Okay well yes this one’s the second worst. I’m sorry, this is not representative of the comment section, these two are just baaad and left to conspire together. Don’t go because of them please?

Okay so lets see…. saying that killing a dog with your bare hands requires being a sociopath is …. ableist…. and against the mentally ill.

Well it’s against sociopaths. Do you like sociopaths? Hrm.

I’m amazed at how dumb some of the responses are to this.

It doesn’t take superhuman strength to snap the neck of a toy breed dog. Not sure how that’s ‘ableist.’

It does take someone who is either has no conscience (ie, a sociopath) or has some other mental disorder that would allow her anger to get to such a psychotic level that tearing ones nylons = death.

God either you’re being intentionally obtuse or too lazy to read posts and links…. I don’t equate it. Psychology Today equates it. I don’t think you know anyone with antosocial personality disorder by the way. I think, as always when you respond to my posts, you’re just looking for reasons to fight. It’s rather sad.

Also, I said that sociopathy is a pattern of antisocial behavior and attitudes. Also from Psychology Today.

And yes, killing a dog for ripping your nylons is sociopathic. It’s antisocial behavior, and if you seriously don’t think it is and are not just arguing for the sake of arguing (which you do ALL the time), then you worry me.

Actually you have responded to my posts multiple times. You continually do, just to try to start fights. Including your post in this thread, in which you responded to a post I responded to Kid Chaos over.

Not to mention that if my posts are not worth thinking about, you sure seem to coplain about mine a lot, for someone you don’t think about. 🙂

is sociopath normally classified as a mental illness? ( mean – is it treatable?

Yes, the ability (or lack thereof) of current healthcare to ameliorate any condition shouldn’t somehow prevent it from being recognised as a condition!

It’s quite probable that “manageable” was the intended meaning, but those not as experienced in the field of chronic dishealth tend to use “treatable” as shorthand to mean receipt of medical assistance and effort expended towards improvement. Most people here wouldn’t imply “a quick fix” in this way.

“Being the victim of abuse is no permission to perpetuate it though that “the abused abuse in turn” is one of the great tragedies of human nature.”

What are you talking about? There’s no excuses here. A sociopath doesn’t have to be an abuser, what I meant was that they’re more likely to be victims than abusers (and yes, then ca be both).

“Why isn’t she being defended as the probable victim of emotional abuse as a child?”

Who said she should be defended just because of that? Are you just jumping into a thread to shit on disabled people because that’s how you imagine a new year’s evening party time?

“Let me remind you of something you already know: the problem of the sociopath isn’t what they are, it’s what they have an increased probability of doing. Like harming others.”

See, after reading that statement, I’m pretty sure you’re far scarier than most sociopaths.

“Calling her a sociopath isn’t necessarily accurate, but saying she’s likely done something “sociopathic” is exactly appropriate.”

No.

Hey you. I’ve seen a pattern of upvotes that may suggest you take issue with me. Can I kindly ask what’s your damn problem?

Again you’re missing the point. Nobody’s complaining about her mental state, per se. Nobody’s demonizing her over her mental health. They’re complaining about her ACTIONS. The fact that she apparently just killed a dog. And speaking as someone who’s had plenty of arguments with Zac Caslar in the past… I’d much rather have them around than a sociopath who thinks people should be more concerned about “ableism” than murdering dogs.

Since when is sociopathy an ‘outdated term?’

Sociopathy – an informal term that refers to a pattern of antisocial behavior and atttitudes.

Yknow, like snapping a cute dog’s neck for accidentally tearing your nylons.

“There’s nothing antisocial about breaking a dogs neck” thanks for summing up why every decent person should hate you.

I wish I could summarise so succinctly.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/basics/sociopathy

Additionally it seems like being “too lazy to read” or “too stupid to comprehend” links actually refers to not immediately accepting the full premise and content of that single google share..
If I disagree with something (in this case, because it’s being presented in too simplified a manner, and too many conclusions are being drawn from that single short sentence) it certainly doesn’t automatically imply that I didn’t understand it!

Let me get this straight….. you think that killing a dog by snapping its neck with ones bare hands is NOT a sociopathic response for nylons being torn?

Is it a normal reaction for you?

And you consider cruelty to animals to not be antisocial behavior. Gotcha. Stay away from my dogs, man.

Your definition of ‘normal’ is a lot different than most people’s.

Even in psychology, sociopathic doesn’t actually mean a specific mental disease. It’s a group of things, which manifest in antisocial behavior and attitudes.

Like killing doggies for ripping your nylons.

But lets say, for the time being, that you had someone who was so mentally unbalanced that their uncontrolled rage would have them kill a dog for a ripped nylon. Or drown a cat because it… I don’t know… pees on your shirt that you left on the floor.

That person’s still also a sociopath. Not normal. Abnormal, antisocial behavior on a Jeffrey Dahmer level. That’s not hollywood. And there’s a difference between ‘I’m abusive and insensitive’ and ‘I’m abusive and insensitive and I kill the beloved family pet just because I’m miffed about my nylons.’ Yes. She’s evil. She’s also sociopathic. She wasnt killing the dog in order to force Patrick to comply with something. She’s killing the dog because of nylons.

“Damagingly linking APD sufferers” by saying sociopathic. Geez. The lengths people will go in order to be offended and ignore the whole ‘killing animals for the lulz’ part.

Except I didnt generalize anything about APD.

Also not sure where you’re making the comparison to muslims.

I said it takes a sociopath to do what she did to that dog. You agree that my definition is correct. The fact that someone wants to conflate what I said to ‘APD’ just seems to be because they’re oversensitive and spoiling for something over which to get offended. I mean sure, they could get offended about animal abuse and killing animals being entertainment, but then they couldn’t direct their anger at another poster like me.

I wasn’t making any sort of hypothetical example of negative example of people with mental illnesses. I wasn’t directing it at any demographic, save for the demographic of sociopathic people who kill animals for no reason – and I frankly have no reason to care about hurting the feelings of THOSE people. Nothing I said was half-informed or a sweeping negative generalization of anyone who doesn’t deserve it, unless there’s some reason I should be worried about offending animal abusers. Which I’m not.

So no, I don’t see how calling someone who snaps a dog’s neck for tearing nylons to be an unfair link to everyone who is antisocial but NOT killing animals. I see how someone can try to unfairly conflate though in order to attack another poster though (namely how Gotham tries to attack me). Fortunately I don’t really care about Gotham’s attempts to goad me into a fight, and I don’t care about Lagrange’s mistake in thinking that my saying sociopath is ‘ableist.’ Unless he means I’m Able-to-resist-killing-animals-when-angry-ist.’

Well then I guess you disagree with the dictionary or what Psychology Today defines sociopathy as being. Which is not simply ‘APD.’

Nothing I can say about that. Have fun with your personal ‘definitions.’ You know what my definitions are, since I gave the links.

Except Sociopathy does not mean APD. Even according to the medically accepted definition of the last 15 years.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/basics/sociopathy

Sociopathy is an informal term that refers to a pattern of antisocial behavior and attitudes. Literally the first sentence.

There ya go. Yawn. Didn’t make a ‘self-created’ definition. That’s the definition.

I’m getting called out by people who want to defend killing animals when you get a case of the miffs by saying that being sociopathic means I’m calling out specific people with mental illnesses which are not harming other people or dangerous, a la Hannibal Lechter Hollywood stuff. Beyond the mental instability of thinking it’s a good idea to kill animals when you’re angry, or to defend ‘people who kill animals for no reason.’

“You keep quoting the same exact source.”

Because it is the definition of sociopathy. Not some ‘self-defined’ definition as you incorrectly claimed.

“It even identifies the term’s definition there as being ‘informal’.”

Geez can you read? It doesn’t say that the definition given is the informal definition. It says that sociopathy itself is an informal term used.

“Yet for some reason you’re ignoring the *official* definition of sociopathy”
Actually you’re the one ignoring the definition, since the sentence about APD says ‘the CLOSEST thing in the DSM to sociopathy is APD. Not ‘sociopathy is APD.’ Seriously…. stretching much?

Just read it. If you think it says something it doesn’t say, then we clearly have nothing to say since you’re reading into the definition. And reeeeaaaching to say it’s what I said, when it wasn’t.

But hey, you keep on arguing. I’ll try not to lose any sleep over it.

Oh; also, “sociopathy is an informal term” implies strongly that the definition given is thus not the basis for strict medical terminology. If I were to clarify my original point however I might say that psychopathy and sociopathy are both colloquialised, descriptive terms for aspects of antisocial personality disorder.

I won’t suddenly agree with your position unless it changes or some common ground is found, because to describe someone as “a sociopath” automatically implies they’re in possession of a mental illness or personality disorder .. which by the very nature of the definition’s lack of medical weight is impossible without referring to ASPD in specific. You *might* say that somebody was demonstrating sociopathic tendencies – and had you in fact phrased your original post in that way, we wouldn’t currently be sat here arguing the specific definition of the word – but you can’t apply the word to someone as a direct adjective without directly insinuating it to be an innate and broken aspect of their personality.

Regardless of all of this, nothing you’ve written so far comes close to broaching my original point – which was that you do not need to be somehow removed from the human baseline, sadly, in order to be abusive or violent or cruel. The only way the sentence “you have to be sociopathic to kill a dog” is an acceptable generalisation in my eye is if the definition of “sociopathic” were loose enough to incorporate “being willing to kill a dog for whatever reason”.

I disagree with this assertion. Sociopathy (both the disorder ASPD itself and the more woolly, tendency-based definition you’re insistent on) is used to reference a very specific set of dysfunctional personality traits which we absolutely cannot assign to every animal abuser in the world without exception.

No, not until you actually pay attention to the multitude of different points you continue to ignore within all of mine, foremost of which is the main, original point I’ve rephrased for you above. To whit, once more: that I entirely disagree with your base assertion that sociopathy is *requisite* for abusive behaviour.

That’s one sesquipedalian post you just made.

Wow, you made a sesquipedalian post to explain a sesquipedalian post.

I find when people do that, it’s because they realize what they’re saying is wrong. Or because you’re unsure about what they’re saying. So they try to hide behind big words. Or try to use big, overly complex words to reaffirm to themselves that they are smart. And no idea why you’d be ‘pressured.’ You’ve been repeating the same thing over and over with me responding the same way each time.

(and yes I know sesquipedalian is a sesquipedalian word. I’m being ironic.)

Actually that post was not sesquipedalian. It was just repetitive. Sesquipedalian is about using overly complex words where simple words will do.

It’s not a natural writing style. It’s faux intellectualism.

But hey, I’m fine with you doing that. It just seems like you’re writing for no reason other than to keep arguing and rehashing the same thing over repeatedly, despite it being very clear that I am using the word sociopath in the way most people think of it, and you’re using it incorrectly, as if ‘sociopath’ is an actual psychological illness by trying to say that I said APD instead. Despite the going on 10 times now which I’ve said I didn’t.

You’re arguing for the sake of arguing, not to make a point anymore.

It’s getting a little bit frustrating now that the conversation has moved on from legitimate exchanges of ideas to pointless sniping at my grammatical style, though.

You guys are the ones doing the misrepresentation, misrepresenting what I not only clearly said,but what I’ve now repeated multiple times with links and the definition used.

I don’t appreciate over-sensitive people angling for a fight with me over nothing by attempting to stretch what I said into some sort of hate-based attack just because they can’t deal with the actual post I made NOT singling out anyone except Pearl.

Then again I also don’t care what they’re saying either. Between us, I’m the one who doesn’t think it’s the domain of ‘normal’ thinking to kill dogs for nylons being ripped. Gotham and Lagrange are the ones who are saying that normal people do that. And you’re the one defending their stance. Pretty sure I’m in the clear.

Actually you are the only one making a strawman perspective, by saying that I’m saying something ridiculous that I did not say, rather than the definition I’ve repeatedly been using of sociopath.

You’re definitely misrepresenting me. I’m literally telling you what I’m saying, and you’re continually ‘warning me’ about what it means, when I repeatedly have said what I’m actually saying, different than what you’re trying to language police enforce me as saying.

I don’t actually care that you’re using overly complex words unnecessarily. Definitely not telling you what your words actually mean, unlike you.

But yeah, you’re being the language police. You’re saying what my words mean, despite having the definition that I’ve used, which are different than what you’re trying so hard to claim.

Honest question: is there a word which does describe people with behaviors that fall under the colloquial definition of ‘sociopathic’ (so, cruel, remorseless, without empathy or compassion, manipulative, violent) regardless of any medical conditions? I assume there aren’t as many people like that as there are on tv crime shows, and plenty of them that do exist are neurotypical, but would there be use for such a descriptor if ‘sociopath’ is irreparably linked to anti-social disorders? (FWIW I did not know that ASPD and sociopathy were often intended to mean the same thing, although I’m not sure I have an especially good idea what ASPD encompasses. But I wouldn’t have used the terms interchangeably.)

You could also simply refer to said people as “manipulative and violent abusers” if that’s how they allow themselves to enact in the world whatever motivations are behind this sort of behaviour.

Sociopathy is a somewhat outmoded term for a component part of the larger ASPD spectrum. Like I said above, I think it’s perfectly reasonable to describe an isolated behaviour as sociopathic in some cases (if it actually *is* so – cruelty doesn’t necessarily have to be) or to describe someone who repeatedly engages in that behaviour as showing sociopathic tendencies. But to actually call someome “sociopathic” or “a sociopath” implies strongly that they fit and/or are already in receipt of the associated personality disorder diagnosis.

This is a really good question and, I think, one that gets to the core of the issue being discussed here.

The term Antisocial Personality Disorder was introduced partly because “sociopath” in laymen’s eyes was starting to take on the meaning you’re used to ascribing to it, and thus it became near-impossible for people to accept the diagnosis if they had it. I find it telling that Izo is arguing for the informality of a term that covers “antisocial” behavior, as if that word were also broad and informal. I wonder how long before we have to replace the current label because the mainstream have caught on. It seems our understanding of words will always be stronger than our understanding of the issue.

To replace, I would go with any of the following: asshole, jerk, horrible human being, abusive, cruel, etc.

Neither captures the exact nature of “sociopath”, I’m well aware. And I maaaay be leaving the original topic a bit here, but I feel this is a point that bears saying: Part of the benefit of using a word like “sociopath” is that it’s Othering. It posits terrible people as abnormal, as ill, as divergent. It makes it easier to uphold the Just World fallacy – that humans are not inherently bad, it’s just outliers who do bad. It’s just their brains that are broken.
And granted, sometimes broken brains make people do terrible things. But more often, it’s structures, systems, institutions, that make it really easy and even normal (in context) to do terrible things, no wonky brain chemistry required. The ease and frequency with which we label undesirable behavior “mentally ill” makes it harder to solve the multitude of problems we have because it obstructs the actual causes.

Which may be getting off topic for a rich, seemingly-priviliged lady snapping a cute dog’s neck for no systemic reason or damage of her own… but then, we don’t exactly know, do we?

It’s not *necessarily* sociopathic, I’d say. Most likely a lack of emotional empathy makes the act far easier but it isn’t actually required.

I agree that the picture is comical, but I think you both misunderstand why it exists. Comic books are trash art (ergo the best kind) for children, and children don’t /necessarily/ understand the concept of a “ruthless terrorist organization”. This may be confusing to some, but everybody instantly knows that someone who kicks a dog is a fucker. Thus, storytelling shorthand.
I agree that this is kind of cliché, but at this point of cultural zeitgeist it’s almost as cliché if not worse to point it out sarcastically, so no need to feel so self-satisfied