4 ms·

a spooky name relating to a literary figure who killed himself Ha! Oh man, talk about a stay-puft marshmallow moment. The name was supposed to be borrowed

a spooky name relating to a literary figure who killed himself Ha! Oh man, talk about a stay-puft marshmallow moment. The name was supposed to be borrowed from an absolutely harmless carmel candy. Something that could do no wrong, but I had to truncate it into something that would fit into HN's 15 character namespace. No good deed goes unpunished.

PavlovsCat 10y ago
Stay puft? You just commented to say you don't care, you addressed nothing, and if that's the only thing you respond to, that also is another signal. No good deed, right.
- werthersOrigin 10y ago
  That's the only thing I responded to, because it shows me that you are looking for things where they don't exist, and deciding that you found them anyway. I've rarely seen other people attribute malice to my actions at times when I know I'm being anything but, but when it does happen, the person is lashing out at any stranger. Pretty much means the person I'm dealing with is isolating themselves, and it won't be possible to do anything right for them, regardless of any objective, rational information one might try to present. In the 1984 movie, Ghostbusters, one of the main characters, Ray Parker (played by Dan Aykroyd), accidentally selects a childhood memory of a marshmallow mascot for the "stay-puft" marshmallow company. He imagines, in his own mind that this was a representation of harmlessness, only to find it transformed into something horrible, and used against him.
  - PavlovsCat 10y ago
    > but when it does happen, the person is lashing out at any stranger. I responded to a comment and to a "personal account". Zilch replies, downvotes instead. I moan about that, I get your non-replies. So yeah, excuse me for lashing out at a throwaway who doesn't care about something I care about, and feels the need to tell me that. > Pretty much means the person I'm dealing with is isolating themselves, Awww, I'm so hurt. From whom though? From people I'm criticizing who can't deal with that honestly? From a throwaway? From "peers" who don't bat an eye to join a mob, all with their own plausible deniability? I never joined, you could not pay me enough to not want to distance myself from that kind of stuff. So you're exactly right, int he meaning of the word, I am isolating myself, putting on an ABC suit, say "whoa wtf is this, are you people crazy? well, I spoke my piece, the rest is on you." > In the 1984 movie, Ghostbusters, one of the main characters, Ray Parker (played by Dan Aykroyd), accidentally selects a childhood memory of a marshmallow mascot for the "stay-puft" marshmallow company. He imagines, in his own mind that this was a representation of harmlessness, only to find it transformed into something horrible, and used against him. That explains that then, thanks, but I don't find it so terribly monstrous to "lash out" at something needlessly during adressing everything else in a comment, too. That's just a bonus you can ignore, instead of fixate on. > it shows me that you are looking for things where they don't exist, and deciding that you found them anyway. Right, and you're telling yourself that being slightly annoyed by getting essentially mocked with a non-reply, and to then make ONE demonstrably false guess, that this somehow can be applied to everything else, and of course retroactively, too? You're simply demonstrating the "type of character" kind of stuff I'm denouncing. Read Arendt, that's exactly how totalitarianism "thinks". Jake's a "rapist, sociopath, plagiarist", the victims are "victims", I'm someone who "is looking for things where they don't exist", and you're someone who is being "anything but malicious". Nothing of substance at all. The punishment "proves" the "guilt" for the thoughtcrimes, the type-of-person-crimes, as well as bestowing the appropriate immunity from criticism to others, and the sentences are nilly-willy and the hands of the executioners free of all guilt. Instead of me asking some valid and uncomfortable questions, which don't get good responses because nobody HAS a good answer, it's now my fault, obviously because mentioning that I got no responses, and noticing that you then respond with nothing but "I personally don't care, that's how it is, if you can't take the heat get out of the kitchen [which you'd never say about some of these stories about a creeper even in cases where he stopped when asked to, then tried again, am I correct?]", and getting something about your throwaway handle wrong, which is the only thing you respond to -- all that somehow means I'm "looking for things that aren't there" and "isolating myself" and ladiblah. It's not you avoiding things and blaming that on me, nah. It's not you who prefers to talk about people rather than facts, and then looks kind of bad even when talking about people, in your mind. Anyone who has ever been mobbed or dealt with a narcissist will find that kind of strategy very, very familiar. You saying you're not malicious is just you saying things. But this string of comments, in content, for those paying attention, is what it is.

PavlovsCat 10y ago

Stay puft? You just commented to say you don't care, you addressed nothing, and if that's the only thing you respond to, that also is another signal. No good deed, right.

werthersOrigin 10y ago
That's the only thing I responded to, because it shows me that you are looking for things where they don't exist, and deciding that you found them anyway. I've rarely seen other people attribute malice to my actions at times when I know I'm being anything but, but when it does happen, the person is lashing out at any stranger. Pretty much means the person I'm dealing with is isolating themselves, and it won't be possible to do anything right for them, regardless of any objective, rational information one might try to present. In the 1984 movie, Ghostbusters, one of the main characters, Ray Parker (played by Dan Aykroyd), accidentally selects a childhood memory of a marshmallow mascot for the "stay-puft" marshmallow company. He imagines, in his own mind that this was a representation of harmlessness, only to find it transformed into something horrible, and used against him.
- PavlovsCat 10y ago
  > but when it does happen, the person is lashing out at any stranger. I responded to a comment and to a "personal account". Zilch replies, downvotes instead. I moan about that, I get your non-replies. So yeah, excuse me for lashing out at a throwaway who doesn't care about something I care about, and feels the need to tell me that. > Pretty much means the person I'm dealing with is isolating themselves, Awww, I'm so hurt. From whom though? From people I'm criticizing who can't deal with that honestly? From a throwaway? From "peers" who don't bat an eye to join a mob, all with their own plausible deniability? I never joined, you could not pay me enough to not want to distance myself from that kind of stuff. So you're exactly right, int he meaning of the word, I am isolating myself, putting on an ABC suit, say "whoa wtf is this, are you people crazy? well, I spoke my piece, the rest is on you." > In the 1984 movie, Ghostbusters, one of the main characters, Ray Parker (played by Dan Aykroyd), accidentally selects a childhood memory of a marshmallow mascot for the "stay-puft" marshmallow company. He imagines, in his own mind that this was a representation of harmlessness, only to find it transformed into something horrible, and used against him. That explains that then, thanks, but I don't find it so terribly monstrous to "lash out" at something needlessly during adressing everything else in a comment, too. That's just a bonus you can ignore, instead of fixate on. > it shows me that you are looking for things where they don't exist, and deciding that you found them anyway. Right, and you're telling yourself that being slightly annoyed by getting essentially mocked with a non-reply, and to then make ONE demonstrably false guess, that this somehow can be applied to everything else, and of course retroactively, too? You're simply demonstrating the "type of character" kind of stuff I'm denouncing. Read Arendt, that's exactly how totalitarianism "thinks". Jake's a "rapist, sociopath, plagiarist", the victims are "victims", I'm someone who "is looking for things where they don't exist", and you're someone who is being "anything but malicious". Nothing of substance at all. The punishment "proves" the "guilt" for the thoughtcrimes, the type-of-person-crimes, as well as bestowing the appropriate immunity from criticism to others, and the sentences are nilly-willy and the hands of the executioners free of all guilt. Instead of me asking some valid and uncomfortable questions, which don't get good responses because nobody HAS a good answer, it's now my fault, obviously because mentioning that I got no responses, and noticing that you then respond with nothing but "I personally don't care, that's how it is, if you can't take the heat get out of the kitchen [which you'd never say about some of these stories about a creeper even in cases where he stopped when asked to, then tried again, am I correct?]", and getting something about your throwaway handle wrong, which is the only thing you respond to -- all that somehow means I'm "looking for things that aren't there" and "isolating myself" and ladiblah. It's not you avoiding things and blaming that on me, nah. It's not you who prefers to talk about people rather than facts, and then looks kind of bad even when talking about people, in your mind. Anyone who has ever been mobbed or dealt with a narcissist will find that kind of strategy very, very familiar. You saying you're not malicious is just you saying things. But this string of comments, in content, for those paying attention, is what it is.