I don't read enough, I haven't read in a long time, I absorb most of my information through videos explaining the same concepts found within the books.

Okay videos, same basic principle except easier and streamlined (that's it's own tangent). 

Be honest, how prone are you to Confirmation Bias? Do you ever look at the materials of your supposed enemies? 

I used to not be as sadistic as I am now, before I was the same ideologically but I guess. It's hard for me to explain what inspired it.

What was going on around the time of the change? 

I guess it's possible to say that my outlook and political and philosophical beliefs intertwine in how I act and such heavily.

I'd go as far as to say they justify, excuse, things that otherwise could have been there under the labels of [Politics D]. The specifics of your beliefs do not matter towards the base psychology that it's funneling through, what matters is that base feelings are going through an outlet at all, so those base feelings are what are worth understanding. 

If your ideology were to radically change, this tendency to daydream and desire the suffering of another would persist through new targets. It is an independent factor. 

Outside of politics and my world-view, I don't actually know what true substance I have. I believe some stuff I used to know like fond childhood memories and the like have withered. This could just be me being delusional however. 

Most people don't actually know themselves, but instead reflect variation based on their potential to believe they already do versus their aspirations to learn more. 

This confusion from you sounds like downer speech, but I'd say it's closer to the Dunning-Kruger effect: 



This puts you ahead of those who have baseless confidence. To question yourself, to see yourself as otherwise unknown, is the spark towards both Introspection and Existential Thought otherwise, a journey I promote in spite of the pain that starts it. 

Turncoat said:

How malleable would you say?

Nature vs Nurture, how much would you say one is stronger or weaker than the other for overall "self"?

I consider humans a social species one with more sentience than other species, hence how we've gotten to the point of today. As such, I believe in my eyes, that humans are naturally meant to work together, which is how our first instances of society worked, a primitive commune, with people working together for the benefit of all. To pick which one is stronger than the other? I consider nurture. 

I largely believe that we're majority Nature. Every lesson we learn is one inherent towards initial flaws we had at the start, and if we were to travel back in time and prevent ourselves from learning an essential lesson we'd still be causally liable to make the same mistake elsewhere under different circumstances. We're largely who we are by the right of our birth. While diet and class can affect how it is displayed strongly (especially if as a kid they did something like eating paint chips), most of the lessons we encounter are inherently inevitable, where if it weren't learned today it'd have been learned maybe a few weeks, months, or years later from a different set of events taking it's place. 

I'm largely Determinist and have seen that factors of genetics (specifically the family line) and birth time can make for surprisingly uniform symptoms in people's behaviors. I don't think we're "meant" to work together purely through having seen exceptions to the contrary both by their nature or their conditioned nurture and through the sheer amount of combined trait variations that exists between people. I think it's just a streamline path towards that which is within our own best interests mixed with culturally indoctrinated ideals (travel really stressed that one for me). As such, if someone has different interests that strongly break the mold of the norm, no amount of teaching them will fix the problem, but at best might repress it. 

The tendencies are inherent within ourselves from the start, but how it's used, what we do with it, can be channeled through a wide variety of distracting specifics. 

Turncoat said:

You can't have them stress tested versus other accepted realities if you keep it to yourself.

There's no telling how much the perspective makes sense if you're the only one reflecting initial bias on it. Speaking as one who is otherwise prone to delusions, it helps to have other sets of eyes to relatively compare yourself to.

My path in life isn't entirely able for me to go into detail because I'm not at the liberty to speak of such. There are external factors in this regard that prevent me from speaking on it, because of loyalty. I know this is vague, but in this case, I cannot give my word on what exactly this path is and what it represents. 

Your politics and life aspirations can't be discussed because of your loyalty to another person..?

I don't understand. 

Sintetika said:

Turncoat said:

That's another justification in itself for giving up. It contradicts your desire to try otherwise.

All I want is the ability to control not completely cure, because I don't hate what I am, and I have my goals. 

What would constitute control in this case, acceptable outlets? 

Turncoat said:

Why towards children though? Do you feel like there's a more acceptable age for someone to face abuse, and if so what age?

No one at any age should face abuse, that is what I'm against, the abuse I want to inflict on others, doesn't necessarily involve them living in the end, or just not in a functional state at all.

I'm saying children are probably the most malleable from a young age, and I'd say that it's youth where the affects of harmful events is what molds them into becoming whatever they are, i.e. serial killers and how from a young age there's a trend of abuse and how they form into what they are. Anyone who is abused should be helped, and their abuser punished. 

As we've seen during Charles Manson's time, people can be molded quite easily at any age. It gets increasingly difficult past the age of 25, but it doesn't just cut off there. Stockholm syndrome and PTSD situations can develop at any age as well and show changes in a person in spite of their childhood and teenage believed senses of self.

Making it about age is just "Children Are So PURE" hype over how entitled the victim is towards being unable to defend themselves (many apply the same ideas to gender), the abuse is still abuse and both can become horribly scarred from it simply through different paths. 

As Joker put it in "The Killing Joke" iconically: 



“All it takes is one bad day to reduce the sanest man alive to lunacy. That's how far the world is from where I am. Just one bad day.” 

Turncoat said:

Your distaste towards [Politics B] and [Politics C] are specifics, and you've now demonstrated a broad enough range of people you desire to see destroyed, suffering, or enslaved, that it's clearly not actually about the politics nor the faults of the person, but rather through these filters you've allowed yourself to justify these feelings as an outlet.

This telegraphs a sense of guilt or worry over your natural inclination, but why do you figure it's there? You even go into defeatist rhetoric as if you might "lose control" when you're otherwise discussing how justified it is for [Politics B], [Politics C], and [Extremist Group].

Outlets can expand. The fact that some reading and watching about demographics is enough to make for these feelings means any source of reading could inspire similar sentiments (unless you're Anchoring). As you've stated, most crime, and really, most behavior in general, has some modeling aspects of class and the conveniences present within. Everyone is entitled to their own lot in life and tend to misunderstand where others are selfishly coming from. Doesn't this denote being cut from the same cloth within your understanding of how one's environment can change people?

 I do not want to go out and slaughter anyone who supports [Politics B] or [Politics C] the problem that arises is a conflict in goals. I extremely support debating other people's beliefs. However, force is a tool to achieve political goals, I.E. American and French Revolution. 

I have a zeal towards extreme criminals who delve deep in screwing over others, and they are easily a product of the system we live in. On certain crimes, I see the death penalty or forced labor as a valid punishment, the extension is that I have my own temptations and thoughts on how to deal with these malefactors in my own way. 

All I want is a way to control this, I don't deny that I could let loose and commit my own crimes, but I consider it justified in my sense. 

Turncoat said:

Okay videos, same basic principle except easier and streamlined (that's it's own tangent).

Be honest, how prone are you to Confirmation Bias? Do you ever look at the materials of your supposed enemies?

I do look at the materials of my enemies. For the most part, I try to look through their sources thoroughly and then give my rebuttal. 

Turncoat said:

What was going on around the time of the change?

 I dislike the idea of giving my life story in such a public area. It seems too attention-seeking and not entirely of my taste. Basically, around this time I was super suicidal and suffered from mental breakdowns, during these breakdowns I'd experience periods of apathy. As time went on, and my condition worsened, I became more and more apathetic and numb, until I woke up the way I am now. Around this time, I was also the one taking care of the pests in my house, before I'd tried to save their lives, but when I couldn't, I'd put them out of their misery fast, after this "shift" in character. I found the idea of harming said creatures to be satisfactory. I had lost the stress I once felt, and was no longer hindered by extreme suicidal and emotional thoughts, as well as social anxiety. 

Before this shift, I carried the same views, they made logical sense to me, and gave me a sense of motivation, to what otherwise seemed to me at the time, a meaningless painful existence. 

Turncoat said:

I largely believe that we're majority Nature. Every lesson we learn is one inherent towards initial flaws we had at the start, and if we were to travel back in time and prevent ourselves from learning an essential lesson we'd still be causally liable to make the same mistake elsewhere under different circumstances. We're largely who we are by the right of our birth. While diet and class can affect how it is displayed strongly (especially if as a kid they did something like eating paint chips), most of the lessons we encounter are inherently inevitable, where if it weren't learned today it'd have been learned maybe a few weeks, months, or years later from a different set of events taking it's place.

I'm largely Determinist and have seen that factors of genetics (specifically the family line) and birth time can make for surprisingly uniform symptoms in people's behaviors. I don't think we're "meant" to work together purely through having seen exceptions to the contrary both by their nature or their conditioned nurture and through the sheer amount of combined trait variations that exists between people. I think it's just a streamline path towards that which is within our own best interests mixed with culturally indoctrinated ideals (travel really stressed that one for me). As such, if someone has different interests that strongly break the mold of the norm, no amount of teaching them will fix the problem, but at best might repress it.

The tendencies are inherent within ourselves from the start, but how it's used, what we do with it, can be channeled through a wide variety of distracting specifics.

 All that I am saying is that I don't believe that humans are inherently greedy. Look, I'd rather lump this in with the politics, we can discuss this in a different thread perhaps, but right now I'd rather focus on the others. 

Turncoat said:

Your politics and life aspirations can't be discussed because of your loyalty to another person..?

I don't understand.

 I will leave it at this. Simply put. My goals in life are a revolution. I have comrades, I have a task. I can't switch from this path, it's the only thing I have without breaking. 

We can discuss politics, sure, I just don't want to include them in this thread as it derails the topic of this thread. 

Turncoat said:

What would constitute control in this case, acceptable outlets?

 Basically yes. 

Turncoat said:

So you want them to suffer at your hands for your own amusement... then you want to kill them? They wouldn't have to live with what you've done at all in this case, making your sadism here an indulgence through how it's otherwise a waste of time in the practical sense.

If you planned to just kill them in the end, why make them suffer at all?

 For as you said, amusement. In other cases, if possible, I would like to disable them from ever physically walking to doing any other act of motion, only them, trapped inside their own skull. A fate, I fear myself. 

Turncoat said:

As we've seen during Charles Manson's time, people can be molded quite easily at any age. It gets increasingly difficult past the age of 25, but it doesn't just cut off there. Stockholm syndrome and PTSD situations can develop at any age as well and show changes in a person in spite of their childhood and teenage believed senses of self.

Making it about age is just "Children Are So PURE" hype over how entitled the victim is towards being unable to defend themselves (many apply the same ideas to gender), the abuse is still abuse and both can become horribly scarred from it simply through different paths.

 I'm not trying to make it about age, more like developmental stages in youth. Sure, people later in life can inherit similar things. I don't like abuse against innocence at all. In any circumstance. All, I'm saying is I would prefer for children to have a healthy environment growing up, since normally it's that stage where it begins. 

In regards to the Joker stuff, back in October and November, for a period, I didn't even stand by my political ideology. I just indulged in what I wanted, well when I did that, I noticed a contradiction in myself. Whether to care about my values and what I believed in, or to disregard it all and became chaotic and only care for myself. 

During this period, I couldn't choose, and I had I guess an identity crisis with two conflicting characters in myself. I expressed this somewhat back when I first appeared but that was on the old board thread, and data from there, is probably not recoverable. I considered that period a duality of sorts in myself, it didn't make sense to me, and it still hurts my brain to try to understand it. 

Kestrel said: 

Cawk said: 

anyone who hasnt realized this topic is pure attention whoring is more retarded than the OP

 >has no self control

>sees thread about self control

but he hasnt killed any pedophiles, this means his self control is fine.

he's attention whoring in a covertly way, and you don't see thru it because your retarded

Sintetika said: 

Turncoat said:

Your distaste towards [Politics B] and [Politics C] are specifics, and you've now demonstrated a broad enough range of people you desire to see destroyed, suffering, or enslaved, that it's clearly not actually about the politics nor the faults of the person, but rather through these filters you've allowed yourself to justify these feelings as an outlet.

This telegraphs a sense of guilt or worry over your natural inclination, but why do you figure it's there? You even go into defeatist rhetoric as if you might "lose control" when you're otherwise discussing how justified it is for [Politics B], [Politics C], and [Extremist Group].

Outlets can expand. The fact that some reading and watching about demographics is enough to make for these feelings means any source of reading could inspire similar sentiments (unless you're Anchoring). As you've stated, most crime, and really, most behavior in general, has some modeling aspects of class and the conveniences present within. Everyone is entitled to their own lot in life and tend to misunderstand where others are selfishly coming from. Doesn't this denote being cut from the same cloth within your understanding of how one's environment can change people?

I do not want to go out and slaughter anyone who supports [Politics B] or [Politics C] the problem that arises is a conflict in goals.

So you do want it but it's not practical, or does the conflict in goals circumvent the want entirely? 

I extremely support debating other people's beliefs. However, force is a tool to achieve political goals, I.E. American and French Revolution. 

I largely find the human condition to be largely recursive. The only thing really breaking the model right now is The Internet. 

I have a zeal towards extreme criminals who delve deep in screwing over others, and they are easily a product of the system we live in.

If you're seeing the invasion of another's space as a gigantic crime, it sort of explains a lot of your views. You even have it extend towards Capitalism itself. 

On certain crimes, I see the death penalty or forced labor as a valid punishment, the extension is that I have my own temptations and thoughts on how to deal with these malefactors in my own way. 

I agree with The Death Penalty as well, however our reasons for it likely strongly differ. 

We can't just take our political beliefs as blanket statements for our identity. 

All I want is a way to control this, I don't deny that I could let loose and commit my own crimes, but I consider it justified in my sense. 

What sorts of triggers and urges start it up? Do you feel a physical need to do anything after it starts? 

I ask as there may be relative outlets that can serve similar gestures. 

Turncoat said:

Okay videos, same basic principle except easier and streamlined (that's it's own tangent).

Be honest, how prone are you to Confirmation Bias? Do you ever look at the materials of your supposed enemies?

I do look at the materials of my enemies. For the most part, I try to look through their sources thoroughly and then give my rebuttal. 

Have you ever had to argue from a perspective you don't agree with, The Devil's Advocate? 

Turncoat said:

What was going on around the time of the change?

I dislike the idea of giving my life story in such a public area. It seems too attention-seeking and not entirely of my taste.

I get that feeling, but it's also an exercise in reinforcing personal comforts through milling away at existing discomforts. If you can post it here and be unbudged about it, then your feelings behind it must be strong too. 

Whatever it is that grants this discomfort could be related to the problem, and having a crowd of people who could potentially mock you over it is how to have your beliefs and convictions tested, ridding of the weak parts while reinforcing what survived. 

Basically, around this time I was super suicidal and suffered from mental breakdowns, during these breakdowns I'd experience periods of apathy. As time went on, and my condition worsened, I became more and more apathetic and numb, until I woke up the way I am now.

So you've found a means to turn your critical razor from inward to outward then?

Were these breakdowns over the state of the world, or were they over matters related to yourself? 

Around this time, I was also the one taking care of the pests in my house, before I'd tried to save their lives, but when I couldn't, I'd put them out of their misery fast, after this "shift" in character. I found the idea of harming said creatures to be satisfactory. I had lost the stress I once felt, and was no longer hindered by extreme suicidal and emotional thoughts, as well as social anxiety. 

With some people, when they hit a point of excess feeling they can actually shut down emotionally, numbing out. This can have some people try to seek out that tipping point to burn themselves out of it, figuring it as some form of tenacity exercise that's showing results through their shellshock. 

Could your conflicts with your sadistic tendencies be from a conflict between your believed sense of self and what's objecting from underneath it? 

It's also possible that you had been sadistic all of this time, and from a lack of outlet for it you directed it inwards for the time being instead. A sadist I dated started out that way largely and ended up life-changingly elated once she had a safe and consensual outlet for harming another person. 

I know you said you "were not looking for a lover" or whatever in chat, but have you experimented at all with Sadomasochism? 

Before this shift, I carried the same views, they made logical sense to me, and gave me a sense of motivation, to what otherwise seemed to me at the time, a meaningless painful existence. 

What makes it no longer meaningless for you now? 

I figured accepting meaninglessness was the path towards enlightenment. 

All that I am saying is that I don't believe that humans are inherently greedy.

What's the basis for your finding? I think selflessness is the unnatural state, hence why we literally have television programs and teaching aids about "sharing" for young children. Even in a non-possessive culture children reflect more selfish behaviors until they're humbled with age and perspective-building (assuming that happens for them). 

We see the world through projection, like sonar upon reality we ping as far as we can perceive, it bounces back, and our minds interpret a hallucination that gives us guidance for how to handle that stimulus. All we can see and feel is a reflection of what we're capable of, as demonstrated in people's blindspots for the lessons they could never hope to learn. If understanding life is inherently self-driven for it's foundation, and even elements of our own survival are based around it, how couldn't people be greedy? 

People worship those who are willing to give away their wealth because it is so unusual, not because it's so natural. 

Sintetika said:

Look, I'd rather lump this in with the politics, we can discuss this in a different thread perhaps, but right now I'd rather focus on the others. 

These are establishing elements for your character, and to ignore it is to ignore potential paths towards the answers you're after. 

What has you think that your views on people, especially considering that they were there during your breakdowns and your sadistic ideations, are not otherwise a factor towards what primally motivates you towards wanting to see them suffer in the first place?

The views you're talking about are usually carried by depressed rebels, but it's not their views that made them that way, but rather their traits that drew them towards a perspective that reads as of a like mind. What makes you of a like mind with the material compared to lets say... how much it doesn't read to me or some other shmuck? 

I will leave it at this. Simply put. My goals in life are a revolution. I have comrades, I have a task. I can't switch from this path, it's the only thing I have without breaking. 

We can discuss politics, sure, I just don't want to include them in this thread as it derails the topic of this thread. 

What drives you to support a cause? A lot of people have the drive to believe in one, but it's so rare to find someone who actually goes out and does something about it. 

It makes you unusual. 

For as you said, amusement.

In other cases, if possible, I would like to disable them from ever physically walking to doing any other act of motion, only them, trapped inside their own skull. 

See this is how things like "Life Imprisonment" can be argued to be the more bitter punishment. Killing someone's doing both them and the world around them a favor, not just the "civilized folk". 

I don't like abuse against innocence at all.

As a curious question, where would you draw the line between innocence and it's lacking? 

When is it truly "gone"? 

In any circumstance.

Unless they did it first, right? 

Does that make it better? It's you feeding a similar appetite, albeit fueled by excuses as it's diet. 

I just indulged in what I wanted, well when I did that, I noticed a contradiction in myself.

You're still doing that, you're just doing it through an indirect filter. 

What contradictions though, simply not living up to the ideals you've assigned your Construct Identity? 

Whether to care about my values and what I believed in, or to disregard it all and became chaotic and only care for myself.

No matter which you pick, it's more about which choice makes it easier to live with yourself. You are still inherently only caring for yourself, but then again who isn't? 

During this period, I couldn't choose, and I had I guess an identity crisis with two conflicting characters in myself. I expressed this somewhat back when I first appeared but that was on the old board thread, and data from there, is probably not recoverable. I considered that period a duality of sorts in myself, it didn't make sense to me, and it still hurts my brain to try to understand it.

The pain is necessary to prevent splitting and to find your core self, where the reality and your ideals meet. In order to rid of this confusion, you'll need to allow both to exist and then see where they meet, not deny one while feeding the other. 

To keep one aspect of yourself down is repression, and repression demands sacrifice in the form of compensatory outlets. It's unsustainable on it's own typically, turning a well oiled machine into a balancing act against itself. 

To understand yourself, you cannot deny yourself. That other "conflicting character" is still you and it's still there.