The Fascists That Surround You

[FirstAscent]

To borrow a page from FirstAscent: http://www.amazon.com/Sociopath-Next-Door-Martha-Stout/dp/0767915828/
Here's a quick run-down: www.bookbrowse.com/author_interviews/full/index.cfm/author_number/1097/martha-stout

I asked for a diagnosis from a qualified person. You provided books, not results of a diagnosis. The first reference does not address your premise. It does not serve as coherent evidence to prove that the names you cited were afflicted by sociopathy.

Sometimes you just know 'em when you see 'em….
Historical sociopaths: Hitler, Stalin, Rasputin, Eichmann, Pol Pot, John Gotti

That is not a diagnosis, that is an assumption without any reasonable explanation or evidence.

Did you read the book? It's available on Kindle, you could start reading it in less than a minute. Perhaps a little longer if you have to search Pirate bay.

Oh the irony. I'll accept this as nullification of everything you've ever said while in the absence of knowledge to be found in the books I recommended and which you pointedly refused to read because they would cost you effort to read. Don't make me point to all the posts where you complained about being asked to read a book that might require you to pay money or hike your ass down to the library.

Find the links and start reading.

I don't have a PhD. She does. He requested a diagnosis from a "qualified person." I am not such. She is. You, presumably, understand the subject you wish "educate" me on. That makes you qualified to explain it to me. I don't want scientific studies, I want your personal opinions on the matter. You know where you can stick them.

As you said, you perceive me to be qualified to educate you on these matters. That may be so, but I simply don't desire to be the equivalent of a two semester teacher for you, especially when there are several books written by those with PhDs on the subject. And thank you for valuing my personal opinion. However, again, it would be better for both of us if you read the books I recommended.

[1715227834]

1715227834

[myrkul]

There it was again. This one sounded a little more moist... I think someone should check their pants.

[FirstAscent]

Ah, the pleasantries of being ignored by gas bags. They have to admit to unignoring you to comment on the content of your post. Otherwise, we can discuss their stupidity amongst our peers without having to listen to their responses which inevitably contain circular logic and hypocrisy. Furthermore, the public can read our analysis of the ignorer's posts without having to deal with the ridiculousness of their retorts.

It's like being able to listen to a gang of thugs planning their next crime and comment on it without them being aware.

[myrkul]

Man, it's starting to get stinky in here. Talk about gasbag.

[augustocroppo]

Straw Man occurs when an opponent takes the original argument of his/her adversary and then offers a close imitation, or straw man, version of the original argument

My version of your original argument:

Straw man.
Which you then attempted to defeat, in typical AugustoCrappo style, with dictionary definitions.

Yes there is: your claim that what I am saying is that fascism = sociopaths.

Please, quote the post where I claimed you were 'saying ... that fascism = sociopaths'. Failure to provide the quote with that claim will prove that you are intentionally distorting the subject with false allegation of a logical fallacy. If you think I had changed any previous post, I allow you to ask Theymos for the original post.

Where roses exist in gardens, they are the centerpiece.
Where sociopaths exist in governments, they are in the leadership positions.

Who decide the 'roses' are the centerpiece?

I'm now strongly of the opinion that you are deficient in some way, and cannot understand analogies.

It is quite difficult to understand stupid analogies, but is not impossible.

Of course they can be found in other political regimes! I never argued otherwise.

So why you are insisting that I made a straw man argument? The argument which you qualify as straw man is exactly what you are admitting above.

I ignored it because it was based on a false premise. A flawed understanding of my analogy. I continue to ignore it for the same reason, just as I ignore your attempt at diversion.

You affirmed that you explained your analogy in 'great details'. So why cannot you explain this interesting small detail:

This beg the question: who is the subject under the 'temptation' to add political leaders sociopaths to the political structure? Where this 'temptation' come from?

Failure to answer the above question will prove that you did not explained anything in 'great details'.

No, but they know that they enjoy exercising power over others, doing whatever they want, and avoiding consequences. Politics is a great way to achieve these ends, and their ability to lie convincingly, their "glibness and superficial charm," their manipulative nature, afford them a means to achieve political power. A sociopath makes a great political candidate. I notice you skipped the listing of diagnostic criteria... good choice, since I could provide specific examples of politicians displaying nearly every one of them.

There is consequences! The sociopaths are not able to control the ability to lie. Therefore, would be quite difficult to a sociopath become elected. Do you even understand that? Do you even understand that to elect a politician is necessary a long campaign of alliances, agreements, promises, debates, speech, etc.?

I notice you skipped the listing of diagnostic criteria... good choice, since I could provide specific examples of politicians displaying nearly every one of them.

In accordance with your delusional assumption, the above characters had:

Well, let's run down the list, shall we?

Glibness and Superficial Charm

Yup.

Manipulative and Conning

Yup.

Pathological Lying

Yup.

Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt

Yup.

Shallow Emotions

Yup.

Incapacity for Love

Hmm. No proof of this one.

Need for Stimulation

Yup.

Callousness/Lack of Empathy

Yup.

Poor Behavioral Controls/Impulsive Nature

Yup.

Early Behavior Problems/Juvenile Delinquency

Yup.

Irresponsibility/Unreliability

Yup.

Promiscuous Sexual Behavior/Infidelity

Oh hell yes.

Lack of Realistic Life Plan/Parasitic Lifestyle

Don't you know it.

Criminal or Entrepreneurial Versatility

Yup.

Did you read the book? It's available on Kindle, you could start reading it in less than a minute. Perhaps a little longer if you have to search Pirate bay.

It was written by a Dr. of Psychology. The explanation and evidence is rarely to be found in an interview... but it is to be found in the book. Regardless, when a Dr. of Psychology says someone is a sociopath, that is a diagnosis. If your doctor told you you had cancer, would you call it an "assumption without any reasonable explanation or evidence?"

Of course I did not read the book! I will not read a whole book to satisfy your delusions. I asked for a diagnosis, not for a book. If the book contains the diagnosis, all you have to do is to quote the relevant parts and post here.

If your doctor told you you had cancer, would you call it an "assumption without any reasonable explanation or evidence?"

I would ask to see the diagnosis.

Please, just admit that you stuck your foot in your mouth by responding without watching the video, and for fuck's sake, stop chewing!

You can beg as much you wish, but I will not admit anything at all.

[myrkul]

Whoah! That one was the biggest of them all! I think we need to crack a window or something, or we may suffocate.

Especially this part:

Please, just admit that you stuck your foot in your mouth by responding without watching the video, and for fuck's sake, stop chewing!

You can beg as much you wish, but I will not admit anything at all.

The whole post, just so much hot, stinky wind.

[augustocroppo]

You've now made four posts in a row like that. One or two wouldn't call too much attention to yourself, but you've made four in a row. In each, you never actually demonstrate any substantive thought process, argument, logic, or provision of fact.

That is why I made a special thread to expose Rudd-O:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=125825.0

[myrkul]

You've now made four posts in a row like that. One or two wouldn't call too much attention to yourself, but you've made four in a row. In each, you never actually demonstrate any substantive thought process, argument, logic, or provision of fact.

That is why I made a special thread to expose Rudd-O:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=125825.0

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=126403.0

[augustocroppo]

Whoah! That one was the biggest of them all! I think we need to crack a window or something, or we may suffocate.

Especially this part:

Please, just admit that you stuck your foot in your mouth by responding without watching the video, and for fuck's sake, stop chewing!

You can beg as much you wish, but I will not admit anything at all.

The whole post, just so much hot, stinky wind.

This is willful ignorance. I suggest you at least prove that I made a straw argument. Otherwise, I will have a reason to expose you as I had made with Rudd-O.

[myrkul]

Whoah! That one was the biggest of them all! I think we need to crack a window or something, or we may suffocate.

Especially this part:

Please, just admit that you stuck your foot in your mouth by responding without watching the video, and for fuck's sake, stop chewing!

You can beg as much you wish, but I will not admit anything at all.

The whole post, just so much hot, stinky wind.

This is willful ignorance. I suggest you at least prove that I made a straw argument. Otherwise, I will have a reason to expose you as I had made with Rudd-O.

Ooooh, that's a threat. I'm scared, now. Whatever will I do if you make a thread about me?

Willful ignorance, huh? Like refusing to watch a video before commenting on it's content?

[augustocroppo]

You've now made four posts in a row like that. One or two wouldn't call too much attention to yourself, but you've made four in a row. In each, you never actually demonstrate any substantive thought process, argument, logic, or provision of fact.

That is why I made a special thread to expose Rudd-O:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=125825.0

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=126403.0

Thank you by the free publicity! I had more people reading the threads after your failed attempt to censor my expression.

[augustocroppo]

Ooooh, that's a threat. I'm scared, now. Whatever will I do if you make a thread about me?

Willful ignorance, huh? Like refusing to watch a video before commenting on it's content?

You are intentionally refusing to prove that your allegation is right. Moreover, I already provided quotes from references to substantiate this debate. This is completely different than ask to someone watch a video or read a whole book. Different from you, I raise arguments based on reliable evidence, which anyone can easily verify.

You can pretend that you are not scared, but you know that if I do a thread for you like I did for Rudd-O you will be affected. You know this because you have already appealed to the moderators to intervene for Rudd-O.

[augustocroppo]

Ooooh, that's a threat. I'm scared, now. Whatever will I do if you make a thread about me?

Willful ignorance, huh? Like refusing to watch a video before commenting on it's content?

Oh, my initial questions do not have anything to do with the video content, but the implication made by the original poster:

These two videos discuss the prevalence of sociopaths in society, how they disguise themselves, and the lengths they'll go to in order to avoid detection.

The Fascists That Surround You - Part 1
The Fascists That Surround You - Part 2: Sociopaths

What fascism have anything to do with sociopaths?

I required an explanation from an user and your intervened with a stupid analogy which did not explained the relationship of fascism and sociopathy. When I deconstructed your analogy, you proceeded to stir up the discussion with an allegation of logical fallacy. That means the debate is not about the video content, but about a relationship of fascism and sociopathy which you failed to explain.

[myrkul]

Ooooh, that's a threat. I'm scared, now. Whatever will I do if you make a thread about me?

Willful ignorance, huh? Like refusing to watch a video before commenting on it's content?

You are intentionally refusing to prove that your allegation is right. Moreover, I already provided quotes from references to substantiate this debate. This is completely different than ask to someone watch a video or read a whole book. Different from you, I raise arguments based on reliable evidence, which anyone can verify easily.

You quoted a dictionary. Good for you. That doesn't argue against the fact that you will find Sociopaths in governments, and that fascist governments provide a very tempting target for sociopaths to seek, since it offers them quite a bit of control over others, which is exactly what they like.

Your assertion that sociopaths couldn't get elected because they can't stop lying is particularly laughable. Plug this into Google: "How do you know when a politician is lying?"

You can pretend that you are not scared, but you know that if I do a thread for you like I did for Rudd-O you will be affected. You know this because you have already appealed to the moderators intervene for Rudd-O.

Where, exactly, did I ask the moderators to delete your threads?

That means the debate is not about the video content, but about a relationship of fascism and sociopathy which you failed to explain.

I did explain it. Fascism attracts sociopaths. Thus, you will find sociopaths in fascistic power structures.

[Rudd-O]

Ignore the walkie stalkie augustocreepo.  He feeds on attention.  Don't feed him.  Your life is far too valuable to be reading the garbage they spew.  Simply add him to your ignore list, and then (whenever he posts on any thread you've posted) make a one-line note saying you're ignoring him because he's a provocateur / asshole / saboteur / et cetera, and inviting others to do the same.

[TheButterZone]

or



You choose.

[myrkul]

Ignore the walkie stalkie augustocreepo.  He feeds on attention.  Don't feed him.

I use the ignore feature more like a downvote. I occasionally interact with people on my "shit-list," but having them on ignore gives me the option of not even seeing their drivel unless I want to, which is nice.

[Rudd-O]

Ignore the walkie stalkie augustocreepo.  He feeds on attention.  Don't feed him.

I use the ignore feature more like a downvote. I occasionally interact with people on my "shit-list," but having them on ignore gives me the option of not even seeing their drivel unless I want to, which is nice.

Well, the thing is, when you interact with them, they (and possibly others) interpret your behavior as validation of their shitty conduct.  Not to mention that the thread becomes about THEIR garbage, rather than the topic at hand.  That's why it's superior, more effective, better on your time expenditure, to ignore them, and then making short notes warning other people not to interact with the shitheads.

[myrkul]

Ignore the walkie stalkie augustocreepo.  He feeds on attention.  Don't feed him.

I use the ignore feature more like a downvote. I occasionally interact with people on my "shit-list," but having them on ignore gives me the option of not even seeing their drivel unless I want to, which is nice.

Well, the thing is, when you interact with them, they (and possibly others) interpret your behavior as validation of their shitty conduct.  Not to mention that the thread becomes about THEIR garbage, rather than the topic at hand.  That's why it's superior, more effective, better on your time expenditure, to ignore them, and then making short notes warning other people not to interact with the shitheads.

Good point.

You choose.

My vote is the latter option. Crappo can't even parse an analogy right.

[augustocroppo]

You quoted a dictionary. Good for you. That doesn't argue against the fact that you will find Sociopaths in governments, and that fascist governments provide a very tempting target for sociopaths to seek, since it offers them quite a bit of control over others, which is exactly what they like.

There is no target, there is no tempting. Sociopaths are individuals afflicted by a psychological disorder, which does affect them and the people around them. Sociopaths are not the occasional liars. Politicians are the occasional liars.

Your assertion that sociopaths couldn't get elected because they can't stop lying is particularly laughable. Plug this into Google: "How do you know when a politician is lying?"

That is the first entry...

How can you tell when a politician is lying?
Jokes and Riddles Questions
Answers.com > Wiki Answers > Categories > Humor & Amusement > Jokes and Riddles

Best Answer
The standard answer to the joke is, "His lips are moving."

The deal seems to be that getting elected is a different job than actually being in the position. Circumstances are more real and have contraints that are not necessarily visible from outside the office.

(facebook) family feud answers:

1 eyes
2 sweating
3 stutters
4 smile
5 lips are moving (haha!)

...and that the second:

Politicians lie because the public wants to be lied to

The reasons politicians lie is because the public doesn't want to hear the truth. People want to hear what they want to hear. When two candidates are running and one of the tells the truth and the other says what the public wants to hear, the one who says what the public wants to hear wins the election. Thus, and there are exceptions to this, if you want to win an election, you better start lying, because the guy who's telling you the truth doesn't have a chance.

Politicians indeed lie to satisfy the public and obtain an advantage over their opponents.

That is occasional lying, not pathological lying:

http://goaskalice.columbia.edu/liar-liar-pants-fire-am-i-pathological-liar

Liar, liar, pants on fire: Am I a pathological liar? | related questions
Originally Published: August 22, 2003 - Last Updated / Reviewed On: May 8, 2009

Dear Reader,

Truth be told, little research has been done on pathological lying. Though there's no exact medical definition, pathological lying is characterized by the following:

Lies are unplanned and impulsive.
Behavior is repeated over a long period of time.
Lies don't seem to exist for any external reason.
Behavior may not always be a conscious act.
Lies are admitted, changed, and/or adapted if a false story is challenged.

Pathological lying is one of the symptoms of sociopathy:

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000921.htm

Causes
The causes of antisocial personality disorder are unknown. Genetic factors and child abuse are believed to contribute to the development of this condition. People with an antisocial or alcoholic parent are at increased risk. Far more men than women are affected. The condition is common in people who are in prison.

Fire-setting and cruelty to animals during childhood are linked to the development of antisocial personality.

Symptoms
A person with antisocial personality disorder may:

Be able to act witty and charming
Be good at flattery and manipulating other people's emotions
Break the law repeatedly
Disregard the safety of self and others
Have problems with substance abuse
Lie, steal, and fight often
Not show guilt or remorse
Often be angry or arrogant

Alternative Names
Sociopathic personality; Sociopathy; Personality disorder - antisocial

Outlook (Prognosis)
Symptoms tend to peak during the late teenage years and early 20s. They sometimes improve on their own by a person's 40s.

Possible Complications
Complications can include imprisonment, drug abuse, violence, and suicide.

Sociopathy is a personality disorder. The actions of a sociopath would not allow them to become politicians. Sociopaths are not able to develop interpersonal relationships which is an essential characteristic of  politicians. Even if politicians lie to the public, they will have to tell the truth to someone, either in the office, at home or in a private meeting. Alliances, diplomacy, agreements, requirements, etc., all this requires a certain dose of truth. Sociopaths cannot provide this necessary dose of truth.

If a politician is correctly diagnosed as a sociopath, that does not imply that all politicians are sociopaths neither that all sociopaths aspire to become politicians. There is not an exclusive relationship.

Where, exactly, did I ask the moderators to delete your threads?

At no moment did  you ask the moderators to delete threads. That is called moderation, not censorship. I did not suggest that. You started a thread in the forum section asking: 'Can we stop this sort of idiocy?'

Who is 'we'? Were you not expecting the moderators to read your humble appeal?

It's not free speech, it's trolling. And isn't Meta supposed to be about the forum, and not the forum members?

Good try.

I did explain it. Fascism attracts sociopaths. Thus, you will find sociopaths in fascistic power structures.

You did not... You did not even explain in 'great details' the small detail:

Of course they do. But where roses exist inside a garden, they are the centerpiece (leadership, in our analogy), or often the entire theme of the garden (the entire power structure, in our example). You can have a garden without roses,  but the temptation to add a rosebush is constant (Fascistic governments attract sociopaths), and once you have one rosebush, you're well on your way to having a rose garden (sociopaths tend to take over any fascistic power structure they are introduced to).

This begs the question: who is the subject under the 'temptation' to add political leaders sociopaths to the political structure? Where does this 'temptation' come from?