Sociopath Community

Quite the conundrum as ever, but the perhaps it becomes more simple to extract from the entire drama and watch the silly show for what it is. Engage when there is interest and when not, leave it it alone. Of course that calls into question at what points to to engage and for what purpose. What drives the desire to engage?

The multiple lines on reality or unreality for some could be a confusion and for another compulsion, but which is an illness and the other not? And when is it an illness to be defined as such unless the damage is to self or other?

Cause and effect, but the effect can be unaccounted for and the root of the cause another question entirely.

The what does not define who you are. And there are dichotomies galore that defy explanation let alone religion , philosophy and most certainly Big Pharma.

Perhaps when you are ready to breathe letting go of the pain is the first step...I don't know.

There has been a subtle softening in your posting over the last while...or it's my imagination more than likely...

Be well.

The desire to engage is probably pumping fists into a chest, and asking someone to breathe.

This is not command and control however. This is fundamentally autonomy, and that is not something you can treat with a quick fix.

You never know for sure, I guess.

Harm is a very difficult thing to define. Right?

Some things are best left to cause and effect. So when was the harm caused. That's a way better way to see things.

Was someone harmed when they were exercising their pain? Themselves, or someone else? What damage was done that was not superficial.

So when to raise the alarm? Structure people into society and hope for the best, with precision tools, most certainly.

I am at a total loss to defend this line of thinking.

Influence. How much does someone influence the core being of someone else? Somewhat.

What does a shot of daily thorazine or serotonin kludge do to someone, in an "influential" manner.

Humans are fairly sophisticated and instinctually have been moving the human race forward for a long long time now. Maybe the drugs are a bad idea when something which is substantially more safe has filled a void or something?

Maybe instead of drugs, they should replace spiritual counselors with philosophy majors and so on? Yeah. Something along those lines.

MOST CERTAINLY. AS ALL DRUG USERS KNOW. THERE ARE LONG TERM EROSION EFFECTS.  PSYCHOLOGISTS ARE NOT PROVIDING QUICK FIXES OR LIFESTYLE BALANCES.

THEY ARE PROSCRIBING LONG TERM MORBIDITY.

This is erosion or erasure of the self. Great idea. Safe, um, no.

http://www.health.harvard.edu/newsweek/What_are_the_real_risks_of_antidepressants.htm

Loss of effectiveness. Any antidepressant may lose its effect after months or years, sometimes because the brain has become less responsive to the drug (tolerance). Solutions include increasing the dose and switching to another antidepressant with a different mechanism of action.

So eventually the human being rebounds. Dependency on a drug? Better to be dependent on human beings.

This should be common sense. So when someone has no-one, perhaps drugs are the only answer.

Maybe psychopaths should be educated on how to make long term changes with themselves, and maybe psychatrists should work towards neuro-rejuvenation, and short term effects to boost the brains own natural rebounding and regrowth?

When all else fails. What they do? Electro shock therapy? I've heard that works. I can't imagine they do it more than a couple times, and that's enough to spark someone back to life.

I just happen to be slightly more observant or less impartial when it comes to cause and effect.

by Sacha

Would you say they don't get emotional situations? like emotional cues? 

Do you have a specific example for us non SPs por favor? 

They scare the crap out of people. They risk destroying social order, and with increasing mind share on the internet, that means just about anything might be considered psychopathic.

If they don't scare the crap out of others, and they are left behind, then they go to the authorities and sell themselves out, in which case it is truly hit or miss regarding how you are going to come out of there.

Walk into a bank and tell them you are going to rob and fuck them up. They are going to shoot you.

Walk into a psycho lab, and tell them you are going to kill yourself, they are going to make sure you lack the capacity to do that.

Walk into a psychologists room and look for parental or spiritual guidance, and you've got to deal with someone who is extremely structured and ordered, and is busy processing "meat". So, you might get a quick "fix".

by Gatto

 

by MrDelta

They don't really exist.

We are talking about social order. If someone is not living in the human social heirrachy as planned and perceived by whatever is considered human by whoever is in charge of humans, then they are fucked up.

Basically. So, if you are in a position of astute authority, and just do not give a shit about the laws, then you can peg anyone as a psychopath.

Welcome to industry. You are a human resource.

 

There is an assumption of an over arching power that is judging such, which is fine if you are prone to conspiracy theories. And of course there most certainly are but none more ridiculous than some of the garbage that is posted non stop by delusional mental patients. Some of it is really amusing but more to the point, is that they are able to influence others with their crazy talk. So in the end which of either end of the thought train is to be chastised for stupidity?

 When you are crazy, people do not take you seriously. There are no rams butting heads. Joyous or emotionally true or flow of consciousness which others could only wish for talent along those lines.

Yeah. Which one is to be chastized for their stupidity? The audience laughing at a tragedy, or the comedians speaking truth?

So serious these days, and where is there room for laughs, and why is there no room for other forms of influence, such as healing or serendipity. I lack the words for this but I'm sure it's interpreted.

Do I have to pull famous quotes from people?

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."

"Who sees all beings in his own self, and his own self in all beings, loses all fear."

Isa Upanishad, Hindu Scripture

“Shallow men believe in luck or in circumstance. Strong men believe in cause and effect.”

Ralph Waldo Emerson

There is no assumption or overreaching. Sometimes people are indeed sequestered into paths in life which are not healing but further persecution which is 20x more difficult to crawl out of then when entering.

There are not enough human "fixers" out there to give everyone the attention they need to stabalize as normal people.

We are inventing more and more ways to create the borg. Rather than celebrate our minor differences and talents.

It took people how long to appreciate that Van Gough person, and what for? Clearly he is a martyr and not much else. If you ask me.

Yeah, for idiots who have to be told what art is, then scarcity is a big fucking selling point.

About the same value as throwing in free car mats with a car that's been jacked up 23% in value.

Don't mess with me on this one. I am no art industry type. I am 100% phillestine, and could look at a crayon drawing written by a 4 year old child and appreciate it as much as a 4 month investment by some loft artist. Whatever. Sure quality is different, but I have no money to buy either!

"Yeah, for idiots who have to be told what art is, then scarcity is a big fucking selling point."
It's the majority, and the majority is how artists make money. A small click of fine artists appreciating it alone will have it be more of a cult following at best, but cult followings don't always put food on the table.

Many artists are attached to the notion that attaching a price tag to their work or catering to what others want is selling out, but they're the type that glamorize the starving artist like they're some sort of martyr for the cause of art, suffering in vain for their own self-indulgence.

"Don't mess with me on this one. I am no art industry type. I am 100% phillestine, and could look at a crayon drawing written by a 4 year old child and appreciate it as much as a 4 month investment by some loft artist. Whatever. Sure quality is different, but I have no money to buy either!"
My opinion comes from a deep loathing of the artist's statement, but I can't help what keeps paper flowing.

I don't believe van gough had that much integrity. I'm sure people shat on him all day long, and I'm sure he did what he could to bury his pain, expand his mind, and fuck himself up at every turn.

I wonder how the guy made money? He probably sold drugs. Let's wake the fuck up please.

You know what's rare? Serious. People with 5,000,000 dollars to spend. You know what's not rare? people with $5.00 to spend.

I've never researched this guy before. Looks like he's a bone rack.

http://bonniebutterfield.com/VincentVanGogh.htm

During his short and turbulent life, he sold only 1 painting for 400 francs, just 4 months before his death. It is
titled "The Red Vineyard" (See painting below). Nonetheless, he produced an incredible number of masterpieces
created over a 9 year period which will continue "living" for the rest of human history.

 

Based on his paintings, and his massively agonized serotonin perception, he probably did drugs.

I'd love to know where the fuck he got his cubist perspective from. That must have been some nasty shit.

by Turncoat

Many artists are attached to the notion that attaching a price tag to their work or catering to what others want is selling out, but they're the type that glamorize the starving artist like they're some sort of martyr for the cause of art, suffering in vain for their own self-indulgence.

That's right. I don't really have any desire to purchase a piece of art that someone else put their soul into.

Hell, most artists when you try to take what they have a repackage it for sale have huge issues with it.

I don't know why.

Probably something to do with putting themselves DIRECTLY into the piece of art, and any misrepresentation of said art compromises integrity. Yeah so I know why, in many instances.

Mind you I have art that I made of other peoples art which inspired me, or trinkets people found or made, and collaborative pieces that I value more than anything, in some terms. It certainly is not juck, fine art, high art, commercial art, whatever. It has emotional value.

People don't seem to mind collaborative art works, or alterations of thier works so much, UNTIL money or resale becomes and issue. They'd rather take no profit, so things seem. Only generalizing.

I'm fine with that. 

Van gough. Whatever. He wasn't in the right market, or didn't have a distribution channel, or any sort of appreciation. Nothing to do with rarity.

Yeah, and how is that different from some asshole truking on a few tons of sugar and mineral oil throwing it into mixer with coal tar, and then leaving it to set in moulds?

Artisian jujube candied for $5,00!

We are all fucking idiots. Are you happy now?

Why do you think drugs are illegal? Why is that a foul or a penalty.

Not because of lilttle timmy having his health and financial situation fucked over.

It's because it's not fair to everyone else who has to cheat the fuck out of you to gain a living.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pet_Rock

In April 1975, Dahl was in a bar (which is now Beauregard Vineyards Tasting room in Bonny Doon) listening to his friends complain about their pets. This gave him the idea for the perfect "pet": a rock.[1] A rock would not need to be fed, walked, bathed, groomed and would not die, become sick, or be disobedient. He said they were to be the perfect pets, and joked about it with his friends.[2] Dahl took the idea seriously, and drafted an "instruction manual" for a pet rock. It was full of puns, gags and plays on words that referred to the rock as an actual pet. The original had no eyes.

Anyways, good art has nothing to do with price. Rarity and demand have everything to do with market value.

I'm sorry turncoat. I just don't believe that fine art is flying off the fucking shelves in the way you believe, to be honest. Take something that is crafted to the wants and the needs of the market, and mass produce the shit out of it, on a DVD or something and all of a sudden people are making a killing.

WTF? I have no idea how you are conflating the idea of good art with, with mediums, and value.

What people want, they will spend their money on. They have nothing else to do with it.

Whoa, isn't that ironic. phillestines.

Yeah, Van Gough and his army took on the Jewish boy with a slingshot.

Maybe that is not too insulting, but a good kick up the side of the head, or at least a crash course on fundamental axiomatics or something?

Artists don't make a living selling $5,000,000 originals. They make a living licensing $5.00 prints and calendars.