Thursday, January 6, 2011

Sociopaths and anarchists

This is sort of an interesting blog post from an anarchist criticizing the comparison between sociopaths and anarchists that Robert Hare draws in his book "Without a Conscience". The anarchist is insulted to be compared to sociopaths and actually refers to sociopaths as an anarchist's "natural enemy", but only for the same reasons that sociopaths would be a natural enemy to anyone who considers themselves a potential victim.

The article is sort of interesting and sort of wrong, but has a certain charm to it because it is written from the point of view of one abnormal mentality regarding another abnormal mentality, in a way that Pakistan criticizing North Korea's nuclear policies might seem charming. The gist of the argument:
So once we realize that, we must examine legalism both from the aspect of outer rules and from the aspect of inner rules. The Anarchist rejects only part of the former, but the sociopath rejects both. Seen from that perspective, the sociopath is seen to correspond perfectly to the concept of atomistic individualism: an individual who lives as if he is in a vacuum, making decisions in complete disregard of society or any part of society.
It's an interesting distinction to make. I don't know anything about the anarchy movement so I can't comment on that part of it, but I think he is trying to say that anarchists still have internal moral beliefs and sociopaths don't. This assertion is not quite right unless you define "moral beliefs" quite narrowly, not just excluding little rules of thumb like "eat breakfast when you can," which sociopaths definitely can have, but also excluding certain value judgments, e.g. preferring strength over weakness, which sociopaths also seem to have to some extent. And I don't think you can have a principled definition of morality that excludes those types of value judgments unless you simply define morality as "everything that I innately believe and nothing else."

My favorite part of the article, though, is this mini review of Hare's book:
I wasn’t exactly bowled over by the book itself. Many conclusions were unsupported and obviously were only adopted by Hare because they are more conducive to him getting money. There are also some logical gaps. All in all, it’s a spotty piece of writing.
He makes that comment about money as if it were a bad thing. I myself don't mind being a cash cow for psychologists, in fact if Hare gave me kickbacks or otherwise paid me off, I would stop writing this blog today and/or jump on the Hare bandwagon. Hare, if you are reading this, I can be bought. For cheap. Cheaper than you might think. Unlike anarchists, I apparently don't have any inner rules or sense of morality to prevent me from doing so.

182 comments:

  1. I can be bought. For cheap.

    If that were true, I'd think you'd have Google ads plastered all over this blog by now.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I actually read this blog post a couple weeks ago, and drew mostly congruent conclusions.

    His point about a sociopath being the enemy of the anarchist has some merits though, in that people who are opportunistic are a direct threat to 'safe' anarchy. Not sociopaths specifically, but just people who will get away with what they can without the threat of authority.

    The idealists either stay blind, or inevitably accept the fact that wide-scale anarchy will never work because of human nature itself. Sociopaths are simply the personification of those who would thwart their dream.

    ReplyDelete
  3. or inevitably accept the fact that wide-scale anarchy will never work because of human nature itself

    Anarchy is about as brilliant a plan as laissez-faire or communism.

    It all sounds good on paper, but give it a try before you make any conclusions.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I have a lot of experience with the anarchist movement and I would say for a group that makes sociopaths the enemy, they are sure full of sociopaths. They sit around in thir collectives making decisions made on consensus, which is easily manipulated. I know. Because I put people in their movement here a while back to subvert their collectives for my own ends. I'm not the only one either. Many collectives that I see are focused around mini personality cults. They are worse then the communists as at least they specify their leadership. The anarchist movements leadership changes with bloodless coups through careful manipulation before meetings of the followers in the group. They won't acknowledge they have a leader, so the leadership you have is never secure, yet present despite what they say. As long as you can keep most of the collective under your charismatic guidance, you have the power. A dictatorship by strong will.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. UKan is exactly right. I also have experience with the anarchist movement, and while not all of the people involved are sociopaths, it is clear that sociopaths do gravitate towards the movement. And why wouldn't they? Anarchy's hostility to authority, hierarchy, and social norms makes it so you can disguise all sorts of behavior as merely being part of your political ideals. You're not being manipulative and nasty -- you're just being authentic, right? It's kind of hilarious in hindsight, not having to deal with it anymore.

      Anarchist groups are always in denial over the power dynamics going on, because they detest power, so if you point out what's going on, you're treated like Dib from Invader Zim. If there is an anarchist group that isn't a personality cult, I haven't seen it. Even the ones that look egalitarian on the outside are that way once you get in.

      I had an anarchist "friend" who died recently who was almost certainly a sociopath. He played himself off in public as a good-natured if dim anarcho-punk with strong ideals, but I got to know him really well, and in private he'd brag about getting one over on suckers all the time, mock everyone in his friendship circle for being idiots, and so on. He thought he was a master con artist. He wasn't as dim as he pretended to be by far, but I'd hardly call him clever, either, because towards the end of his life he was getting so sloppy he alienated pretty much everyone except for old friends who lived back home some states away. Since he pretended to be a stupid punk rocker, he used to be able to get away with all sorts of things, but it got to his head and he took it too far.

      Now that he's finally croaked, he has all these friends from far away posting on his memorial page about how "authentic" and "true" to himself he was. That couldn't have been further from the truth! I don't even think he had the self awareness to realize that he had a personality disorder. His POV was that the world was made up of Real Human Beings who behaved like him, and Suckers he could manipulate. It never occurred to him that other types might exist.

      Towards the end of our "friendship", he was extremely irritated with me because he would try to manipulate my emotions or behaviors and I would just ignore him. He'd try everything -- insults, guilt, sexism, racism, insulting my dad, badmouthing people I knew were fine and upstanding, crying in front of me, acting like he felt bad about things I knew he would brag about later -- and I'd just blow it off. He didn't understand why I didn't fit into either of his boxes, so eventually, instead of trying to work me over like the other suckers, he worked the rest of his circle to drive me out of his life so he wouldn't have to deal with me.

      Delete
  5. Natural leaders usually emerge over time in any environment, even an anarchistic one. Through force of personality, the manipulation of other people or a dick swinging contest, someone or some group of people almost always emerge dominate over others.

    What can be very interesting is when this natural order is tampered with. I'm enrolled at one of the various military academies in the US, and among the cadet leaders here, I see both those with and without rank. And among those with rank, I see cadets who are and are not leaders. It creates a very interesting environment.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I think that in an anarchist society a sociopath would be king. If you take away law, order,government, etc, there'd be nothing to stop a sociopath from taking whatever he wants and killing anyone who stands in his way, just so long as he can inspire the right group of people an gain some loyal followers(that's what I'd try to do anyway). So in short, anarchy would never work.

    ReplyDelete
  7. If anarchy worked large-scale, man never would have developed law and politics in the first place.

    ReplyDelete
  8. In all honesty anarchists don't interest me in the slightest. They're the same as everyone else with a passion for politics. They become emotionally invested in one view that is expected to provide a better "world" environment. Fuck that.

    ----------

    On a side note: Story Time.

    Yesterday, I was drinking with my roommates and we were all having a good time. Then suddenly one of them goes on this rant. I apparently "questioned his integrity" and he goes ballistic. The guy is drunk (as am I) and starts crying while yelling at me. This is already amusing, but he decides to top it.

    He tries to convince the other guys that I'm a psychopath and I'm crazy. They're all laughing like this is the farthest thing from the truth, and I back them up on it by apologizing to this guy until he calms down. He spends the rest of the night telling me he's going to kill me while I'm sleeping and then passes out.

    I got the biggest kick out of it. He tried to tell them I was a psychopath and no one believed him. All the while I laughed at his antics. Watching this guy break down in front of everyone just because of me was exhilarating.

    ReplyDelete
  9. My point is not the merit of Anarchy, but its inherent flaws that would prevent a mass population from successfully utilizing it. Small communities of like-minded people have managed anarchy-like communities. Increase the land, people, and resources, and it becomes unfeasible due to human greed and lust for power.

    Loki, what were his points about you being a psycho? I've been called one before, but often one equates psycho with someone who seems crazy and or violent. Not the actual condition.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Interesting environment in what way, Cake?

    And Loki, why apologize at all?

    ReplyDelete
  11. "Pulling rank" exists outside of military culture as well. Anything requiring organization from families to SPCA will have personality struggles/subversion?. I guess the distinction is in the rules or charter (intention) of the organiztional entity. I don't see how anarchy can be a system in itself but more of a state that exists during upheavals. The pirates of somali may have briefly created such a condition in Somalia but even they have quickly expanded and formed more sophisticated organisational stuctures with investors and employment opportunities, "management" so to speak,

    ReplyDelete
  12. His points were how I don't believe in religion, make fun of people in a cruel manner, and the "look in my eye". But he was also drunk. I'd give him more credit with his arguing skills when he's sober.

    And Justice, I had to. I can't have someone call me that in front of a bunch of people and then live up to the accusation. Don't you think that would complicate things? I almost didn't though. Watching him break down... Oh my god, that shit was better than sex lmao.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Eyeballs are eyeballs. I don't see how they can reflect any aspect of a personality :/

    ReplyDelete
  14. No, I don't. He was drunk, you were drunk, everyone was drinking. It's not like this guy had too much credibility. The others were already laughing at him according to your story. The word psycho is used so loosely lately that almost no one takes it seriously. Unless you already tainted your image, I didn't see a need. Sounds like unwarranted paranoia.

    ReplyDelete
  15. "Eyeballs are eyeballs. I don't see how they can reflect any aspect of a personality :/"

    you need to refine your intuition skills, there has been plenty of times where i caught someone offguard and the look in thier eye or the way they laughed set of red flags. you can always tell a person is crazy by how they laugh. and later on down the road, i was completely right about that person being "off" if you will.

    ReplyDelete
  16. "Eyeballs are eyeballs. I don't see how they can reflect any aspect of a personality :/"

    you need to refine your intuition skills, there has been plenty of times where i caught someone offguard and the look in thier eye or the way they laughed set of red flags. you can always tell a person is crazy by how they laugh. and later on down the road, i was completely right about that person being "off" if you will.

    ReplyDelete
  17. This Loki fool has been trying to look like a bad ass since he came here. If my friend talked to me like that I would have laid down the law on the punk, but you laughed because you're a pussy.

    ReplyDelete
  18. "anonymous" badasses. *yawn*
    The thing is the other blog author discredits Hare for the money grab aspect which is valid from a research standpoint, though respectable from an opportunistic standpoint.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Yeah, uh, uh
    Yeah
    It's the world's greatest
    It's the world's greatest
    C'mon, yeah
    The world's greatest

    I am a mountain, I am a tall tree, ohhhhh
    I am a swift wind sweepin' the country
    I am a river, down in the valley, ohhhhhh
    I am a vision, and I can see clearlyyy

    If anybody asks you who I am
    Just stand up tall
    Look 'em in the face and saaaaay

    I'm that star up in the sky
    I'm that mountain peak up hiiigh
    Hey, I made it(Um)
    I'm the world's greatest
    And I'm that little bit of hope
    When my back's against the rooopes
    I can feel it(Um)
    I'm the world's greatest

    (The world's greatest)
    (The world's greatest)
    (Forever)

    I am a giant, I am an eagle, ohhhhh
    I am a lion, down in the jungle
    I am a marchin' band, I am the people, ohhhhh
    I am a helping hand, I am a heroooo

    If anybody asks you who I am
    Just stand up tall
    Look 'em in the face and saaaaaaay

    I'm that star up in the sky
    I'm that mountain peak up high
    Hey, I made it(Um)
    I'm the world's greatest(Um)
    And I'm that little bit of hope
    When my back's against the rooopes
    I can feel it(Um)
    I'm the world's greatest

    In the ring of life I'll rain love(I will rain)
    And the world will notice a king(oh yeeeah)
    Where there is darrkness, I'll shine a light(shine a light)
    And the mirrors of success reflect in me(meeee)

    I'm that star up in the sky(Ohhhhhhh Yeah)
    I'm that mountain peak up high(Hiiiiigh)
    Hey, I made it(Said I made it)
    I'm the world's greatest(I'm that little bit)
    And I'm that little bit of hope(Of hope yeaaah)
    When my back's against the ropes(I can)
    I can feel it(Feel it)
    I'm the world's greatest

    (Ohhhhhh)I'm that star up in the sky(Star up in the skyyy)
    I'm that mountain peak up high(Oh yes I am)
    Hey, I made it(I made it)
    I'm the world's greatest(I'm that little bit of hope)
    And I'm that little bit of hope
    When my back's against the ropes(When my back's against the ropes)
    I can feel it(I can feel)
    I'm the world's greatest

    (Chorus)
    I saw the light(I'm that star up in the sky)
    At the end of a tunnel(I'm that mountain peak up high)
    Believe in the pot of golllld(Hey I made it)
    At the end of the rainbow(I'm the world's greatest)
    And faith was right there(And I'm that little bit of hope)
    To pull me through, yeah(When my back's against the ropes)
    Used to be locked doors(I can feel it)
    Now I can just walk on through(I'm the world's greatest)
    It's the greatest

    It's the greatest
    Can you feel it

    I saw the light(It's the greatest)
    At the end of a tunnel(Can you feel it)
    Believe in the pot of gold(It's the greatest)
    At the end of the rainbow(Can you feel it)
    And faith was right there(It's the greatest)
    To pull me through, yeah(Can you feel it)
    Used to be locked doors(It's the greatest)
    Now I can just walk on through(Can you feel it)

    I'm that star up in the sky
    I'm that mountain peak up hiiigh
    Hey, I made it
    I'm the world's greatest
    And I'm that little bit of hope
    When my back's against the rooopes
    I can feel it
    I'm the world's greatest

    ReplyDelete
  20. I think it'd actually depend on the socio on who might be an enemy verse not. Personally I wouldn't like anarchy because well, I'd have to do more stuff. Its a lot of work and I'm a lazy socio. So my goal in life is to latch onto others and live off them.

    In anarchy everyone would be fighting for position/wealth/power/land and I'd have to manipulate them so I come somewhere on top, which would be enjoyable, but for only so long. After years it would get very tiring to be wealthy in an anarchistic society.

    I'd rather know my current system and all its loop holes than having some chaos interrupt any of my schemes.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I don't know Loki. Would it complicate things?

    My closest friend is the person who called me a sociopath before I'd ever considered the idea. We're as close as anyone I've ever met including family.

    People don't really seem to grasp the concept of sociopathy and even when they do they're almost universally unwilling to apply it to someone they already know unless they've been personally deeply wronged by that person. Humans as a rule have a very hard time imagining someone who doesn't think they way they do.

    As long as you're charming people just won't buy it anyway. And if they do think maybe you are? They still won't internalize that the smiles you give them are contrived and that they aren't some special case where you actually feel something for them.

    Non-socios are much worse at empathy than they like to think. They just paste their own models of how a person thinks on to everyone they meet and assume that subject is making their choices for the same reasons they would.

    I'd comment on the actual topic but I think it's all been said.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Anarchists are hippies in black clothing. Yet another conformist group that pretends to be otherwise.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Unmasked, while that's true of a lot of people please don't generalise it to ALL of us. It's hard to understand the sociopathic way of thinking, but still possible and something one can accept over time.

    ReplyDelete
  24. The ones who have the I hate the government attitude are the biggest suckers of all, become the systems.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Its surprising more of you don't see opportunities.
    Anarchism is just brilliant. You are talking about a group of people who love to try to topple governements, but never have anything realistically working to put in its place. The last time they attemtped such a siezure was in the spanish civil war under the leadership of Durruti. Of course being anarchists they forgot to sieze the wealth of the country (the treasury), and their revolution was crushed by the ever more pragmatic stalinists due to the lack of financing (who in turn was crushed by fascists).
    The face of anarchism has changed since world war II. Fairly quiet during the seventies and eighties, they sprung up overnight across Europe and the United States during the nineties to strike against globalization. They caused riots and chaos in any city the WTO or IMF would visit.
    This became the catalyst of a new emerging splinter movement called Green Anarchy. These are followers of John Zerzan, and Bob Black. These people believe in absolute individualism, no organization, no structure, no technology, industrial collapse, and are anti work (they think we should never work just play). They are followers of the Unabomber Ted Kazinski, and his illustrious manifesto. They are quasi anti working class in theory, which is ironic considering anarchism is a working class rule ideal.
    Right now anarchists on waging a bombing campaign in Greece and Spain to destabilize the countries already unstable from the economic crisis. It will be interesting to see what happends.

    ReplyDelete
  26. It would because I live with this guy, and I will be seeing him for the next two to three years, at least.

    My best friend is the only one besides my family who knows. He gets it for the most part but my roommate is threatened by me. He tries to (and I stress "tries to") belittle me at every turn in front of people. It's classic bullying but with a twist. I can see how and why he does it. He's trying to take over his territory. It's a typical alpha male thing. I don't budge though.

    And the other guys I live with see it too. He almost tries too hard because he's scared.

    And yes, I have given him a reason to think a bit differently of me. Not proud of it, but I was having a bad week at the time.

    ReplyDelete
  27. I think that for the most part you can put a label on the sociopath as such, but I also think one must consider age.

    If several moves to new towns and dozens of lessons learned (or not learned) aren't enough for you to grasp at least the extremes of consequences and not by approximation computing then you are not a functioning sociopath at all.

    If this is the direction we would like to take, we should probably label everyone (everyone) a sociopath and then label their function as not high and low but abilities instead.

    Afterall, most of us here are probably diverse enough to benefit from each other despite the fact that we will not or otherwise cannot.

    ReplyDelete
  28. PMS -
    "This is why I'm an egoist."

    Are you sure you are?

    ReplyDelete
  29. Not understanding consequences is a sociopathic trait in general. Even the high functioning sociopaths are self destructive.
    Not everyone is a sociopath, as sociopathy doesn't rest on the beliefs of anonymous users of sociopathworld. It is a list of traits combined together which makes a person into one. Many on this site mistake NPD as high functioning sociopathy.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Ukan- I disagree. I think said sociopaths aren't seen is because they know the possible consequences and therefore aren't seen in data. Those reports are biased and inherently flawed. There are obviously clever, consequence/future seeing sociopaths. Still perhaps somewhat impulsive, but not dumb by any means. I think the most successful have been presidents.

    And yes, I'm paranoid that even something that says anonymous can lead back to me. That's why with this sight I have several personalities as anonymous.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Narcissists are as equally self destructive, strictly speaking of pathological narcissism of course. Most narcissists who never amount to anything become bitter, so they settle for control of a household rather than a business and become violent wife beaters.

    ReplyDelete
  32. What's your evidence that I am an "abnormal mentality"? What a nasty little bigot you are.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Paranoid of what? Even if you say you've committed a crime on here they would have to get a warrant to find your IP address, which means they would need probable cause on a crime to show to a judge in a country that is unknown. There's not a cop or judge in the world who would go through the legal trouble.
    I think you are mixing a lot of different things up. I'm not fond of psychologies take on sociopaths by any stretch. In comparison to most medical fields psychology is somewhat new anyway. However, I will tend to weigh in on their side more often than not, because they are doctors. You are not even close to one.
    Sociopaths understanding of consequences has nothing to do with intelligence. There are highly intelligent sociopaths blatantly disreguarding the law on a constant basis and getting away with it. There were highly intelligent sociopaths doing serial killings, if you want a extreme examples. Sam vankin embezzled money. So have countless others.
    The whole Dexter idealist thing people have been led to believe is bullshit. I'm a sociopath, but I'm not a sociopath apolagist. The vast majority of sociopaths are not riding around like some white knight vigilante struggling with his loss of humanity and emotion. A vast majority are firing aimlessly into the abyss of their own selfishness and control. They jump on their impulses with no hesitation and with such determination that they always get what they want no matter what the cost is. They feel like they are rulers. They manipulate you because they don't know how to communicate any other way. They seek control in every interaction. They feel if they follow any rule, law, or common courtesy they are doing you a favor and should be greatful. I don't think everyone fits in this category.

    ReplyDelete
  34. anarchists are liberals.
    apparently liberals have a smaller amygdala than conservatives.
    i say apparently because the actual paper hasn't been peer-reviewed and published yet - and when there's a press release before that happens it is a bit suspect.
    socios have the smallest amygdala of all.

    in my experience, many people mix up psychotic (what psycho is really short for) and psychopathic. i don't think socios are well understood at all by the vast vast majority of people due to this confusion.

    ReplyDelete
  35. And with age comes wisdom, Res. Give the resident socios twenty years and they themselves will see the difference between "us" and "them".

    Give the psychiatrist fifty years to study me and....... Oh but they'd believe his words wouldn't they? :)

    I'll see to it that they are at least able to!

    ReplyDelete
  36. Social butterflies also have larger amygdalas than recluses like myself.

    The connection is obvious, though.

    More social-minded = more liberal

    wv: muted

    ReplyDelete
  37. I match every trait of malignant narcissism. It seems to be getting worse with age. I'm also a schizoid.

    ReplyDelete
  38. What I find passing strange is that the field of psychology came up with the word sociopath, and what that word means. Narccissists, so full of themselves and dillusional, think with no training whatsoever argue the traits that fall within sociopathy are different. They have their own definition, which convienently fits them. How can you argue the definition of the word with the people who created it?
    What I find arguable with Hare is his stance he takes towards sociopaths. It is negative in nature and not cohesive to the way you treat other people who have so called personality disorders. Can you imagine what a outcry it would be if you said that bipolar people are dangerous and should be avoided, because Ted Bundy was a manic depressant? It would be outrageous.
    As far as the traits are concerned it may be a negative way of spinning it, but the PCL-R has the fundamentals down.

    ReplyDelete
  39. They have their own definition, which convienently fits them. How can you argue the definition of the word with the people who created it?

    That. All over the place.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Consequences mean nothing when your whole life you've faced them down. When you live your whole life with the nuce tightening around your neck you forget the fact that one day you might hang.
    How many times have you told yourself you will change? So many times we tell ourselves the same thing, but we cant . You can't change who you are, you can only embrace it.
    Sociopaths have to embrace their impulses and own them. That's the only way that they can direct them towards influencing society in a less destructive way.

    ReplyDelete
  41. As a friend of mine recently said:

    "Appetites must flow from strengths, not weaknesses"

    Though I would take it one step further and say that if you play it right, you can turn what was previously regarded as a weakness into a strength.

    It's in the viewpoint and the application.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Ukan, you're on a roll today:

    How many times have you told yourself you will change? So many times we tell ourselves the same thing, but we cant . You can't change who you are, you can only embrace it...

    I couldn't agree more.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Is every sociopath capable of extreme violence?

    ReplyDelete
  44. Most people are capable of extreme violence. If you doubt me look at nazi germany.

    ReplyDelete
  45. True, although that was more of a mob mentality.

    ReplyDelete
  46. A sociopath with high impulse control is equal to a normal person who's drunk.
    Which takes us to another topic: drunken sociopaths

    ReplyDelete
  47. Exactly, mob mentality being the situation. The question you asked is based on the situation as well.

    ReplyDelete
  48. If you are bad while drunk, how would you're girl stick around? Wouldn't you be prone to physical abuse whilst intoxicated?

    ReplyDelete
  49. Try not drinking around her.

    ReplyDelete
  50. You can't change who you are, you can only embrace it.

    This is true. It's also true that you cannot change who someone else is. You learn to accept them (embrace them) or you move on.

    This holds true for all interpersonal relationships, even the "relationships" we have to each other as fellow blog commenters.

    When you fling shit at others because of the differences between you, it doesn't prove strength or intelligence. It points up your fear of what you perceive as different about yourself and that show's weakness.

    Leaders rise to the top by gaining respect and admiration.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Well, isn't that the whole point of manipulation? If you "fling shit" at other people, it doesn't mean you have any personal hatred towards them, although in some cases there are.

    If you can bend a persons self worth to make you're own life easier, go for it. You cannot tell a psychopath, not to abuse another person, they do not care. Who cares if you call it "weak"? In my eyes its strength.

    You are trying to use a sneaky way of being an empath, you can't say it out load, so you must call it "weakness"

    ReplyDelete
  52. The problem is those that are deluded into believing that they are something that they are not. Narcissism.

    When you try to embrace that false 'them' (which is up for debate whether the 'false them' is something they themselves have created, or if it was really you doing it the whole time, or, most likely, a mix of both), at least until you figure out what's really going on, it tends to fuck reality up, and damages everyone, like the ripples of a stone dropped into still waters.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Or anarchist insurgencies

    ReplyDelete
  54. It may be simpler to just accept the fact that who they are is a narcissist and leave it at that.

    Accepting people and situations as they are is something that sometimes needs some breathing room; time to just be.

    ReplyDelete
  55. shit flingging monkeyJanuary 6, 2011 at 3:50 PM

    I see you went back to yesterday's post to see if anyone commented on your charade that you think you so cleaverly executed.

    But just shows who was slinging shit :P

    ReplyDelete
  56. M.E., you have upset poor Francois. Shame on you!~

    ReplyDelete
  57. I guess it made your night someone is talking about you.

    Pretenious whores,

    ReplyDelete
  58. Two of my friends for the first time called me a sociopath the other day, He was like, "you're what they call, sociopathic, not like us, we're empathic, we have something called empathy." It was a joke, and i just laughed and said "yea, sociopath, hah". They laughed and it was over, nobody thought anything of it.. This story really has no point or conclusion. come to think of it, it had no beginning either.

    ReplyDelete
  59. I smell animosity in the air today.
    People are on form again, must be some kind of menstrual synchronisation.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Anonymous said...
    what about astrology and psychopaths. i have found that most sociopaths are water signs, cancers, pisces, scorpios. i have found that malignant narcissists are virgos and gemini's. if i had to pick five signs i would rather die than date? virgo, gemini, cancer, capricorn, and maybe libra because it's the sign right after virgos. yes virgos are that bad, and complete and utter narcissists.

    January 5, 2011 2:45 PM

    Anon, could you elaborate on capricorn, which is not a water sign? Why on this list of yours?

    ReplyDelete
  61. Something about me tears at shit flinging monkeys to the point of delusional behavior.

    Now that's a power I wasn't aware that I had.

    ReplyDelete
  62. I will be the first to admit that I've buried myself in my impulses. Directing my impulses is a constant challenge. Everytime I think I have a handle on my violent behaviour or my self destructive boredom I turn around and I've done something else that I have to clean up. I can make something into perfection, but once perfected I want to destroy it again. Like a never ending cycle.
    Sometimes I feel like a virus. Even if I love someone all I can do is possess them. I feel I've become a virus. Everything around me becomes twisted into the darkness that I try to stop from becoming my reality. I bully the people around me into my jaded version of the truth that they cannot accept. When they refuse I pschologically abuse them until they run or they become dependent upon me.
    That is who I am and I can't change that. All I can do is watch.

    ReplyDelete
  63. One gltich i spot, if anarchists have smaller amygdalas and are liberal, then who are these social butterflies with larger amygdalas?

    Anarchy sounds like a lot of fun!

    And why are you still discussing astrology?
    Are you trying to incur the wrath of sociopathworld?
    Hm.

    'malignant narcissists are virgos and geminis'

    Oh really, have you met every person on the planet? Wow, you sure get around. And why are you so ANGRY at the zodiac? What has it ever done to you? Please don't take it so personally.

    I'm joking of course, please keep talking about it, it's really very, very interesting.~

    ReplyDelete
  64. UKan,

    Then, once in a while, someone comes along who knows all this about you and they accept it; like your girlfriend does.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Here's shot in the dark as to why the poster listed Capricorn as someone they'd not date.

    The poster may be Sagittarius or Aquarius, both of which lie on either side of Capricorn. It's said that the signs immediately next to yours are the most difficult for you to get along with.

    ReplyDelete
  66. I'm skeptical on signs. Do you know what sign I am?

    ReplyDelete
  67. anon, your briefing below about capricorn goes against what I have read. Capricorns are idealistic leaders, integrators not money-driven people, and are mostly stubborn empaths. saggitarius and aquarius on the other hand along with virgo are right on.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Care to explain how astrology is relevant to this discussion?
    I'm not trying to start an argument, I'm just curious.

    ReplyDelete
  69. If you do I will believe in it

    ReplyDelete
  70. I'll take a stab at guessing what sign UKan is.

    Are you an Aries?

    ReplyDelete
  71. Leo or Sagitarius (gotta give me two chances)

    ReplyDelete
  72. no scratch sagitarius - i didn't mean that.

    Cancer or Leo

    ReplyDelete
  73. Cancer is scorpios bitch.

    ReplyDelete
  74. third time lucky - scorpio. I forgot about that one.

    TELL US!!!

    ReplyDelete
  75. Ukan you're such an annoying tease.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Currently listen to:

    When I first came to town
    All the people gathered round
    They bought me drinks
    Lord, how they quickly changed their tune

    When I first came to town
    People took me round from end to end
    Like someone may take round a friend
    O how quickly they changed their tune

    Suspicion and dark murmurs surround me
    Everywhere I go they confound me
    As though the blood on my hands
    Is there for every citizen to see

    O sweet jesus
    There is no turning back
    There is always one more town
    A little further down the track

    And from my window, across the tracks
    I watch the juicers burn their fires
    And in that light
    Their faces leer at me
    How I wish they'd just let me be

    When I first came to town
    Their favours were for free
    Now even the doors of the whores of this town
    Are closed to me

    I search the mirror
    And I try to see
    Why the people of this town
    Have washed their hands of me

    O sweet jesus
    There is no turning back
    There is always one more town
    A little further down the track

    O lord, every god-damn turn I take
    I fear the noose, I fear the stake
    For there is no bone
    They did not break
    In all the towns I've been before

    Well those that sin against me are snuffed out
    I know from every day that I live
    God-damn the day that I was born
    The night that forced me from the womb
    And god-damn this town
    For I am leaving now
    But one day I will return
    And the people of this town will surely see
    Just how quickly the tables turn

    O sweet jesus
    This really is the end
    There is always one more town
    A little further round the end

    ReplyDelete
  77. I've envisioned astrology in a way that makes some sense to me.

    You can say that people who in certain geographical areas might share some similar traits because of it.

    You can say that people who were born in a particular time frame might have similarities.

    The Zodiac sign you were born in gives reference to your stellar geography and time stamp, so you might be similar to others who share those things with you.

    ReplyDelete
  78. That second paragraph should read:

    people who were born or raised in a certain geographical area.

    ReplyDelete
  79. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  80. We been in the age of Pisces since shortly before or at the time of the birth of Christ, soon to enter or are already in the age of Aquarius.

    Again, it's just patterns and flows and global perspectives.

    One image (i.e. that of Jesus Christ, where do think the fish thing came from?) being replaced with another (?), but it's all the same, but concentrated on different aspects.

    ReplyDelete
  81. Thanks for that. It helped a little. My real question is how does this http://imm.io/2XHQ determine anything about my personality?

    ReplyDelete
  82. Anon, could you elaborate on capricorn, which is not a water sign? Why on this list of yours?

    January 6, 2011 4:03 PM

    -------------------------------
    I am neither Saggitarius or Aquarian like Arienne tried to guess although she was close. but i will admit that i possible, not conclusive but possible might have Capricorn as my rising sign. and i do my best to suppress those negative capricorn traits. the reason i said Capricorn is because, Capricorns are some very, dark, dark, dark, dark individuals. They have a perverted sense of justice or smugness. what i mean is that Capricorn has one rule that applies to them and other sets of rules that applies to others. I have witnessed a Capricorn smear a persons image, but in the most subtley, underhanded, sneaky way, using other people through manipulation to fight their dirty battles. Capricorns are cold people. they are very nice but cold hearted and won't think twice about any cut throat decisions they have to make. capricorn is a earth sign just like virgo. they are generous with money but will also embezzle money, cheat you out of money, end up in federal prison because of money schemes, they are a money oriented and career driven sign.

    as for another poster who said my descriptions were vague in the post from yesterday, well let me spell it out for you, not everyone is a killer, not everyone is cheap, not everyone is a pathological liar, not everyone is insincere. You will find a bulk of all these descriptions under people born during a certain time period. i have every sign in my family, every sign as friends, associates, co workers, people i've ran across in my lifetime, etc. what's delusional is blatantly ignoring these characteristics that are in their nature....and they can't change it...they can only supress or embrace it.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Thats the point you guys are all over the place. I'm a Leo.

    ReplyDelete
  84. A friend of mine who is really into astrology decided to look at my chart without me asking. About a year ago, out of the blue, she warned me that I was about to go through the biggest crisis possible in a person's life, and in my case it was to be even more intense than the regular person's due to how things were placed when I was born.

    Mostly centered on a massive, massive perspective change with regards to relationships with others and my place in the world.

    My response at the time was "Yeah, I've been changing my perspective and shit, going through some serious crap," but even then I really had no idea of what was to come.

    It all came to pass, and not even in any vague, open-to-interpretation Barnum effect sort of way, or a self-fulfilled prophesy sort of way. I know the difference.

    Still in the midst of it, but the influence is finally waning, and the chart reflects that.

    An example of one microcosm of previously mentioned astrological ages and shit like that. Circles within circles, patterns, mirrors, pi.

    Same things will be seen in any organization or system on Earth.

    ReplyDelete
  85. I guess since notme half guessed it I will half believe it.

    ReplyDelete
  86. Maybe UKan has Aries as his rising.

    ReplyDelete
  87. Yay Ukan!!!! I got it.

    Thanks for leaving me hanging!~

    Btw, leo and aquarius are polar opposite on the zodiac, so we have a love-hate dynamic.
    The narc i met was a leo - nuff said.

    Having said that, i take it all with a huge grain of salt! But that's just me.

    ReplyDelete
  88. LEOS: like to win, defiant, doesn't like to follow rules, stubborn, the most strong willed, pasionate, defiant son of a bitch you'll ever meet, yet a heart of gold, cunning, intelligent, loves to spend money, extravagant taste, motto is you don't have to be rich but you better live, breath, and dress like the rich.... LEOS, SAGS and SCORPIOS are among my favorite or more tolerable. LEOS are nothing EGO and PRIDE. but they take the time to care about others.

    the reason you;ll find a LEO Sociopath like Ukan is because they like to WIN and with a position of power, will crush you if you hurt their pride or try to undermine them, other than that, LEOS and CAPRICORNS are NATURAL BORN LEADERS.

    on a superficial level, gemini's, leos, libras, aries, pisces, and virgos are very attractive, good looking people.

    ReplyDelete
  89. This astrology anon is either trolling or is a complete tool.

    ReplyDelete
  90. ^^^
    it's hard to troll when you've been a reader of this blog for over a year. i'm not the first and certainly won't be the last to link personality disorders with birthdate traits. as a matter of fact, look on the side link tags, or search this blog, the topic of signs have been discussed before.

    ReplyDelete
  91. I for one like what anon is saying. I will take all the compliments you can dish out.

    ReplyDelete
  92. well Anon, what are BPD people likely to be then? havennyx and i are both aquarius. so tell me, if you know.

    ReplyDelete
  93. i don't know why, but i meet a lot of leos - perhaps i just gravitate towards them. And I can spot a leo quite easily for some reason. I knew the narc i met was a leo first time, I didn't even hesitate.
    I guess they stand out since they are fire signs. The bastards. :)

    ReplyDelete
  94. I'm surprised that so many of you buy into this shit, but whatever. I'm a Gemini.

    ReplyDelete
  95. Has anyone seen inception?

    ReplyDelete
  96. @not me. opposites attract i guess, i see leo/aquarius relationships all the time.

    about BPD. i know nothing about borderline personality disorder so i can't pin it. i know about sociopathy because i suspect all three of my ex's with the exception of one have all been water signs.

    and i started to wonder why do i keep attracting and dating dark individuals when i don't even subconsciously seek them out. i had to ask myself, if i myself was a sociopath because water seeks it's own level, you often times date a reflection of who you are

    ....anyway, i'm tired of hearing myself talk on this issue. i don't want to further offend those who are blind to basic observation of personality or who think signs are as believeable as santa clause and the magic tooth ferry. goodnight all.

    ReplyDelete
  97. i don't buy into it except on a vanity level. And i like knowing the star signs of those i'm connected to, it's like knowing what their favorite colour is. It's just fun. That's about it. As far as reading daily, annual horoscopes, i think that's a complete waste of life.
    The element part is more interesting for me - if you're air, water, earth or fire.

    Btw, i can guess what the other elements are about - but i don't get what water's about.

    ReplyDelete
  98. Inception. one of the best movies of the year.

    ReplyDelete
  99. yes not me, funny enough i don't suscribe to fortune telling, wuiji boards-spelled wrong, daily horoscopes,etc.. i think all of that is nonsense. i think fortune telling and wujii boards is playing in the devil's playground. only other thing i believe in is GOD.

    ReplyDelete
  100. Leo would have been my second guess for UKan, as I am Leo rising and my Leo is really starting to.... rise.


    Inception bored and irritated me. I might need to give it a second chance someday, but it left me with an "eh" feeling.

    ReplyDelete
  101. And I probably shouldn't have watched it while stoned.

    ReplyDelete
  102. How can you be bored of a movie with a conecpt of planting a idea in your someones head through your subconscious?

    ReplyDelete
  103. In my private time I like to smoke weed and listen to the main song while I imagine people dying for my cause.

    ReplyDelete
  104. The water element is about emotions.

    ReplyDelete
  105. I meant plating a idea in someones head through their subconscious. I'm trying to stop using the word 'you' as a generalization.

    ReplyDelete
  106. Anon, i don't believe in religion either.
    I want to die just cos i'm curious about what will happen after.
    But i'll die an atheist and so will probs go to hell.

    I believe in man. Hardly that even. lols. I don't believe in myself how can i believe in a god.
    hehe. ('hehe' reminds me of michael jackson, who i do believe in).

    ReplyDelete
  107. I think I was distracted by the Hollywood self-importance of it.

    ReplyDelete
  108. Ukan, you should watch Derren Brown. He's a master psychological-manipulator.

    ReplyDelete
  109. Did you watch his show earlier, notme?

    ReplyDelete
  110. I was distracted by my own self importance in it. It made the movie spectacular.

    ReplyDelete
  111. I hate astrology... because people talk about it and you can smile and nod or tell them they're wrong and either way they'll keep talking. And for some reason otherwise reasonable people go for it.

    I just like being able to tell people that I'm a cancer. Of course when I say that it means something different to me than how most people interpret it.

    Funny that seafood (which I swear every horoscope likes to mention how I like it) is one of the only kinds of food I don't care for. Or that I'm supposed to be sensitive and feely when flat emotional affect largely defines me.

    Best of all is watching a group of people all make different guesses about someone (Ukan) and then when one of them gets it right you know they're all nodding to themselves taking the fact that one of many guesses was right as evidence their beliefs aren't stupid even though if you divide the number of guesses by the number of possibilities your expected value is greater than one. Better yet now that the answer is confirmed all the people who guessed wrong are thinking to themselves, "Oh yeah, that really does fit" even though their cold guess was dead wrong and now they're all modifying their own memories and throwing out all the reasoning they had used for their first guess since it contradicts the right answer and while a normal person might consider that evidence against astrology believers won't.

    Watching people delude themselves makes me hate people.

    ReplyDelete
  112. Lol @ UKan




    I don't believe in the specificities, Unmasked. Or the personality descriptions. As I've already said. That stuff is just for fun.

    The noting of big picture patterns and systems has value, though. Unless you are the type that says that even hard science and mathematics has no value.

    ReplyDelete
  113. now they're all modifying their own memories and throwing out all the reasoning they had used for their first guess since it contradicts the right answer

    Exactly. That's the same way I process all learning.

    ReplyDelete
  114. Take Pythagoras.

    Back in those days, there was no separation between mathematics, philosophy, astrology, music, and religion, like there is today. It was all regarded as basically different ways of looking at the same thing. Without those connections Pythagoras would not have been able to do what he did and we wouldn't know who the hell he was.

    Part and parcel. And now I'm just repeating myself over and over.

    Anyone here seen Pi?

    ReplyDelete
  115. Big pictures and patterns are all good and well but I question whether astrology is a more effective language to talk about than some other like political science of sociology. I've spent almost no time reading astrology so I'm giving it as much benefit of the doubt as possible here.

    I don't think that comparing astrology to hard science and mathematics is reasonable though. Unless astrology is a predictive science it belongs in a fundamentally different category. By predictive science I mean that using physics and chemistry you can calculate the trajectory of a rocket from known variables. If astrology is capable of using a set of knowns and making correct predictions about the future consistently then I withdraw my opinion. The test of a theory is whether it is predictive, not whether it is descriptive.

    ReplyDelete
  116. hey Misanthrope, i saw it on, but didn't watch it. I love him. He lives round my area and I spoke to him and shook his hand. He's Soooooo sweet and polite. I asked him to tell me some of his secrets but he refused. the bastard!!! hehe

    ReplyDelete
  117. LOL, and yes Arianne, good catch.

    But in context that would be the equivalent of a room full of people all using the same method to find an answer, all getting different answers, and then excusing the method when they were wrong rather than questioning it.

    ReplyDelete
  118. It was pretty funny. He hipnotized a girl and made her drink a whole glass of vinegar while she was out.

    ReplyDelete
  119. I've spent almost no time reading astrology

    This being the case, you are not really qualified to make an informed statement. Wouldn't you say?

    Dismissing something you know nothing about is like saying everyone who listens to classical music or reads books not in Oprah's book club must be pretentious, as GRK believes. Or someone who never got past Algrebra 101 saying that math is stupid and boring and uninteresting.

    That would just be going by popular opinion/cultural trends/peer pressure/fear of being seen as a wanky hippie with crystals/fear not being taken seriously/etc.

    If astrology is capable of using a set of knowns and making correct predictions about the future consistently then I withdraw my opinion.

    That's exactly what astrology is. And I'm not talking about 'fortune-telling'.

    There are other reliable tools out there besides just physics and chemistry and the like.

    But just like everything else (religion, politics, etc., all stuff that is neither good nor bad until human flaws get mixed up in it, hard science included) shit gets corrupted by the people who bend things towards their own ends.

    And we end up with the dumb monthly horoscopes in the back of the weekly paper, thus astrology becomes a joke and impossible to take seriously.

    ReplyDelete
  120. Anyway, if you like Aronofsky or have an interest in math and/or pre-Madonna Kabbalah, check out Pi.

    Really want to see Black Swan. I have a ballet fetish.

    ReplyDelete
  121. there's something sexy about being manipulated. it makes me angry though too. I can be pretty resistant when i want to be.

    wow, vinegar! Poor girl. :(

    ReplyDelete
  122. Unmasked, guessing a person's natal sign is somewhat of a party trick face to face. In this forum, it's near impossible. However, given someone's exact birth data there is lots to be known. The variables that occur after birth and things like free will have a large impact too. Astrology can be a tool for learning something about potentials, but it's no where near absolute.

    ReplyDelete
  123. Much like the so-called 'sociopath gene'.

    ReplyDelete
  124. I'm sure some of you remember the woman here recently, who is a twin. She and her sister are going to have pretty much identical charts, yet look how different the two are.

    ReplyDelete
  125. i agree, it would be hypocritical of me to dismiss something i haven't studied first. It goes against the idea of being reasonable and rational.

    I dismiss religion because i studied it and lived it. I dismiss superstitions cos i know where they originate and they are nonsense and lived it vicariously through my parents and other family.
    I can't dismiss astrology since i've not studied it. - i just don't have any interest in studying it either. I think that far more can be achieved through learning about the insides of our bodies.

    And as for free will, it doesn't exist. We do as we do because it is being done already in our mind before we even recognise what it is.
    The absence of free will in that sense alone, debunks religious belief.

    ReplyDelete
  126. I wish I knew the title of the book my astrology friend loaned to me. She gave it to me and I was all like "bah, fuck this hippie wishful-thinking bullshit" but then I read it and found a lot of value.

    Written in a very scientific manner wrapped up in a lot of well-informed psychology. Pretty scholarly reading, actually.

    Fuck that 'Love Signs' crap and shit like that.

    ReplyDelete
  127. Notme, are you saying that sub-concioius is pulling the reigns?

    ReplyDelete
  128. The basis from which all religions have sprung is not bunk, though.

    When people get all churchy and literal and worshipful and idolizing then shit is fucked. Even the Bible says that. Even Jesus says that. Fools don't even listen to that which they worship.

    This is what Kierkegaard's whole deal with Christianity is. I was raised nothing (parents were raised with contrasting religions), still am nothing, but he's one of my favorites because he pushes past that crap.

    ReplyDelete
  129. Okay, this is my opinion and just my opinion.

    Just because you sub-conscious has made a decision before your consciousness is aware of it, doesn't mean that you didn't have free will in the decision.

    That may not be what you were saying, Notme.

    I've been trying to distract myself from the fact that my eardrum is threatening to rupture from infection, but I think I'm going to throw in the towel and lay down.

    ReplyDelete
  130. i assume so.
    This is a long thing i just saw and didn't read, but i skimmed over it and saw it says how not believing in free will can make you more antisocial. anyhow.
    here's a link to that. i'll try to find something on free will, that's more succinct to link too as well. (I like succinctness) :)

    enjoy the read, i couldn't be bothered

    ReplyDelete
  131. hope you feel better Aerianne

    'Just because you sub-conscious has made a decision before your consciousness is aware of it, doesn't mean that you didn't have free will in the decision.

    That may not be what you were saying, Notme.'

    Actually, that's pretty much what i was saying.

    I should be the first person to protest at all the things i find offensive about human behaviour, but i can't at the end of the day pretend that i believe those actions are open to a HUGE amount of change.
    I know from my own experience. I think that idea of free will boils down to impulse control; how much control do we have? it varies from person to person, and the impulses vary from what is deemed acceptable, commendable and heinous by society.
    It's not about impulse control in my opinion. It's about the value jugdements attached to those impulses by society.

    i hope i'm being understood and not going off-point.

    ReplyDelete
  132. i tried to put up a shorter one but it won't stick and goes to spam.
    sorry.

    ReplyDelete
  133. Thanks, Notme. I'll look at it tomorrow. I may read along in the comments for a while yet but I'm beyond trying to think or communicate deep thoughts tonight.

    ReplyDelete
  134. astrology person whats a taurus???

    ReplyDelete
  135. That's fine Aerianne. Hope your ear sorts itself out. :)

    astrology person left.

    I dunno, but the taureans i know are lovely people.
    It's an earth sign. I wouldn't say that they are overly emotional (the ones i know), or at least, if they are, they contain it quite well.
    that's all i know. hmph. (got that from Amelia, i'm such a copycat)

    ReplyDelete
  136. My astrological sign actually fits me pretty almost to the T. The shear volume of astrology posts yesterday off on a whim probably angered me more than it should have.

    It was nice to see Mr. Tremblay come here, even if it was to shake his fist. I wish the Aspie woman from the other day did. What a tool, she was.

    Calling a sociopath a bigot. There's just too much humor in that.

    ReplyDelete
  137. Note, so, what are you?

    ReplyDelete
  138. UPDATE: This entry has been linked to by some bigot who calls me an “abnormal mentality.” All I can say is, don’t encourage the trolls (which is why I will not post a link to his blog).

    Lols. Never knew that being abnormal was an insult, especially coming from someone whose blog header makes the glib (read: obvious and teenage) statement about sheeple.

    ReplyDelete
  139. Res: apparently liberals have a smaller amygdala than conservatives.
    Conservatives & Disgust Response and Liberal Gene

    Medusa, Yes I have seen pi. It was okay. They took artsy-bad photography to a new level, but the story was fun.

    ReplyDelete
  140. My sentiments exactly, Pythias. (On Pi)

    ReplyDelete
  141. Well, Pi had basically no budget at all (minuscule, that is), as films go.

    And it was Aronofsky's first feature film, which he made in his 20's.

    ReplyDelete
  142. Haven't seen it since it came out in '98, I do wonder how I would see it now.

    ReplyDelete
  143. I liked it better when I was 18 than when I was 23, so I will avoid continuing the trend. :)

    ReplyDelete
  144. I enjoyed a lot of movies more when I was younger. There are few movies I enjoy watching more than once. Kubrick films are typically in the category, as are Cronenberg and Lynch.

    Cronenberg has the ability to paint characters as larger than life through actions as opposed to personality and perceived station, something which most films don't incorporate. They can sometimes be delightfully conflicted, yet coldly pragmatic.

    ReplyDelete
  145. I've only seen The Fly (from whence my love for Jeff Goldblum was spawned) and Naked Lunch.

    ReplyDelete
  146. I saw pi in the theater after a bad car accident. I liked it. I'm a scoffer at astrology because of the way that the dates have gotten off the alignment if the stars and the thirteenth sign the sun passes through. But...*hmph*....this was the last place I expected it... And....I'll concede that I see how it can be fun.
    WV-"etical" HAHA
    Edit: screwed up the first WV, new one "pooty" sums up my astrology views. But I have been wrong often.

    ReplyDelete
  147. Amelia, you're referring to Ophiucus?

    ReplyDelete
  148. hey Amelia

    I used your lovely hmph today. Hope that's ok!

    Hehe

    ReplyDelete
  149. Sociopath quote - I always tell the truth, even when i lie.

    ReplyDelete
  150. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  151. My teacher once told me how you can tell a persons personality from looking at them walk, which is true. If you walk around with you're head down, that's were you think you should be. You can always spot the narcissists, the head held high, smug passive aggressive look on their faces. The paranoids will be looking behind their back and from left to right. I can't speak on the sociopath, perhaps similar to the narc?

    ReplyDelete
  152. I'm hacking up a lung. That's my cigarette alarm clock. :P

    ReplyDelete
  153. My soon-to-be-ex is both narcissistic and a sociopath, and it seems to depend a lot on circumstance which type takes the lead. He is also a Virgo, and he walks like he owns the world when he's in a good mood, and shuffles like a kicked dog when he's not, but I am never sure if either mode is genuine. I suspect Kicked Dog Mode may be a manipulation, like so much of his personality has proven to be.

    ReplyDelete
  154. Be suicidal - Pisces
    Be the old lady with the 30 cats - Gemini
    Be the rich tycoon - Capricorn
    The angel - Libra
    The victim - Cancer
    Lose their house - Leo
    Good Luck - Aquarius
    Bad luck - Virgo
    Be a Demon - Aries
    Be the secretive one - Scorpio
    Be a sociopath - Virgo
    Be a pyscopath - Leo/Scorpio
    Be gay - Leo/Libra
    Get raped - Cancer
    Get flagged on Youtube - Sagittarius
    Be addicted to the internet - Gemini/Aquarius
    Be a drug addict - Libra
    Be a alcoholic - Aquarius
    Join the army - Taurus/Leo
    Be class rep - Aries
    Not think about situations - Sagittarius
    Over analyze situations - Aquarius
    Marry a lot of men/woman - Aquarius/Libra/Leo
    Curse out someone - Aries/Sagittarius.

    ReplyDelete
  155. Cool. I am a Demon class rep who will curse someone out.

    ReplyDelete
  156. The owner of the anarchy blog totally 'moderated' one of my comments for logically and calmly pointing out his own bigotry, hippocracy and mis-interpretation of the word "abnormal" and for the simple statement of "know your enemy".

    Another one bites the dust.

    ReplyDelete
  157. Medusa, I like that ME doesn't moderate his blog and choose posts to remove.

    ReplyDelete
  158. I told him that classifying a sociopath as "The Enemy" was about as absurd as saying your in-laws were. It's a person to person basis.

    I so got moderated :P

    I can understand if someone is moderating to get rid of trolls or poo flingers, but getting rid of something like that just shows he insecure or scared he is. Moderation is doses, and such.

    I don't think ME would want to moderate his blog. Too many commenters, and even commenters reply to the trolls/poo flingers, so he'd be editing out a lot, all things considered.

    ReplyDelete
  159. I also pointed out to him that he was the one who trolled this blog. We didn't troll his, we were actually trying to have a discussion!

    The trolls are an important part of sociopathworld, I'd say, so I'm glad it's not moderated here.

    Moderation is picking and choosing your own reality to fit in with your own already preconceived world and trying to force it down other's throats.

    What a sad life, the unexamined one.

    ReplyDelete
  160. I know Francois, he hates everyone. Anarchism is about freedom, obviously. I don't know about the rest of you, but I would totally go Pat Bateman on Kim Kardashian, and whomever else was in the room with her at the same time I execute my plans.

    Now, besides the instruments of torture, what should my main weapon be? I'm picky; a Falcata, or an FN FAL? <-You can get those in the States (some of them).

    ReplyDelete
  161. Robert Hares credibility should of been taking away from him a long time ago with all the bullshit he's written.
    Also you guys better be fucking joking about this star sign shit. retards

    ReplyDelete
  162. Pt. 1

    Anarchism is not about a lawless world. It's about creating a world that is as voluntary and non-coercive as possible. Most anarchists either believe in natural law theory or the Utilitarian equivalent. In other words, they seek to stave off anomie (lawlessness, normlessness, a lack of social mores) by eliminating the ability of the state to collapse into anomie (by abolishing the state and instead having market demanded services like roads, law, courts, defense, etc. provided without a coerced monopoly over those things, and instead via competitive markets that invented them originally). This can exist in a total stateless free market, stateless market socialism, or even controlled markets under stateless communism. The economics are rather irrelevant, as long as they are voluntary for all participants. It can exist in democracy or not (I'm anti-democracy, for example).

    The state didn't invent law, roads, defense, etc. They existed as long as we had civilization (anthropologists have proven civilization - trade, roads, law, defense, policing services, etc. - existed for no less than 14,000 years, and the state only coercively monopolized them and brought itself into existence 6,000 years ago). Chaos theory shows why a state (a closed system) will always entropy and fail...which always ends in anomie (what chaos theory mostakenly refers to as "anarchy" - because like most people they falsely associate a lack of a state with chaos, and consider "anarchy" to be a synonym for "chaos"). Only open systems are perpetual, and that means a state cannot be perpetual, but anarchy (statelessness) can be.

    I'd also remark, based on the above, that failed states are not "anarchy". They are failed states. The anomie that ensures is not "anarchy" just because it is now stateless. Anarchism is an ENLIGHTENED transition to statelessness, not the abrupt collapse of states. That's why many anarchists reject violent revolution as a means to achieve statelessness. That, and we always help win the revolutions only to be deported, imprisoned, or executed afterwards by the new state that is put in place.

    Why statelessness failed was the inability of ancient people to understand game theory, chaos theory, and free markets. For example, the Icelandic Commonwealth (stateless) only failed because their basically free market court/legislative system (the Allthing) created barriers to entry. They stopped allowing new chieftans into the Allthing (chieftans could be chosen by any person regardless of where they or the chieftan lived...it wasn't territorial based law, but instead was contractual), which then led to no new social contracts being allowed to compete with the 30+ social contracts that already existed. That immediately caused blood feuds and war. And so it collapsed into a state (a single coercively monopolized social contract existing in a specific geographic territory). The Allthing lacked policing services (which is a good criticism), yet law was enforced no less successfully than today via ostracism (exclusion from services in the market if one refused to adhere to Allthing judgements). Most anarchists today suggest policing services to enforce contractual law and arbitration decisions can exist competitively like any other market demanded service.

    ReplyDelete
  163. Pt. 2

    The state is simply a mafia. It extorts people (taxes), and kidnaps (arrests) anyone who resists the extortion. They send paid thugs (police) to put you in chains and cages (prisons) for resisting. They claim without them you'd be unsafe...like every mafia does in a protection racket (racketeering). There is no diffterence between mafia and the state, except the state is the most powetrful mafia in a specific geographic area and has declared all competing mafias illegal. But other than that, there is substantive difference. Nationalism (often mistaken for patriotism) is just a cult that brainwashes people to worship the false god (the state). The fact most slaves love their slave master is not evidence of their freedom.

    All BS aside, I'm an anarchist. I reject the moral legitimacy of the state, and reject its efficacy or efficiency at what it does. All coercive monopolies do the same 3 things: increase costs, decrease quality of service, and have no accountability. The state is not immune to that. If you want to know how roads, defense, laws, etc. are provided in a sustainable fashion in a stateless society, then read some books on the subject. There are MANY books written about each one.

    I'd point out psychologists have shown that compulsory hierarchies always create breeding grounds for the success of sociopaths. High ranking politicians, high ranking military officers, high ranking cops, etc., are morel ikely to be sociopaths than the average population by factors of several degrees. They are drawn to the state because it is a way to be totally unaccountable for their actions. They are essentially above the law. The state breaks all it's own laws, afterall. They extort, steal, murder, etc., all with sanction of the "law". Whereas 2-5% of the general population are sociopaths, that can be as high as 25% in high ranking state positions like Congress, Presidency etc. One psychology article I read said some 80% of Presidents may have been sociopaths. The more laws they pass the more tyranny, but that is how most people measure "success" in politics.

    Sociopaths rise to the top of coercive hierarchies like helium balloons rise to the ceilings of rooms. Another way to look at it, sociopaths are drawn to the state like flies to shit. What's ironic, sociopaths could form their own social contracts together in anarchy. They could make murder legal, theft legal, etc., provided they only perpetrated those things against fellow contract mates (those who voluntarily agrteed to those rules). So, as usual, the short-sighted nature of sociopathy makes the sociopath shoot themself in the foot.

    ReplyDelete
  164. Pt. 3

    An anarchist CAN be a sociopath (look at Max Stirner and his belief there is no such thing as morality, that 'might makes right', and no rights except might and contract should exist, for example.). But most anarchists see ourselves as natural enemies to sociopaths and those who worship them (the state and statists). We wish to take away the mechanism by which they cause widespread democide, extortion, and the rest of human atrocities. We don't seek to stop them from being parasitic, we just seek to make that parsitism voluntary only. Too often people who wish to have a voluntary and less coercive society (Voluntaryists/anarchists) are labeled "anti-social", when logically it is their detractors (supporters of statism) that are the anti-social individuals. I mean, even Nazis had table manners when they weren't murdering people. Most statists are just too intellectually lazy, or egocentric and comfortable in their delusions, to actually educate themselves to workable alternatives to statism. It's simply too much effort for them, and too likely to disrupt their own self image and view of the world, for them to research the history of statism and stateless societies, and see why statelessness failed in primitive times but is less likely to fail in today's world.

    One thing is for sure: chaos theory shows addded complexity in a closed system will lead to entropy. So if the state is to exist for more than another few centuries they had better ban innovations in technology and limit birth rates by law....or they are doomed to fail because those things are the chief ways complexity is added. But then again, banning/limiting those two things would lead to other problems (like massive starvation and mass murder for those who get accidentally pregant and actively refuse abortions).

    There is a reason Nietzsche called the state "the coldest of all cold monsters"...because it's often run by them.

    ReplyDelete
  165. if Max Stirner were alive today I would let him fuck me in the ass

    ReplyDelete

Comments on posts over 14 days are SPAM filtered and may not show up right away or at all.

Join Amazon Prime - Watch Over 40,000 Movies

.

Comments are unmoderated. Blog owner is not responsible for third party content. By leaving comments on the blog, commenters give license to the blog owner to reprint attributed comments in any form.