DaVinci

Are you saying the reason for not including it is "There are alternatives" and "Not many people use it"? I could say the same thing about use in regards to several sub-boards on this site. This site in general has alternatives (ex: Twitter, Facebook, other message boards, etc) "There are alternatives" is something you could say about just about anything. Now if the reason it didn't come back is because "We didn't specifically want to include that feature anymore", then that's a reason.

Sure. I hope something I've said will be of some use to you. If you ever want to talk about anything let me know. Send a PM, or @ me in a topic.

You have to wonder how that's a "response". It's like they are begging for retaliation.

You mean like Patreon, Bit coin, etc?

You have to remember the human species is very tribalistic. If you aren't in the tribe you are probably an enemy. Tribes start from the self, and then extend out to blood family(or the equivalent in regards to a spouse), extended family/close friends, acquaintances, and other similar looking tribe members you might interact with on a minimal basis. Everyone outside of that is, well, an outsider. Where are you on this spectrum in regards to your "friend" you've been talking about? You aren't related by blood. You aren't his spouse. You aren't extended family. What does that leave? Your source of conflict seems to be that you aren't as close to him as other people appear to be. So you don't think you are in the close friend category. But I would say he hangs out with you enough to where you aren't just random tribe member #5427. So then are you just an acquaintance? Someone he knows only slightly? You say his interactions with you are short versus everyone else. That fits that you are acquaintances. Maybe it didn't start that way, and maybe that's not the way you intended it to go, but that's the way it is. What would it take to go from being just an acquaintance to being in the "close friend" category? Is that what you really want? Is there a bunch of bad blood and old unresolved arguments in the way? Do you really want to be this guy's friend, or is it that you don't want to be alone? If you do want to be be close friends with this guy then why? How would you feel if you became his friend and he found a Neeel acquaintance replacement who he treated like he used to treat you? If it's just because you don't want to be alone then why not? Yeah, there is a biological drive to seek out companionship. But you should also have a drive to not let assholes in your life. You asked "Why do people act the way they do?". Biology. Millions and millions of years of development. Tens of thousands of years of human society. It's calendar year 2017, but there is recorded history for at least 5000 years. This might as well be the year 5017 as far as recorded history goes, and in a sense it gives you a better understanding of where you are in time. People are tribalistic. That's how we survived all this time. That's why you're alive to read this. The downside with our modern world is even with this amazing computer technology most people are cut off from making connections, and most connections, as I discussed earlier in the thread, are just about using others. "I feel lonely" "I know, I'll get a bunch of "friends" so I don't feel that way" or "I want sex" "I know, I'll convince a girl I'm into her so that I get to have sex". Most people are solely driven by this type of thinking. From my own personal experience I don't have much of a drive to go looking for friends anymore. I'm not a loneliness removal tool. Nor do I want to treat anyone like that. What if you embraced that you are alone to the point where there wasn't an emotional component to it anymore? Think about it like this: Have you ever had someone in your life die? Were you sad? Did you cry? Were you depressed? At some point did you stop crying? Stop feeling depressed? Did you wake up one day and realized that you had pushed past the sadness? That what you felt was more like "clarity". Perhaps that's what is happening with your friendships. Could it be that you are still in the "mourning phase" not wanting to let go of sad relationships with rotting people?

What does that first sentence mean? Too wimpy/feminine to handle? Why do you need a more authoratative counselor? What is it about that specifically that will help with weight loss/body image?

My comment to you was about the way you were approaching Neeeel. You were concluding he wasn't putting in effort when he clearly is. You made a claim about him you couldn't support and I told you to not engage him if you didn't like the way he was responding. Ironic then that you put me on ignore when you don't like the way I'm responding.

What would happen if you didn't maintain control? You mentioned there are still areas where you feel angry. Would you blow up if you stopped trying to maintain control? Is it possible that you don't feel comfortable getting really angry at the therapists office?

What incidents still elicit anger? You don't have to tell me here, but it's something worth exploring. Why is the conversation in therapy so monotone? Because you've already worked through the issues? If that was the case, then would you still need to go to therapy at the rate that you do? Or is the conversation monotone because you haven't touched the heart of the matter in regards to your parents?

I'm sorry those things happened to you. When you think about those things is there still an emotional component to them? Does talking about them bring back the same emotions you had as a child during those situations.

Why would it need to be a speech? You just said it. "My parents are terrible" You don't have to write a novel to convince anyone here of something like that.

Then leave? Let him respond how he wants to.

Isn't the fractional reserve banking system also distributing wealth? If we are talking about taxes shouldn't we say forced collection of taxes? The shuffling around and distribution is taking place after the use of force. Saying "forced distribution" seems like it is going to confuse the issue and not clarify it.

Maybe he did just forget. Find out. Don't be aggressively confrontational about it, but ask him casually. "Hey what happened? I thought we were going to see that movie together and then I saw you post about it online." See what he says. Don't interject too much while he is explaining himself. Just let him explain his actions as throughly as he wants to.

If he knows that you will be upset then he must feel, on some level, like he did something wrong, but if you stay silent you will be telling him "I'm okay with you treating me like this" without saying any words. If he doesn't care, and if he doesn't care in that "Meh, Neeeel's feelings don't matter" kind of way, then that's just as bad. He's staying silent in the hope that you didn't catch him.

The problem is that he won't react with curiosity, and if he did it would be to keep you on the line. You're emotional food to him. This guy can't possibly be your friend if he did that to you. Why didn't he just tell you he already saw the movie?

That's a good question. I don't think it is possible to completely escape biological drives without potentially harming ourselves. For example, you could move to a deserted island (deserted except for you) and you would no longer have the capacity to use another human being as a means to satiating your emotional needs. It wouldn't be physically possible anymore. But that kind of isolation is rough because your needs wouldn't just go away. In fact that kind of isolation might make your needs worse, both physically and emotionally. You see this with prisoners who get put into isolation. It's way worse than someone being in prison but they are still part of the general prison population. I also think a traumatic childhood tends to put people into an "emotional deficit". It's why you see so many people having sex at an early age, surrounding themselves with dozens of friends, and getting into dead end relationships. There is a desperate scramble to find some kind of human connection to make up for the lack of an earlier one, like a starving person stuffing stolen food into a jacket so they can live for another day. Just stuff a bunch of friends in your jacket to "eat" later. The comparison between physical and emotional needs is interesting because if you actually were on a deserted island you would eventually find food and water. You would sharpen a stick into a spear and fish in the beach water, or catch rain water on the leaves of palm trees. (Or something like that) You would become largely self sufficient in terms of your base physical needs. You could at least survive. The question then becomes is it possible to become largely self sufficient with emotional needs to the point where you could "survive" emotionally? Well, I honestly don't know. I also don't think most people would consider survival (physical or emotional) the same thing as "living" so being able to survive might not be what most people would even prefer. I don't think "quality friends" would consider their friendship to be built on the foundation of "using each other". You aren't food, or air. I think it's minimizing to reduce everything about another human being down to the level of some molecules of air entering your nose. I mean, you had to describe it as "quality friends". You would think friend automatically implies some kind of quality that separates them from the masses, except it doesn't really anymore, which is probably why you phrased it that way. We have biological drives, but we also have free will. You really don't have to do anything you don't want to. You could choose to starve if you wanted. You aren't just a meat based computer program devoid of will. You don't have to use anyone. Perhaps it's just in the world of intent that some kind of solution to this problem can be found. I know for myself I have no desire to seek out friends to cure loneliness anymore. I don't want to treat people like that. My intent isn't to use anyone. Obviously, these are just some of my thoughts on this subject. I don't completely understand it, and I can't give you any definitive answers. I do think about this subject a lot, and I hope something I've said has helped in some way. Perhaps if we keep talking about it we can figure it out.

I don't think that there is anything wrong with you. Wrong in the case of human interactions seems to imply "broken". Some kind of dysfunction. Like you are just some kind of wind up toy. Think about this like hunger. When you are hungry you eat. When you are out of breath you breathe harder. You have needs and you take in the environment to meet those needs. The same thing happens with emotional needs. When you feel lonely you seek companionship. What you see as other people finding value in each other is effectively the same thing as watching someone eat or breathe. People take in the world around them to satiate themselves. This sometimes means taking in people. I think becoming more independent and aware of who you are, the more clarity you posses about your past, the more you can form your own opinions and thoughts on any given subject, the less you will feel the need to have lots of friends. The few interactions I've had with people over the past few years have been very different from the ones I used to have. For one, I try not to emotionally throw up on people anymore. If someone wants to know something personal about me I'll tell them, but I'll also ask them if they really want to hear about it. I don't just start telling them all this crap at the first sign of interest. I don't have that kind of need anymore. I want to know how they feel about hearing about my past, as I've put in the work into my past to where I don't feel the pain I did during my original experience, but it might be hard for them to hear. I also feel no desire to find people to be friends with just to combat loneliness, or have someone be interested in me so I can be interested in them. There is something fake about that to me now. People aren't food to consume when you're feeling loneliness pangs in your head. I think the reason why you are having a hard time understanding what being friends is might be because most people view friends as drugs. You inject me and I'll inject you and we'll both forget we're unhappy with life for a few minutes. Perhaps you don't fit in with the people around you anymore because with things like therapy you are finding you don't need to be like that anymore. That you can't go back to being that shape. I admit that it can be tough, because we're social, tribal creatures, and the brain processes some of this emotional stuff the same way it does physical pain. So your brain thinks "no friends = broken arm" (or something kind of like that) which drives you to correct the problem, but, being reasonable, you wouldn't go to the shady under the bridge drug dealer to mend your arm. The problem is really finding a quality friend who isn't interested in using you. Remember those old cartoons where someone who was hungry would look at another character and imagine them turning into a steak dinner? You don't want that kind of person in your life. You aren't meat, or a toy, or a vomit bucket. I know I'm not providing you with any real solutions. I'm not sure I have any. I don't have any friends either. But I hope some of what I said helps you in some way.

It's clear you like this person, but you also mentioned you don't "know them". What does that mean? Maybe I overlooked it but I didn't see where you described how you are seeing this person but don't know them. Is this like, some girl at the mall you walk past? Someone at school?

I said politics isn't anarchy. You replied "we aren't all anarchists", which is why I asked what you were. You even added "you can be alt-right and NAP compliant" I didn't even ask about that. You volunteered that information as if it was relevant to answering my question. You also have a huge alt-right banner at the bottom of all your posts.

Except you didn't.

I asked you a very simple question and now here we are. I have to wonder what your motivation is. If you didn't want to answer it why did you even respond in the first place?

There we go. Troll confirmed. Next time be more subtle about it.

So then the answer is yes, you were confused by what I was asking you. If you understood it you would have just answered with a "Yes, I am an anarchist" There is no need to say "we" and then later qualify that statement as "variability". It's frustrating to me to ask you why you weren't clear and then you answer my question in this non-direct way. Are you trying to save face? Is this a chess game now?

I said you aren't talking about anarchy, you replied that 'we aren't all anarchists" and then when I asked for clarification you said you are an anarchist and your"we" comment was about everyone else. So then why say "we" in that sentence if you are? Did you not understand what I was asking you?