Spork
Active member
Ravenscroft...
Grains of goodness or sanity? Well, I wish. He is behaving more...nice. Semi-reasonable. But it's not to be trusted. It's a lone Cheerio of reasonableness floating in a milk of desperate madness. He can be thought of in two ways:
A toddler, feeling forever abandoned by Mommy, both desperately seeking the next surrogate mother, and hating all the mothers (women) for his state. Capable of angry, violent tantrums, but with no concept or understanding that other humans have a perspective, they all only exist as things he interacts with. He would absolutely beat or kill anyone if he felt justified enough and have no remorse whatsoever. He claims to have done plenty of this while deployed, but I honestly cannot tell what is truth or what is delusion anymore. He told me a story that I had previously read as a news story from the POV of another soldier, as though it was his own story. He is adopting things he hears into his imaginary reality now. He claims to have killed lots of people. I don't think he has. But I think he fantasizes about having the chance. He often fantasizes about apocalypse and dystopian scenarios in which he thinks he would be some kind of survival leader that everyone turned to. He tells me I'll regret it, if I don't have his help "when the balloon goes up." But every time he has difficult feelings, he throws a tantrum. And he never takes accountability for anything.
The other analogy is that of dog, which is something I had thought of LONG before you ever sent me the message relevant to the notion. He is like a mean obnoxious dog, not any kind of a wolf. He would behave ok if someone responsible was holding his leash, though he'd still growl at my friends and pee on the rug and fart up the room. But left abandoned and feral, he really cannot survive on his own. He looked to me for everything like a well trained dog looks to their human for constant instruction or input. But, like a dog, when the owner/mother/master stops paying it attention, stops giving it proper work and exercise and interaction, turned destructive pretty fast...
He pretends, apparently fairly convincingly, to people in the world, that he is sane. I know him too well, and I am often baffled by the professional opportunities that come his way, the fact that people actually think he's competent. He does put on a show of confidence sometimes that can be convincing. Mostly because he simply won't be argued with. No one else has a right to a position of any sort, only him. He doesn't consider anybody else's viewpoint, he can't. Only his own. But there is an oddness to that...because in fact he can consider another viewpoint IF he steals it. If he takes my words or ideas and parrots or regurgitates them as his own, then he can accept them. But for something to hold value to him, it's got to be HIS. Otherwise it is just dismissed as incomprehensible gibberish nonsense. His eyes glaze, he talks over it, he refuses to hear.
He's a dog, pissing on everything, physical, ideological, and otherwise.
Many of his political beliefs come from his best friend, an old Army buddy and Fox News subscriber and fellow gun nut. I actually really like the guy. And I get why he thinks what he does, though I don't agree. But my ex, takes his friend's words and acts like he came up with his ideas all by himself and researched facts to back it all up. When questioned, he gets aggressive and insulting.
And gaslighting is one of the most oft-used tactics I've seen by those you call the Wingnuts. Anyone who attempts to disagree with them or bring facts to the table is "whining" or a "sore loser" or "emotional" or something. Or a "liberal pussy." Ad hominem for miles.
When you finally come to the conclusion, that you are utterly wasting your time trying to participate in a conversation with an irrational person who cannot be touched by facts, reality, concern for other people, logic, etc and you give up and block, delete, ignore, or stop engaging... They take it as proof they were right and had the more solid argument, because no one wants to debate it with them anymore.
Oh, regarding Tinkerbell... There was the one candidate running this time around that I say I "supported" and that was Misty Plowright. I did not volunteer, or put up a sign (apartment complex, won't allow me to) but I am a very social person online and in person, I socialize directly with hundreds of people, and I did make an effort to have lots of conversations about her and how great I thought she was, so people I talked to at least wound up knowing who she is and what she's about. Many said they'd vote for her because of me. Well, this area is home to some pretty hardcore righty politics, my county especially, so she did not win and we weren't shocked...but for a VERY grassroots candidate, and a transgendered one who lives openly poly in a Leather household, and challenging an entrenched establishment incumbent, running blue in a red district...she still got I think 31%. Hey. I clapped where everybody could hear. For all the good it did or didn't do! *shrug*
Grains of goodness or sanity? Well, I wish. He is behaving more...nice. Semi-reasonable. But it's not to be trusted. It's a lone Cheerio of reasonableness floating in a milk of desperate madness. He can be thought of in two ways:
A toddler, feeling forever abandoned by Mommy, both desperately seeking the next surrogate mother, and hating all the mothers (women) for his state. Capable of angry, violent tantrums, but with no concept or understanding that other humans have a perspective, they all only exist as things he interacts with. He would absolutely beat or kill anyone if he felt justified enough and have no remorse whatsoever. He claims to have done plenty of this while deployed, but I honestly cannot tell what is truth or what is delusion anymore. He told me a story that I had previously read as a news story from the POV of another soldier, as though it was his own story. He is adopting things he hears into his imaginary reality now. He claims to have killed lots of people. I don't think he has. But I think he fantasizes about having the chance. He often fantasizes about apocalypse and dystopian scenarios in which he thinks he would be some kind of survival leader that everyone turned to. He tells me I'll regret it, if I don't have his help "when the balloon goes up." But every time he has difficult feelings, he throws a tantrum. And he never takes accountability for anything.
The other analogy is that of dog, which is something I had thought of LONG before you ever sent me the message relevant to the notion. He is like a mean obnoxious dog, not any kind of a wolf. He would behave ok if someone responsible was holding his leash, though he'd still growl at my friends and pee on the rug and fart up the room. But left abandoned and feral, he really cannot survive on his own. He looked to me for everything like a well trained dog looks to their human for constant instruction or input. But, like a dog, when the owner/mother/master stops paying it attention, stops giving it proper work and exercise and interaction, turned destructive pretty fast...
He pretends, apparently fairly convincingly, to people in the world, that he is sane. I know him too well, and I am often baffled by the professional opportunities that come his way, the fact that people actually think he's competent. He does put on a show of confidence sometimes that can be convincing. Mostly because he simply won't be argued with. No one else has a right to a position of any sort, only him. He doesn't consider anybody else's viewpoint, he can't. Only his own. But there is an oddness to that...because in fact he can consider another viewpoint IF he steals it. If he takes my words or ideas and parrots or regurgitates them as his own, then he can accept them. But for something to hold value to him, it's got to be HIS. Otherwise it is just dismissed as incomprehensible gibberish nonsense. His eyes glaze, he talks over it, he refuses to hear.
He's a dog, pissing on everything, physical, ideological, and otherwise.
Many of his political beliefs come from his best friend, an old Army buddy and Fox News subscriber and fellow gun nut. I actually really like the guy. And I get why he thinks what he does, though I don't agree. But my ex, takes his friend's words and acts like he came up with his ideas all by himself and researched facts to back it all up. When questioned, he gets aggressive and insulting.
And gaslighting is one of the most oft-used tactics I've seen by those you call the Wingnuts. Anyone who attempts to disagree with them or bring facts to the table is "whining" or a "sore loser" or "emotional" or something. Or a "liberal pussy." Ad hominem for miles.
When you finally come to the conclusion, that you are utterly wasting your time trying to participate in a conversation with an irrational person who cannot be touched by facts, reality, concern for other people, logic, etc and you give up and block, delete, ignore, or stop engaging... They take it as proof they were right and had the more solid argument, because no one wants to debate it with them anymore.
Oh, regarding Tinkerbell... There was the one candidate running this time around that I say I "supported" and that was Misty Plowright. I did not volunteer, or put up a sign (apartment complex, won't allow me to) but I am a very social person online and in person, I socialize directly with hundreds of people, and I did make an effort to have lots of conversations about her and how great I thought she was, so people I talked to at least wound up knowing who she is and what she's about. Many said they'd vote for her because of me. Well, this area is home to some pretty hardcore righty politics, my county especially, so she did not win and we weren't shocked...but for a VERY grassroots candidate, and a transgendered one who lives openly poly in a Leather household, and challenging an entrenched establishment incumbent, running blue in a red district...she still got I think 31%. Hey. I clapped where everybody could hear. For all the good it did or didn't do! *shrug*
But certainly you've thought about the 90% of her "supporters" who, well, did nothing but (probably) give her their vote -- how much further could she have gone if merely one in ten had actually done a fraction what you did?
