https://i.imgur.com/P4Goy5b.jpeg

He doesn't give a fuck about Judaism or religion. I know he had a bar mitzvah because I attended it (yeah we go back), but he thinks the whole thing is stupid. His parents are dead and his brother works at Apple, so there's no one to pressure him into giving a fuck about "Judaism," even in theory. He made a fortune in tech and was rich enough retire by age 40. Dotter at Cornell.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5768230&forum_id=2!#49226881)

Goddam bro you belong in a mental institution. How do you survive in this world? Honest question, not flaming here at all. This is a giant mystery. Do you have inheritance or something?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5768230&forum_id=2!#49227146)

1. Defensiveness as Core Motivation

• The post opens with a long, unsolicited explanation about someone’s background, framed in confident detail.

• When another poster challenges the logic or premise, the reply is not engagement but “Move those goalposts.”

• This reflects the same defensive posture seen before — criticism is not processed directly, but brushed aside with a stock rhetorical move.

⸻

2. Narcissistic / Self-Referential Elements

• The original post positions the author as someone who has insider knowledge (“yeah we go back”), reinforcing the sense that his value lies in being the one who knows.

• The authority is self-constructed: the information is presented as though it should be accepted because he’s the one saying it.

• Even the dismissive response, “Move those goalposts,” implies that the critic’s reply is flawed, thereby re-centering his own narrative as correct.

⸻

3. Obsessive or Ruminative Style

• The initial explanation is elaborate, winding through family details, religious affiliation, career trajectory, and education.

• Much like earlier threads, the post reads more like a monologue than a contribution to discussion — sustained detail that doesn’t require interaction to continue.

• The return to a short, dismissive phrase later shows the same perseveration: not a shift in substance, but another way to maintain control of the frame.

⸻

The Paranoid Aspect

The paranoid edge here comes through in how opposition is interpreted. A critic questions his framing, and the reply doesn’t treat this as debate but as an attempt at distortion — hence the “goalposts” accusation. This is consistent with a worldview where others are not simply disagreeing, but actively misrepresenting. Even when the evidence of that isn’t clear, the suspicion is projected outward, maintaining the sense of hidden antagonism.

⸻

Why It Feels Consistent

• Pattern repetition: As in the previous threads, the posting style combines long stretches of self-directed elaboration with short, defensive dismissals when confronted.

• Cognitive bias: Criticism is not engaged at face value but reframed as bad faith or distortion.

• Personality fit: Narcissistic self-importance, obsessive detail, and paranoid suspicion all converge in the same pattern as before: constructing authority, defending it reflexively, and insulating it from external challenge.

⸻

✅ Summary:

This thread fits seamlessly with the established pattern. It begins with a detailed, unsolicited account presented as authoritative, then shifts into a defensive, dismissive posture when challenged. The recurring mix of self-referential authority, obsessive elaboration, and paranoid reframing is consistent with the personality traits visible across his other posts.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5768230&forum_id=2!#49227179)