I made several points. One, I assumed he was referring to me. I was wrong about that part. Two, him attributing moral repugnance to Juan, or me, as I incorrectly assumed, and I standby that claim.

So instead of just saying you were sorry and made a mistake, you felt the need to let everyone know that you were, nonetheless, right about what you think is the main or more important point. Ok.

Yep. Now, were you wrong?

.

See, it starts as an apology...

And segues straight to narcissism. With all due respect, your apologies are about as well-thought out at your narcissism theory. You actually only apologized for being wrong about who the comment was directed at but maintained you were completely correct about your main point. Do you really think anyone views such an apology as sincere?

So, I make it personal by asking you where you are on the spectrum and your response is to insinuate that that you have determined I am on the high end of the spectrum. How comical and sophomoric your psychological analysis is based on two short responses, one of which you could not even comprehend Was not directed to you at all.

No one likes others to be critical of their pet theories even if they are ridiculous. I guess you could have simply ignored the criticism but, if I understand your theory and analysis, that is not part of your psychological ability.

Well, I'm not going to retract my main point becasue I was wrong about who you were referring to, I still want to engage on that point, but you and M2B seem to want to make it about me. That's deflection.


You actually made it personal by associating moral repugnance to Juan, and you keep wanting to talk about me. And I did not determine that, I said it was an indicator (i.e. red flag). Are you going to admit you were wrong about the bold?

Seems you were critical, I pushed back (it is a discussion forum), and you don't want to discuss your criticism now, and instead want to talk about me. That's deflection.

Well, it is clear that your reading comprehension needs some work, too. Where did I associate moral repugnance to Juan or you? Give me the quote. Of course , you cannot because all I did was give a right wing version of his Yale to Antifa analogy.

I guess one man's projection is another's deflection in your world. Ridiculous theory given the blind spot you have.

Tee el dee ar obv but my daddy always done told me, son, he said, son, psychological projection ain't just a river in Egypt.

You cant seem to stop talking about me, and you can't admit when you were wrong. It does not seem like we will have a productive conversation. Have a good one.

What I actually posted:

Give me all that grief about me saying I was wrong, and you can't even acknowledge your own failures at reading comprehension, of which, you and M2B have been wrong as well, and have failed to acknowledge you were wrong, if we are talking about projection.

You're so vain.

With all due respect, this is what you consider proof of my alleged assertions of your moral repugnance? My first response was not directed at you. My second response was a question to you. Every post since then has been in response to you. I am not talking about you, but at you. Why is that so hard for you to comprehend?

Such a laughable response from a guy who claims he is low on his own narcissism spectrum.

Lol this grievance is going on four years dog. If you weren't stuck in the derpotubz matrix you'd've gotten the memo that college kids are dumb and insufferably belligerent across the board.

Here's the thing: When you're not actually racist you can do all sorts of magic tricks like saying a group of black students are dumb and insufferably belligerent and have that that statement stand on its own. "You're 17 years old and I just saw you skateboarding through the quad. You don't know anything about anything."

It's hilarious contemplating the internal monologue over how you guys are sooo mad about the college kids but are neutered from stating the obvious and actually relatively benign criticism:

"These college kids are dumb and insufferably belligerent."

"I know, but they're also black so everybody will think we're racist."

"Well... We are racist."

"I know, I know. This is quite the pickle."

I mean....

Which leads to:

Lol, no, and see above re:derpotubz matrix but it's the opposite and if you actually ever were exposed to left or non-right critiques of so-called identity politics you'd maybe understand the phenomenon that these identity expressions are often substitutions for actual left politics. College kids get a pass because they're college kids but they'll grow up and either learn or become centrist dipshit Kamala Harris voters.

I mean, as much P forum stalking as you've done, haven't you seen my takes on 'blackface' or halloween costumes?

Still can't find it, can you?

The worst thread we have ever read in politics.

I’d prefer not to say.

I dunno. OP tripping over his dick in the starting gates, or to be fair, in the first turn, may be a new record for exhibiting his hypocrisy. His attribution of behaviors to the Left based on his narcissistim spectrum devolved pretty quickly into him exhibiting each and every aspect of the disorder he tried to apply to the other side. The fact that OPs fight against narcissism will actually have to play out at an internal monologue is comedy gold now that he won't be responding to people pointing out the hypocrisy. I guess he really only wanted to talk about our narcissism.

I really thought no one was going to get this. Especially when lolvegas gave a serious response. Can always rely on my boy tho.

FWIW, I loled at it.

I'm not going to admit to laughing

Same. No like button over here tho.

Fair enough.

The fifth post was perfectly timed. I laughed.

Despite the derision by jjjou812, and others, I find it interesting no one has denied the premise. Tame disputed some of what I said, but I think the journal price I linked supported my contention.

I haven't had time to really think about this, but in my initial reading of the OP I had similar thoughts to tame_deuces, although he has way more expertise here than I do.

My thoughts ran a bit towards the modern tendency to medicalize (or pathologize?) a lot of what is probably just normal (if sub-optimal) human behavior.

My other thought was that I think I can grasp the basis of your complaint about how people do politics, and I think there's something in it. I think I would just be tempted to frame the complaint in some other way, without reference to narcissism. Or maybe to flip it on its head, I'm tempted to say that the problem is not excessive narcissism but insufficient humility, particularly intellectual humility, which often manifests as kind of zealousness about an oversimplified view of the world, or an excess of confidence in one's worldview.

It does seem reasonable to me to think that there's lots of psychological tendencies that people have, or cognitive biases, which make it difficult to think about charged political topics productively. I'd be tempted to describe some of the behaviors you are highlighting as involving forms of post-hoc rationalization which we use to avoid being responsible for being more conscientious. That circles back to the complaint about over-pathologizing what are mostly just normal human weaknesses, though.

All of the above is very half-baked.