You're viewing part of a thread.
What the fuck is this bullshit? And what makes you think you don’t deserve the punishment?
You don't deserve the reaction you're trying to coax out of me. You're trying to elicit it so that you can be reinforced in your beliefs, so that you can continue to say "see, it's true, everybody hates me, everyone is an enemy". But no amount of flailing will make me hate you. Best I can do is tickle you into submission, sorry.
And, yes, my intent here is to dominate and my methods are manipulative. What's the motive, though?
You don’t deserve the reaction you’re trying to coax out of me. You’re trying to elicit it so that you can be reinforced in your beliefs, so that you can continue to say “see, it’s true, everybody hates me, everyone is an enemy”.
No, I'm not. I'm trying to teach you about your own nature, so you can correct it.
What’s the motive, though?
The same motive all narcissists have - you're trying to "prove" your "better" than I am to hide from your own insecurity. You're trying to hide some secret shame from others - and you're willing do anything, including kill, to do so.
You do not know anyone’s nature but your own. You cannot assume anyone’s behavior except your own. By definition, you are entirely wrong, because your entire conception is based upon assumptions about people you’ve never met and likely never will. You are definitively the narcissist in this thread, making everything about you. You need to pull the tapeworm out of your ass.
Bullshit. Humanity's common nature is a fact of psychology.
And I don't need to meet every "individual" of a species every member of which compulsively tries to destroy their - and everyone else's - individuality. You bastards hate individuality - that's why you compulsively abuse everyone who's different than you. That's what bigotry is - and everyone's a bigot.
Humanity’s common nature, beyond the last few hundred years, is actually one of mutual aid and cooperation. I’d encourage you to look into the various Peoples Histories of the various parts of the world. It is increasingly clear the more data is gathered that the current system of elevating greed, avarice, selfishness etc, is a historical outlier on a history that stretches back hundreds of thousands of years of people collectively cooperating.
Humanity’s common nature, beyond the last few hundred years, is actually one of mutual aid and cooperation.
That is only true for people INSIDE their social circles.
INSIDE, jackass.
Everyone OUTSIDE is prey - that's why they're "outside".
I know "the various Peoples Histories of the various parts of the world" BETTER THAN YOU DO! I actually read the books and did the homework - you're the type of delinquent who copied off of me. I spent my life studying sociology and anthropology just to figure out why you motherfuckers hate me so much.
What life-threatening condition made you research sociology?
It is increasingly clear the more data is gathered that the current system of elevating greed, avarice, selfishness etc, is a historical outlier on a history that stretches back hundreds of thousands of years of people collectively cooperating.
What a load of horseshit. Narcissists are in complete control of the Earth and have been since before the feudal era - don't hand me this bullshit about how effective "people collectively cooperating" are. I'll believe "people collectively cooperating" matter when they start carving up narcissists like it's a deli counter.
Now you’re asserting more and more to me. I’ve read plenty of books, we could go through some we’ve read if you really want to. Have you read Graeber and Wengrow’s “Dawn of Everything: A New History of Humanity”? How about Paulo Freire’s “Pedagogy of the Oppressed”? They’re pretty popular books, I wouldn’t be surprised if you have, but if not I’d recommend them. Do you have any recommendations for me?
Do you have any recommendations for me?
Reconsider your morality? Get some moral integrity?
Which moral philosophy do you subscribe to?
No, I’m not. I’m trying to teach you about your own nature, so you can correct it.
I know my nature thank you very much. And what do you mean with "correction"? Do you want me to be an asshole? You also don't need to worry about me: I'm peaceful, not harmless. In fact, you can't really be peaceful if you're harmless, in that we agree I think.
The same motive all narcissists have - you’re trying to “prove” your “better” than I am to hide from your own insecurity. You’re trying to hide some secret shame from others - and you’re willing do anything, including kill, to do so.
That's not a narcissistic motive. Narcissists feel shame when they, inadvertently, do something nice same as others feel shame when they inadvertently hurt. Their moral instincts are flipped and their function in society is to keep the rest on our toes. They're the empty space directly around the mark so the mark is easier to see. Their purpose in life is to be a warning example. In that way they serve good.
Playing over fears is a thing every human is prone to, no matter the neurological makeup. It's either a function of pride, to which the antidote is humility, or urgency/stress, to which the antidote is taking your time, avoiding snap judgements... or it's foolhardiness. Courage, OTOH, is not playing over but actually overcoming fear, usually out of wisdom, the queen of the virtues, able to bring opposing instincts into mutually agreeable concord. That's adaptation without the "mal-" in front.
And I don't care about whatever shame the assholes put into you. Keep it to yourself, you deserve kindness regardless. The question is whether you're willing to look beyond it and become receptive to kindness, or whether you carry it around as a shield because giving it up would invoke the ire of people you are, as I gather, no longer under the direct thumb of.
I know my nature thank you very much.
No you don't. You actively try to be ignorant of it, because you don't want to know the horrible truth.
And what do you mean with “correction”? Do you want me to be an asshole?
The correct is stopping you from being an asshole.
You also don’t need to worry about me: I’m peaceful, not harmless.
I'm not your gullible mark. I'll worry about you as *I* see fit - not as you dictate.
In fact, you can’t really be peaceful if you’re harmless, in that we agree I think.
No we don't - I can't even make sense of this line.
That’s not a narcissistic motive. Narcissists feel shame when they, inadvertently, do something nice same as others feel shame when they inadvertently hurt. Their moral instincts are flipped and their function in society is to keep the rest on our toes. They’re the empty space directly around the mark so the mark is easier to see. Their purpose in life is to be a warning example. In that way they serve good.
This is directly contrary to even the wikipedia entry, much less the therapists I see. You're just full of shit.
And I don’t care about whatever shame the assholes put into you. Keep it to yourself, you deserve kindness regardless. The question is whether you’re willing to look beyond it and become receptive to kindness, or whether you carry it around as a shield because giving it up would invoke the ire of people you are, as I gather, no longer under the direct thumb of.
I have nothing to be ashamed of. I never stopped being receptive to genuine kindness - I stopped being receptive to obvious, bald-faced lies and other bad faith behavior. I stopped being receptive to the idea that people can be genuine instead of being continuous, compulsive liars. I stopped being a sucker, and started being a skeptic - and I never took anything anyone said at face value again.
Human beings are incapable of being genuine to those they do not consider their equal. I have been branded infinitely beneath all others, a brand enforced by society itself. No one will ever interact with me in good faith - and nothing anyone can say will change my mind.
I’m not your gullible mark. I’ll worry about you as I see fit - not as you dictate.
Oh this is very interesting. I meant you do not need worry about my safety. As you seemed to be keen on "curing" me of my "naive" ways, convincing you of yours, seeing the whole world as nothing but enmity. It didn't even occur to me that it could be read the other way around. How did you come to that interpretation?
No we don’t - I can’t even make sense of this line.
Someone who is harmless has no way to defend themselves. They will be afraid little tiny chihuahuas throwing their ire at anyone that they ever meet, considering all to be more powerful than them, that ire will be directed inside into self-hatred or outside into anger, but it's still the same helplessness.
If you are not harmless, however, you can find safety, even in dicey situations, in your capacity to get out of them on your own terms. It's the martial artists who is not impressed by chest thumping, and see no need to engage in that practice: If a punch flies their way they're going to react, they can trust the back of their mind to deal with it. Any worry there might be does not need to cross the threshold of consciousness because they have achieved unconscious competence. That enables peacefulness even in a biker bar.
Human beings are incapable of being genuine to those they do not consider their equal.
Are humans fake to their pets, to their children? To their frail elders?
I have been branded infinitely beneath all others, a brand enforced by society itself.
How much do you yourself enforce that brand?
and nothing anyone can say will change my mind.
...never mind you just answered that.
How did you come to that interpretation?
To me, that's the only interpretation that makes sense. Why the fuck would you allay my fears of your safety? To you, my fears would be you r asset you can use against me. Allaying those fears disarms you.
If you are not harmless, however, you can find safety, even in dicey situations, in your capacity to get out of them on your own terms.
Not necessarily. "Not harmless" does not guarantee "sufficiently harmful".
Are humans fake to their pets, to their children? To their frail elders?
For this definition those beings are equal. Equal in social status, not competency.
How much do you yourself enforce that brand?
I don't. The entire point of talking to you people is to break you of this obsession with putting down.
…never mind you just answered that.
It's not my mind forcing you people to denigrate me; you choose, of your own free will, to do so. Even your belief that I influence that choice is your choice to allow me to influence , your choice to even believe that I can influence that choice. You can choose to not denigrate NO MATTER HOW I ACT, and that is in fact the only moral choice, but you all choose the immoral choice because it is immoral, because it is anti-social.
You choose to assert that I am less than you to dominate me, and you claim my behavior is the cause to further that domination.
To you, my fears would be you r asset you can use against me.
Now why would I do that. Humanity aside that's strategically unsound: Fearful people are not at the full extent of their abilities. And if we are are to, what, hunt mammoths or some shit I'd rather have you at your best.
You choose to assert that I am less than you to dominate me,
I assert that your neurosis is less than you, that it diminishes you. Anyone trying to get you out of there does not do it to further their control over you -- on the contrary, they want to see you fly and soar (or at the very least not get on their nerves). Those narcissists you speak of would rather reinforce it, because it is a leash they can lead you by. How do you clearly distinguish between those ends people aim for? "Everyone is out to get me" is not an answer to that question, it's a cop-out, it's avoidance.
Or, let me put this differently: If there was a single decent human being among the billions we are, and you might just by chance stumble across them one day... would you be able to tell that they're the exception? Can you develop that skill? Is that a hypothetical you're comfortable contemplating?
Now why would I do that. Humanity aside that’s strategically unsound: Fearful people are not at the full extent of their abilities. And if we are are to, what, hunt mammoths or some shit I’d rather have you at your best.
You know goddamned why; you're not fooling me. You hate me because I prove your belief that that you're inferior. And you don't want me "at your best" because that results in me killing you the next time you attack me.
on the contrary, they want to see you fly and soar
That would be suicidal for them. Do you expect me to believe they're openly suicidal?
How do you clearly distinguish between those ends people aim for?
No one is trying to "get me out of there" and anyone who's trying to convince there is is exactly the people I need to destroy first - because they are the boldest liars.
“Everyone is out to get me” is not an answer to that question, it’s a cop-out, it’s avoidance.
That's your strawman.
If there was a single decent human being among the billions we are, and you might just by chance stumble across them one day… would you be able to tell that they’re the exception?
It wouldn't matter, because a single person wouldn't make a difference. In fact, the idea of a "single person" is an oxymoron; an "individual" is just meat. Personhood comes from group membership; no "individual" is a "person" until a group recognizes them as such.
The social atom is the group, no the individual bag of meat. A human being's worth literally comes from the group; one's own estimate of worth is hopelessly biased and therefore perfectly invalid.
You hate me because I prove your belief that that you’re inferior.
Was that a Freudian slip?
Just for the record, no, I do not think of myself as inferior. Or superior. I generally don't tend to think it those categories and definitely not as a generality. If there's a shoemaker, sure, I'll recognise their authority when it comes to the question of shoes.
And you don’t want me “at your best” because that results in me killing you the next time you attack me.
Why would I attack you? As I said in the beginning: No amount of flailing will make me hate you. Any aggression will have to be started from your side.
Was that a Freudian slip?
...no? I didn't write it wrong.
I do not think of myself as inferior. Or superior.
Sure you don't.
Why would I attack you? As I said in the beginning: No amount of flailing will make me hate you.
And as I have said throughout: I won't take anything you say at face value. You have no reason to talk to me if you're not trying to lie to me somehow.
I do not think of myself as inferior. Or superior.
Sure you don’t.
If you do not consider that possible, I suggest you suspend disbelief. Try it out for yourself.
As I already linked Epictetus:
These reasonings are unconnected: "I am richer than you, therefore I am better"; "I am more eloquent than you, therefore I am better." The connection is rather this: "I am richer than you, therefore my property is greater than yours;" "I am more eloquent than you, therefore my style is better than yours." But you, after all, are neither property nor style.