Sociopath Community

Oh god, yes, thank you Turncoat. FINALLY someone sees that Inquirer isn't the perfect Swedish poster-boy he pretends to be. And these are so spot-on! Inq, the mask is falling, bitch.

It's funny that you notice what Inq doesn't do. That's usually more interesting than what he does do. He says one thing, but the outcome somehow always ends up in his favour.

But, it's more Inq's part of character to try not to look stupid than a real flaw. It's ingrained in the intellectual facade he pulls. The real Inq, SensitiveSoul, never has that problem. If you see Sensy as Inq, and pull the two characters together, you get something much more normal.

Inquirer thrives off of not participating. That says enough on its own.

Legga said:

He talks about cinnamon buns, and then the city burns.

 kek

Turncoat said: 

o The Lemur Whisperer Saga happened with Chet. This was heavily outside of his character, and shows he has a weakness for playing pranks on people if he feels that he can avoid the collateral damages.

What collateral damage? The thing I regret was that I shared emails from Ed with Chet but at the time I thought we were all aware we were playing a game.

o Inquirer was unapologetically unbanning people who were banned by other people on SC.

Not sure if I agree that unbanning innocent people caught in the crossfire between Luna and her harassers constitutes a flaw.

o He gets sucked into MissComm narratives she'd sometimes drop in chat (less often lately).

Well, I also don't get sucked into narratives that eventually turn out to be right...

o He was able to be suckered into becoming a mod as a PR move when Luna just didn't feel like doing more programming (CP Saga).

Do you think Luna would've rolled up her sleeves and fixed the issues plaguing us if I hadn't?

o He's bad at Pop Culture trivia, and might even have bad or questionable tastes.

I plead the fifth.

o If not baited in there somehow (like him in the Gun Control topic), topics he is less than skilled in he will avoid almost if not entirely. He does not want to look like he lacks knowledge or understanding in a subject.

I owned you guys in the Gun Control topic lol. But you're right that I tend to avoid topics that interest me less and that I know less about (a shocker!).

o Spatial has the means to make him act funny. When challenged, we've seen him gradually take the discussion less seriously as an extremely inflexible thinker made of pure Stone Wall. When questioned about it, he'll justify how he doesn't have to take his opponents seriously "if they are wrong".

I expect debates to follow certain basic guidelines, such as backing up claims with facts or not moving on before the current point of contention has been adequately addressed/resolved. When I think people don't do this I start to take the debate less seriously.

I can be stubborn and inflexible, for sure, but in the case of Spatial you've argued I am inflexible because I won't discuss the topic on his terms, stating that our terms are both just as valid. I fundamentally disagree about that.

o Bohemian Rhapsody seemed to give him an increase in confidence that triggered higher-than-thou behaviors in more overtly challenging ways. If you want Inq to be more forward with you, you need to convince him that you're both less intelligent than him and fun to interact with.

The main reason I played more "overtly" with BR was simply because he made explicit claims and actively challenged people. The same can be said for others that stick out their neck and make specific claims, be it about politics or senatorial campaigns. What can I say, I like to debate.

o He's begun to take this website less seriously, and has changed from saying people should say more to saying people type too much. Time has made him considerably lazier.

I've always been pretty lazy when disinterested and what I find interesting change over time. What I've said (or meant) though is that people should try to be more concise and on point, not that they should just type less.

o Inq can be pushed by the status quo, and falls prey to the Band Wagon through sheer repeated exposure from numerous peers. This can make it hard to convince him of truths if there aren't others parroting it already.

"Inq usually believes the same as others and doesn't want to buy into my outlandish theories" :p

o He finds you creepy, so you must be doing something right.

Delightfully creepy, mind you. Legga is my #1 stalker fan.

Edit:
o He assumes he's "normal", and that others who are "normal" will behave as he does. Think about that for a second.

I don't see what's controversial about that. Most people are "normal" and they recognize this by seeing others behave similarly to them.

o He handles more direct forms of confrontation by thinking it's a game.

I actually try to avoid direct confrontation -- unless it's a game (then it can be fun).

This is what you get for not roasting me in my roast topic Inq. 

 I haven't even opened that thread yet and now I maybe never will!

Legga said: 

He says one thing, but the outcome somehow always ends up in his favour.

Have any examples?

Legga said: 

Turncoat said: 

Legga said: 

or Turncoat about x-men:

http://forum.2298483.n4.nabble.com/can-we-unite-please-td4707425.html#a4707485

This all seems well and good, but there's still one fatal flaw in your story...

...I still like X-Men. 

*gasp*

Darth vader music playing on the background

I knew there was something off about this Ohioan poluation -- it's you isn't it? All of the Ohioans are Turncoat.

Nah but you're alright. You say evil things, but your actions generally result in positive outcomes.

For Inquirer, it's the opposite. He talks about cinnamon buns, and then the city burns. Somehow Inquirer is always in the middle of bad things. Wherever he stands becomes the tragic part of town.

Turncoat is just very bitter, because anyone who Luna dared to make mod beside him, or even worse - in his place, left the equivalent of a painful gaping hole in his ass.

Inquirer may seem as a wallflower, and reserved, and he often jokes himself about it. However, every time shit was serious and some action was truly needed, he was there for the community. He has more spine than most here, by far more than Turncoat for example. Inquirer took the mod position like me, a bit reluctant, because without safety measures put in place by Luna, SC was threatened by CP posters who were shitting on the community as they pleased, while Turncoat was too weak to handle them. I talked to Inquirer a lot during those days, and we both agreed on an active way to combat the CP cesspit that SC became. And we had great success with it.

Also, when Luna shut SC down, Inquirer was the one who bought this domain, who worked and still works on code together with Meta, to keep this place functioning.

People tend to misread reserved individuals, as weak individuals who are wallflowers. But Inquirer proved to be a man of action exactly when it was needed, and with extreme efficiency. Don't underestimate him because he is quiet.

Edvard said: 

Legga said: 

Turncoat said: 

Legga said: 

or Turncoat about x-men:

http://forum.2298483.n4.nabble.com/can-we-unite-please-td4707425.html#a4707485

This all seems well and good, but there's still one fatal flaw in your story...

...I still like X-Men. 

*gasp*

Darth vader music playing on the background

I knew there was something off about this Ohioan poluation -- it's you isn't it? All of the Ohioans are Turncoat.

Nah but you're alright. You say evil things, but your actions generally result in positive outcomes.

For Inquirer, it's the opposite. He talks about cinnamon buns, and then the city burns. Somehow Inquirer is always in the middle of bad things. Wherever he stands becomes the tragic part of town.

Turncoat is just very bitter, because anyone who Luna dared to make mod beside him, or even worse - in his place, left the equivalent of a painful gaping hole in his ass.

I actually like Inq. We talk sometimes in private, but I chose to only bullet point related to public topics. 

It's like you think "Roasting" is real attacks or something. 

Oh god you're taking it seriously...

Okay, I'll do the same for the sport of it. 

Inquirer said: 

Turncoat said: 

o The Lemur Whisperer Saga happened with Chet. This was heavily outside of his character, and shows he has a weakness for playing pranks on people if he feels that he can avoid the collateral damages.

What collateral damage? The thing I regret was that I shared emails from Ed with Chet but at the time I thought we were all aware we were playing a game.

I said:

o He handles more direct forms of confrontation by thinking it's a game.

o Inquirer was unapologetically unbanning people who were banned by other people on SC.

Not sure if I agree that unbanning innocent people caught in the crossfire between Luna and her harassers constitutes a flaw.

You were willing to oppose authority, and you did it in such a way that it was hush-hush instead of above board like Edvard would have done. 

o He gets sucked into MissComm narratives she'd sometimes drop in chat (less often lately).

Well, I also don't get sucked into narratives that eventually turn out to be right...

05/18/2019 18:02:46 Inquirer ( . )( . )

o He was able to be suckered into becoming a mod as a PR move when Luna just didn't feel like doing more programming (CP Saga).

Do you think Luna would've rolled up her sleeves and fixed the issues plaguing us if I hadn't?

She'd probably have gone for the next likely person to accept the role, but you were a big part of people not going after Luna to actually fix the real problem. 

o He's bad at Pop Culture trivia, and might even have bad or questionable tastes.

I plead the fifth.

Okay you probably learned that from pop culture like I did, that's fair. 

o If not baited in there somehow (like him in the Gun Control topic), topics he is less than skilled in he will avoid almost if not entirely. He does not want to look like he lacks knowledge or understanding in a subject.

I owned you guys in the Gun Control topic lol. But you're right that I tend to avoid topics that interest me less and that I know less about (a shocker!).

Owned what, as it certainly wasn't owning a victory or owning up to your debilitating loss. 

o Spatial has the means to make him act funny. When challenged, we've seen him gradually take the discussion less seriously as an extremely inflexible thinker made of pure Stone Wall. When questioned about it, he'll justify how he doesn't have to take his opponents seriously "if they are wrong".

I expect debates to follow certain basic guidelines, such as backing up claims with facts or not moving on before the current point of contention has been adequately addressed/resolved. When I think people don't do this I start to take the debate less seriously.

I can be stubborn and inflexible, for sure, but in the case of Spatial you've argued I am inflexible because I won't discuss the topic on his terms, stating that our terms are both just as valid. I fundamentally disagree about that.

You insist it be on your terms, that's part of your inflexibility. 

o Bohemian Rhapsody seemed to give him an increase in confidence that triggered higher-than-thou behaviors in more overtly challenging ways. If you want Inq to be more forward with you, you need to convince him that you're both less intelligent than him and fun to interact with.

The main reason I played more "overtly" with BR was simply because he made explicit claims and actively challenged people. The same can be said for others that stick out their neck and make specific claims, be it about politics or senatorial campaigns. What can I say, I like to debate.

That doesn't disprove the bullet point, you even earlier in this topic stated that you don't want to stick your neck out too far, and fucking with BR was a way to have fun within safe conditions. 

o He's begun to take this website less seriously, and has changed from saying people should say more to saying people type too much. Time has made him considerably lazier.

I've always been pretty lazy when disinterested and what I find interesting change over time. What I've said (or meant) though is that people should try to be more concise and on point, not that they should just type less.

You used to type out tomes of good data, now you can barely type a "lol". 

As others began to take the place less seriously and stopped trying as hard, you fell into it. 

o Inq can be pushed by the status quo, and falls prey to the Band Wagon through sheer repeated exposure from numerous peers. This can make it hard to convince him of truths if there aren't others parroting it already.

"Inq usually believes the same as others and doesn't want to buy into my outlandish theories" :p

EXACTLY! 

You need to find your own opinions. 

o He finds you creepy, so you must be doing something right.

Delightfully creepy, mind you. Legga is my #1 stalker fan.

I love Legga. 

Edit:
o He assumes he's "normal", and that others who are "normal" will behave as he does. Think about that for a second.

I don't see what's controversial about that. Most people are "normal" and they recognize this by seeing others behave similarly to them.

It lets you believe that others are unlike you because they are abnormal, and allows you to ignore your own abnormalities. 

It's projectionary in nature. 

o He handles more direct forms of confrontation by thinking it's a game.

I actually try to avoid direct confrontation -- unless it's a game (then it can be fun).

I don't think you recognize the shift between the two entirely consciously. There's been points where I really wanted you to understand how serious something was, but you practically devolved into giggly hysterics. 

It "being a game" is how I think you handle it. 

This is what you get for not roasting me in my roast topic Inq. 

 I haven't even opened that thread yet and now I maybe never will!

Fine, I'll just keep roasting you until you can't help yourself then. 

The quoting quotes arguments are like slug shots. Wide range, no center.

Tryptamine said: 

The quoting quotes arguments are like slug shots. Wide range, no center.

But bullet points.