My dreams are about future real life events?

[Sugarcoat]

33 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

It's perfectly fine to have emotions and being reactive provided it is not directional or attacking. It doesn't detract from any validity. It doesn't always mean someone is compromised. A lot of the time passion and charge  translates into something else on the receivers end over text.

It's not the best rhetorically if you want to remain neutral, but it's not inherently bad. 

ALSO PSYCHIC SHIT IS REAL COME AT ME WITH THE PITCHFORKS 

I even experience it with Leo and what he writes as I am thinking it. Often. I just don't raise it. In fact I don't believe half my throughts are even mine to be claimed. No centre. Just thoughts arriving with no control and I can't source who or what generated them. Can't control thoughts. I have no evidence they originate from me. 

Are you familiar with the concept of synchronicities? It’s something I’ve been thinking about recently and been experiencing things that seem to fit that description but I’m not super keen on what it means exactly because sometimes the standard definitions don’t apply to everyone’s experiences exactly, but the word resonates with me. 
 

It seems to be in slightly different category than the typical psychic experiences but it’s probably related I think. It’s a word that really rings a bell for me in my experience at least 

[Jirh]

4 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Explain what the fuck was "bad faith" with anything I've said.

Bad faith is believing your assumptions over my clearly stated truths.

I said I left because I got bored. You didn't believe me, and you insisted that I have ulterior motives. It's very disrespectful, but it's only one example, and you did it more than once.

In contrast, when I assumed that your belief in the paranormal was about feeling special, and you clarified that for you it isn't, I never brought it up again. I accepted your stated truth as it is.

That's the difference between good faith and bad faith.

[Natasha Tori Maru]

5 minutes ago, Sugarcoat said:

Are you familiar with the concept of synchronicities? It’s something I’ve been thinking about recently and been experiencing things that seem to fit that description but I’m not super keen on what it means exactly because sometimes the standard definitions don’t apply to everyone’s experiences exactly, but the word resonates with me. 
 

It seems to be in slightly different category than the typical psychic experiences but it’s probably related I think. It’s a word that really rings a bell for me in my experience at least 

Yes. I notice what you call synchronicities frequently. 

I note when it occurs. A pattern.

I deliberately do not look for, make or seek meaning in them. I understand I create my own meaning, so seeking to find understanding or meaning appears to be a gateway to belief. And therefore, delusion. My mind is slippery as fuck 😬

[Jirh]

11 minutes ago, Sugarcoat said:

IMO you don’t have to believe in the psychic stuff for it to happen. Even if you were convinced by one example doesn’t mean you’ll experience them yourself because of it, but maybe don’t resist those “telepathy thoughts”, just an idea 

Yeah sure anything can happen. Anything can be true.

You're talking about the realm of possibility and potential. But potential is not actuality.

[Sugarcoat]

Just now, Natasha Tori Maru said:

Yes. I notice what you call synchronicities frequently. 

I note when it occurs. A pattern.

I deliberately do not look for, make or seek meaning in them. I understand I create my own meaning, so seeking to find understanding or meaning appears to be a gateway to belief. And therefore, delusion. My mind is slippery as fuck 😬

I get what you mean, I also tend to not try to look for it because it can be very confusing because everything that’s going on is just so messy and you could technically find connections everywhere, but then there are some things that really stand out in our experiences 

[Natasha Tori Maru]

1 minute ago, Sugarcoat said:

I get what you mean, I also tend to not try to look for it because it can be very confusing because everything that’s going on is just so messy and you could technically find connections everywhere, but then there are some things that really stand out in our experiences 

Same. When you try to ignore and the gut punch happens though. DAMN universe why 😄

[Carl-Richard]

44 minutes ago, Jirh said:

Bad faith is believing your assumptions over my clearly stated truths.

I said I left because I got bored. You didn't believe me

I was pointing out a performative contradiction in you claiming to be bored while still engaging. How is that "bad faith"?

Edited 7 hours ago by Carl-Richard

[Jirh]

Just now, Carl-Richard said:

So me disagreeing with the statement about your internal state is bad faith.

Yes.

Although, you didn't just disagree. You insisted that I had ulterior motives despite me telling you the truth unfiltered. You've crossed boundaries, and that's disrespectful.

Just now, Carl-Richard said:

I guess the entire discussion where you disagree with the statements about my psychic experiences is bad faith.

That's gaslighting.

I never disagreed with your dreams. Never denied that they happened. I only ever disagreed with your interpretations of them. However, I did point out that your memory of dreams is unreliable. And I still stand by that point. My memory is unreliable too.

Just now, Carl-Richard said:

I was pointing out a performative contradiction in you claiming to be bored while still engaging.

I'm bored with the original topic. Doesn't mean I can't make meta commentary.

Just now, Carl-Richard said:

Don't be so god damn fragile that I'm "disrespecting" your internal state just for making an argument. Absolute snowflake psychopath.

I get that you're upset for some reason. But that's like the worst ad hominem meltdown I've seen in years 😂

[Carl-Richard]

37 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

I was pointing out a performative contradiction in you claiming to be bored while still engaging. How is that "bad faith"?

 

Edited 7 hours ago by Carl-Richard

[Jirh]

29 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

I was pointing out a performative contradiction in you claiming to be bored while still engaging. How is that "bad faith"?

You didn't just point out a performative contradiction. You've made a whole bunch of assumptions contradicting my stated truth.

My truth: I left because I got bored. Simple, direct, and clear.

You assumed: He's pretending to have left because he's defeated. He's lying. He's poisoning the well. He's tactically calculating to win the argument. He's bringing up the cult possibility as an ad hominem to the topic.

[Jirh]

9 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

@Jirh I like how you cleverly avoided answering that question in the first iteration of the comment, which was of course less factual than maybe optimal.

I didn't see it.

Bad faith in real time.

[Carl-Richard]

3 minutes ago, Jirh said:

You assumed: He's pretending to have left because he's defeated. He's lying. He's poisoning the well. He's tactically calculating to win the argument. He's bringing up the cult possibility as an ad hominem to the topic.

Anyways, ignoring all of the retarded vacuous non-argumentation about nothing at all that the other person on the ignore list also engages for some reason that we could only infer: so what do you think about Dr. Cardeña's American Psychologist review, particularly the 108 studies on the Ganzfeld effect?

[Jirh]

Just now, Carl-Richard said:

Anyways, ignoring all of the retarded vacuous non-argumentation about nothing at all that the other person on the ignore list also engages for some reason that we could only infer: so what do you think about Dr. Cardeña's American Psychologist review, particularly the 108 studies on the Ganzfeld effect?

I haven't looked into it yet. Maybe I won't.

If I somehow regain the interest and look into it someday, I will remember to give you my thoughts.

But I'm not happy with you. I expected better.

[Carl-Richard]

4 minutes ago, Jirh said:

But I'm not happy with you. I expected better.

*Psycho expecting me to care about some posturing/shaming/psycho-tactic of them withdrawing their flailing 'approval' which changes whenever it suits them in the conversation instead of actually engaging.* You psychopaths are all the same. So concerned about dishing out petty shit, but not actually engaging. If you want my approval, actually engage. Until then, ignore list.

[Jirh]

@Carl-Richard That last phrase has nothing to do with the discussion itself, but with your conduct as a human being. I am not happy with your constant name-calling and bad faith engagement.

I reported your post, so mods can take a look and decide.

What's the point of putting me on ignore if you're going to read my comments anyway? Like am I supposed to get hurt or something?

[Jirh]

@Carl-Richard And no, I don't want your approval. It's not an ego game that I'm playing. I'm just asking for basic respect.

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, Carl-Richard said:

*Psycho expecting me to care

Ease up, man.

[Sugarcoat]

Some people are not close minded. They are just closed perception wise. 
 

[Sugarcoat]

On 2026-08-02 at 0:10 AM, Oppositionless said:

No I understand what he's saying even tho I disagree with his conclusion. Experiencing telepathy when you're psychotic having a bad trip is traumatic . I believe in psi because of the research but I don't necessarily want to experience it, at least not in the context I mentioned.

What kind of mind are you having telepathy with for  it to be scary lol 

[Jirh]

16 minutes ago, Sugarcoat said:

Some people are not close minded. They are just closed perception wise. 

You said your precognitive experience happened in a trance state between waking and slumber. This means you've entered a state of altered perception. But it doesn't mean now you get to decide what perceptual openness means. You don't even have ownership of that experience. It happened to you. Then you interpreted it as meaningful. Then you reported it. None of that says anything about how valid your interpretation is.