it's sad, and i don't mean that dismissively. i can imagine an alternative universe where consuela didn't get sucked into this blackpill despair.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5718073&forum_id=2Elisa#48890379)

you're describing obsessive-compulsive disorder

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5718073&forum_id=2Elisa#48890473)

Obsessions are defined by (1) and (2)

1. Recurrent and persistent thoughts, urges or images that are experienced, at some time during the disturbance, as intrusive, unwanted, and that in most individuals cause marked anxiety or distress.

2. The individual attempts to ignore or suppress such thoughts, urges, or images, or to neutralize them with some thought or action (i.e., by performing a compulsion).

Compulsions are defined by (1) and (2):

1. Repetitive behaviors (e.g., hand washing, ordering checking) or mental acts (e.g., praying, counting, repeating words silently) that the person feels driven to perform in response to an obsession, or according to the rules that must be applied rigidly.

2. The behaviors or mental acts are aimed at preventing or reducing distress or preventing some dreaded event or situation. However, these behaviors or mental acts either are not connected in a realistic way with what they are designed to neutralize or prevent or are clearly excessive.

*****The obsessions or compulsions are time consuming (e.g., take more than 1 hour per day) or cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.*****

With good or fair insight: The individual recognizes that obsessive-compulsive beliefs are definitely or probably not true or that they may or may not be true.

With poor insight: The individual thinks obsessive-compulsive disorder beliefs are probably true.

*****With absent insight/delusional beliefs: The individual is completely convinced that obsessive-compulsive disorder beliefs are true.*****

***

you are obsessed with your conspiracies, which you believe are absolutely true, and don't tolerate any disagreement. to assuage the anxiety about these obsessions you come here and substack to spew them. neither of these compulsive behaviors are calculated to resolve your distress, you just feel it alleviates them. you are completely convinced that your beliefs are true.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5718073&forum_id=2Elisa#48890514)

You are confusing OCD with individuation. This can’t really be explained to someone who isn’t involved in the process, but it basically involves subsuming the ego to an extent to follow one’s intuition. This is a process of listening and following, not the type of stuff you’re describing

And having moral perfection as a standard doesn’t bother me, people utterly failing to meet that standard is what bothers me

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5718073&forum_id=2Elisa#48890522)

believing that you, or anyone, should have a standard of "moral perfection" or that you are achieving that is also delusional. we're in one of the many threads you make shitting on people's love life. a morally perfect person would not wallow in the perceived despair of others.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5718073&forum_id=2Elisa#48890535)

My life is going fine objectively and is not disastrous to ordinary life functioning, I just approach things completely different from how you do, judging how often you and I don’t see eye to eye

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5718073&forum_id=2Elisa#48890549)

how would you define your "moral perfection" standard?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5718073&forum_id=2Elisa#48890553)

this standard isn't possible to meet in this reality as one has to consume other living creatures in order to survive - a cornucopia, an orgy of endless violence against others. even plants emit a wavelength when they are being eaten, screaming. this forms a big part of my gnostic/demiurgic views

so substantial hypocrisy is baked into living. at least we can be more aware of it

separately, i also get to know people better by challenging them, as i feel fundamentally divorced from most human perspectives. this is reflected in my astrology ascendant degree, which i referenced to you previously:

"Your psychological nature is bilious with aggressive impulses that spur the transformation of your being and of any situation you are involved in.

You are constantly struggling to assert yourself. You cannot refrain from testing others with cutting remarks, not because you want to hurt them, but because you want to know them better through their reaction; life and the feeling of aliveness are experienced through rebellion and tension.

Your aggressive attitude may equate with sly inquisition as often, you remain silent, introverted and secretive, mulling over turbulent thoughts in the depths of your mind, leaving others puzzled by your quite strange behaviour."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5718073&forum_id=2Elisa#48890564)

assuming you wish for people to accept despite disagreeing with you in some areas, why can't you tolerate it in others? or, because you like to get to know people by testing them, do you treat them as if they do too, even if you know that they don't?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5718073&forum_id=2Elisa#48890598)

I don’t understand your second paragraph question

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5718073&forum_id=2Elisa#48890606)

"or, because you like to get to know people by testing them, do you treat them as if they do too, even if you know that they don't?"

do you interpret the golden rule to mean "treat people as you'd like to be treated, even if you know that they don't want to be treated that way?"

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5718073&forum_id=2Elisa#48890721)

and as far as xo, if you limit yourself, then you must recognize that poasts like this deviate from your moral perfection. and that "i apply the golden rule if i like them" is a pretty weak justification.

it's odd that you're bringing up striving for moral perfection in a thread where you're mocking someone and i'm trying to figure out why you celebrate other misfortune. if that's what you were striving for then when someone brings it up you'd cop to deviating from it rather than rationalize it.

note: i'm not trying to socratize you and lead you to some conclusion i already have with leading questions. and i'm certainly not clutching my pearls about being mean to people on xo.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5718073&forum_id=2Elisa#48890761)

i'm just trying to nail down an answer for this: do you interpret the golden rule to mean "treat people as you'd like to be treated, even if you know that they don't want to be treated that way?"

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5718073&forum_id=2Elisa#48890818)

"do you interpret the golden rule to mean "treat people as you'd like to be treated, even if you know that they don't want to be treated that way?""

no.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5718073&forum_id=2Elisa#48890827)

accept these premises just for the sake of argument:

1) you aspire to not treat those in a way they do not wish to be treated

2) rsf does not enjoy being mocked on xo

if you mock him you are deviating from your moral framework. the context of xo doesn't matter anymore than sinning in sodom matters. you're just going to a place where your deviation is acceptable.

my question is whether you intentionally deviate from your framework on xo as an outlet deviating?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5718073&forum_id=2Elisa#48890940)

the premise is:

1) i aspire to not treat those in a way they do not wish to be treated

2) one wants to engage in free speech by posting on xo with all that entails

3) one may also not want to be teased, but accepts that as the cost of #2 (i.e. there may be conflicting motivations)

4) i engage in a balancing between #2 and #3, siding with #2 unless #3 is clearly established

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5718073&forum_id=2Elisa#48890950)

sinning in sodom is still sinning. you aren't chaste if you are debauch at a whorehouse.

of course no one is perfect, but being intellectually dishonest about whether this might be a deviation tells me it's unlikely you're as "hard on yourself" about "moral perfection" as you think you are, but instead engage in these solipsisms to avoid genuine self-reflection.

again, i'm not judging your behavior here or clutching my pearls about you being mean to people on xo. but i do think your level of engagement here indicates you're you've crafted a network of cope to rationalize your behavior and prop up your delusions. being mean to someone on xo is the equivalent of having an oreo while dieting. if you can't admit you're indulging and deviating from you own framework deep in a subthread wasteland on an anonymous chatblog, it's unlikely you're being honest with yourself w/r/t stuff that matters.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5718073&forum_id=2Elisa#48891002)

--

wow

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5718073&forum_id=2Elisa#48890632)