3rd option is you just don't understand. This is language people use to describe narcissists. Flying monkeys are people who help them manipulate others and vampires are "emotional vampires". Poster was saying a narcissist had died, leaving their support people leaderless.
Weird fantasies are fun and all until the world demands that you fit them into a pre-configured narrative a la whoever and then you lose the ability to have them.
It's an extremely uncalibrated reply given the context regardless, even more so expecting the general audience here to understand this weirdly specific language. Something is definitely off.
Is a lay ontology that's basically a folk offshoot of the proverbial 5th edition practitioner's manual and people use to keep the question of ethics in our closes relationships at arm's length (because they've also, like you and I, found this self-consistent set of just-so stories weirdly smeared atop all useful ethics and psychology discourse on the Internet) proto-AI spam or the reins of as many future mass psychoses as the doctor ordered? And are we cool yet?
3rd option is you just don't understand. This is language people use to describe narcissists. Flying monkeys are people who help them manipulate others and vampires are "emotional vampires". Poster was saying a narcissist had died, leaving their support people leaderless.
I think you're right, but for a wonderful second I thought there was some weird fantasy reference going on
Weird fantasies are fun and all until the world demands that you fit them into a pre-configured narrative a la whoever and then you lose the ability to have them.
A reference to the Wizard of Oz movie? I hadn't heard this jargon before.
It's an extremely uncalibrated reply given the context regardless, even more so expecting the general audience here to understand this weirdly specific language. Something is definitely off.
Calibrate my barometer, good sir. Needed to hang around the 80s a little longer.
Could you explain how it relates to what you were replying to about breaking down funerals?
Is a lay ontology that's basically a folk offshoot of the proverbial 5th edition practitioner's manual and people use to keep the question of ethics in our closes relationships at arm's length (because they've also, like you and I, found this self-consistent set of just-so stories weirdly smeared atop all useful ethics and psychology discourse on the Internet) proto-AI spam or the reins of as many future mass psychoses as the doctor ordered? And are we cool yet?
[dead]