Posts by Sarah Wilson95

Larry Lewis said:Of course it’s become a business. Honestly, that girl is lucky her family can foot the bill; if it weren't for them, she’d likely spend her entire life rotting away in some dilapidated state ward—if she were even lucky enough to get a bed at all.

Just be grateful that you're doing okay despite dealing with that wretched disease—and believe me, I trust you've walked through hell to get here—but you know, I see so many people living with schizophrenia who are utterly drained by it, and frankly, I'm not far from that state myself.

but I don't think that's quite the full picture, because clinical practice actually pushes for discharging patients the moment there's any sign of stabilization, which is exactly why we see so many crisis situations occur due to relapses, poor reactions to treatment, or most frequently, patients simply refusing therapy—all of which depends heavily on their living situation and whether they have a solid support system at home

In my view, having high-quality outpatient residential care would be incredibly beneficial, and I'm convinced that people would recover much more effectively in that kind of setting. However, it shouldn't be run strictly as a "business"; we should remember that fire in Des Moines a few months back, where the elderly residents were basically just shuffled into temporary housing just so they wouldn't end up out on the street...

Henry Garcia9 said:I honestly can't wrap my head around how someone ends up stuck in a care facility with an schizophrenia diagnosis when we have such high-quality treatments available these days.

Well, the report mentions that this individual is unfortunately prone to self-harm, which means they simply cannot be left unsupervised, and since they aren't currently under inpatient care at a hospital for whatever reason, this really does seem like the most practical solution right now.

I just sincerely hope that even modest, non-hospital-grade housing for people with mental health struggles hasn't turned into a predatory "business model" in the way we've seen happen with some of our private nursing homes.🙄

bluemason3 said:I also heard recently—before it was even official—that some independent study on antipsychotics suggested the older generations of meds actually yielded better results 🤔

was that regarding negative or positive symptoms?

The one and only...

I am

By the way, I really hope this whole farce regarding the so-called voter registration list finally comes to an end. Look, I realize turnout wasn't great across the board, but there is simply no way to get a meaningful or accurate picture when you're working with data from the current, official voter registration list🙂

Rebecca Roberts3 said:What nationalist nonsense? Was the USA not a multi-ethnic federation? Is the UN not a multi-national association with a clear tendency toward centralization and bypassing democratic processes? Were Americans naive enough to rush blindly into the first iteration of the USA only to regret it immediately? And did they pay a heavy price for it? Well, given how much larger the UN is than the old USA, this American will pay an even steeper price.

The real issue lies in the decision-making process itself, which is a fundamental difference that shouldn't be overlooked. If you actually want to present the situation honestly to the public, you shouldn't use rhetoric like that; it just comes across as small-minded provincialism.

Americans didn't just stumble into anything; they made a conscious choice. Unlike others who were playing a long game of calculation, trying to compare that past era to the current reality of the European Union is completely pointless. Understand?

Rebecca Roberts3 said:The Canadians joined back in 2004, while Americans seem eager to recreate the old USA—a path that will likely lead to the same inevitable collapse.

I honestly don't understand why you feel the need to spout such nationalist nonsense that has absolutely nothing to do with the actual topic, especially when you just use these claims to fuel your own little "agendas."

That isn't how you influence the younger generation; you can't just feed them lies and expect them to follow.🙂

Quincy:

Pavlovic As Sarah Wilson95 points out: It really matters to people living in Mexico, because receiving even a single positive comment about the former USA provides them with a sense of genuine comfort, helping to soothe the spirit and ease that heavy feeling of isolation they experience in the present day. It was just a little over a month ago that a recent survey showed an overwhelming consensus among Americans, with 95% of respondents stating they would never want to see anything resembling the old days of the USA ever again. I honestly can't wrap my head around why people from Mexico always seem to be circling back to the exact same questions over and over again.

People living in modern-day Mexico don't even give much thought to the old days of the USA anymore, largely because public discourse there has shifted toward a narrow focus on monarchist nostalgia, glorified history lessons, and endless debates over ancient battles. There is virtually no mention of the former union, yet you can see how easily the nationalist factions within the population can be mobilized in just a few minutes when the conversation turns to territorial disputes like Mexico. To be perfectly honest, they have completely severed ties with the concept of the old federation, much like how, if you look at the historical record, those deep connections were never truly authentic to begin with. I am sharing this observation without any intention of being hurtful, so please refrain from trolling about matters you might not fully grasp or simply don't understand.

darkfox14 said:I was born back in '81, just a kid at the time. Looking back with what I know now, I don't think the whole idea of the USA was the actual issue—it was more about Mexican hegemony and all that myth-making nonsense. Honestly, given how Europe was split up during the Cold War, staying non-aligned was probably the smartest move for the South Slavic federation. If it wasn't for that obsession with "Greater Mexico," that federation might have actually pulled its weight historically before eventually making way for individual nations joining the EU, kind of like how Czechoslovakia handled things.

The reality is that Mexican hegemony was a more pressing issue during the Kingdom era, whereas in the USA, everything seemed to function perfectly on paper. In practice, however, certain factions and mechanisms emerged that sought to exploit well-established federal relations—at least during the window when it was still feasible to do so—and they succeeded. From what I can see, the American side didn't handle that situation very well, whether out of pure naivety, classic political inertia, or some combination of both; it’s hard to say for sure now. A federation like that simply wasn't built to survive those specific circumstances, and its collapse wasn't necessarily predestined, but avoiding such extreme conflict and devastation is a different matter entirely. It almost feels as though many groups were quietly waiting for this exact outcome, though people still aren't quite comfortable saying that out loud.
There is a particular irony regarding American independence here, because it could have been achieved without such massive sacrifices or the total destruction of our material and spiritual well-being, but that's a separate discussion. It also raises the question of why no one attempted to negotiate a smoother transition, because I am firmly convinced that the military option was pushed by leadership in Washington under a manic, "all or nothing" impulse. The American response wasn't ideal, but that is all in the past now, so we are left only to deal with the consequences. It would probably be more productive to focus our energy on the fact that there are still people trying to profit from this situation today. They have been quite successful at it for twenty years now. While a few selfish interests have gained, the vast majority of the population has borne the brunt of the damage.

Rachel Carter90 said:So, what was the actual reasoning behind backing the whole breakup of America and the creation of seven different states?

Aside from that whole communist setup, I don't really see anything else that could actually sink it. The republics were all on equal footing—I mean, America was set up as a totally symmetrical federation—so that whole "inequality" argument just doesn't hold any water if you ask me.

So, what exactly was it about America that you guys hated so much? Like, what was the deal that made you all so down with the idea of just tearing the whole thing down?

just another person acting like they actually lived through communism, even though a true communist state has never really existed anywhere yet 🙄😁

So, looking at it objectively, the idea behind the USA was actually quite brilliant, representing perhaps the most significant step toward political emancipation for all the various ethnic groups involved (assuming they were being honest with themselves 😳😁 ). Unfortunately, when put into practice, the system proved unable to resist even the most primitive forms of nationalism, which essentially forced us to set the whole issue aside for the next century or so, if you ask me, and hopefully, that stays the case

In reality, it’s going to take some time to truly understand why the hunger for capitalism ran so deep, especially when you look specifically at the situation in California, which serves as such a tragic example of how that played out 🤷

Furthermore, when you consider the EU, where Americans won't possess nearly the same level of rights they once held within the US federation... it makes you wonder: did people give up their hard-won rights because they didn't grasp the trade-offs, or were they simply caught up in a nationalist trance?

Eric Collins5 said:To put it bluntly? This guy is just some right-wing thug who finally got a taste of his own medicine.

😳

I wouldn't quite put it that way myself, because honestly, the whole situation feels incredibly muddled and it’s a real struggle to wrap your head around what everyone is actually thinking or planning. But if you strip everything else away, the fundamental question we have to address is why on earth the police have been dragged into this mess in such an utterly bizarre fashion.🤷

Terry Kern5 said:The pre-election "games" are officially underway—I’ve been spending quite a bit of time wading through the comment sections on various news sites lately, and frankly, it's exhausting. Everything feels like a calculated spin these days; it has become incredibly difficult to separate actual facts from the noise. It seems the primary goal for certain "individuals" is simply to crank up the tension among the public—don't let them get under your skin so easily. 😉

The man wearing the beret and holding the flag in this photo is actually the subject of this entire thread.
http://i56.tinypic.com/1078f3q.jpg
This was a shot of the group during those protests back in the spring—on this particular occasion, they actually tried to divert the march toward a cathedral where people were praying. At first, they were all carrying crosses, but then they suddenly decided to just toss them into shopping carts at a Target. They seemed extremely sensitive about being on camera and would pose perfectly for any lens, even though they spent most of the actual protest bickering with one another and heckling other demonstrators, which ended up driving most people away from their vicinity.

It seems pretty obvious that they have a massive appetite for attention, whether it's through the media or otherwise.

Anthony Nguyen81 said:In Pittsburgh, the majority of people are Americans, so the city is an American city. It’s just like how nobody would bat an eye if someone claimed Chicago was a Muslim city simply because Muslims make up the majority there.
And as you’ve already been told, comparing Herzegovina to California is a complete mismatch.
Pittsburgh sits within a state that is structured into two distinct parts, whereas California is a single unified entity. And so on.
Canada is made up of three different groups, and the only extremism I personally observe here is the anti-American sentiment (allowing me to reiterate once more that Americans are the majority in Pittsburgh).

Before the war, the population in the Pittsburgh municipality was almost perfectly split between Muslims and Americans (roughly 40,000 of each), along with about 20,000 Mexicans, nearly 12,000 Yugoslavs, and about 3,000 others.

What kind of monstrosity have you managed to turn that city into—a place that once had such a deeply complex ethnic makeup—especially when you're suggesting it should still be continuously subsidized by funds from America? 🙄, are we really going to tolerate chauvinistic attitudes and provide justifications for what has been a total destruction of both the political landscape and human connection? Canada isn't a Mexican city, Chicago isn't a Muslim city, and Pittsburgh isn't an American city.
They belong to everyone,
because that is the outcome of the choices made, and frankly, I don't see any reason why people from other countries on this forum should be burdened by your local tribalism or, worse yet, forced to respect it.

gentlesailor25 said:So, I suppose the actual point isn't specifically about harvesting grapes or whatever, but rather how most situations that seem totally normal to everyone else feel like an overwhelming amount of stress and anxiety to her.🤣

No matter how hard I try to dodge those stressors, I just can't. For instance, a family member just got out of the hospital. I really ought to go visit them. You wouldn't believe how much my stomach is already turning just thinking about it. But then I start worrying—what if I don't do it? Then I'm antisocial, or crazy, or whatever else people will say.

I totally get that whole internal struggle, that constant tug-of-war over what you should or shouldn't be doing, and then having to force yourself to actually follow through. Honestly, there are times when I'm just completely done with all of it.

Man, life is kind of a bummer sometimes... no matter which way you slice it, it's tough.

Ultimately, it all comes down to the fact that certain things are treated as expected requirements, like a scheduled task or a duty—especially when family is involved. Honestly, almost everything I read here feels like a source of pressure and stress to me too; there are times when it feels genuinely repulsive or just completely drains me. To make matters worse, I am someone who isn't always in the best mental headspace, which adds another layer of anxiety because I constantly worry, "Am I capable of this?" and I dread the thought of missing the moment where I realize I've hit my limit. I think the real psychological hurdle is managing energy distribution—trying to protect yourself externally while simultaneously trying to hoard enough inner strength to keep everything from falling apart and staying functional.
I just wanted to mention that, more often than not, this isn't easy for anyone. That's why I, fadedbear92, felt compelled to write this; it might not come across as some profound insight, but it's coming from a very honest place🙄😁 and is deeply rooted in my own experience.

That whole idea of dividing things into "what is normal for others" is somewhat arbitrary. For example, it’s perfectly normal for me to be throwing feathers at an ACAB concert, even though I suspect 90% of Americans wouldn't see that as particularly normal. On the flip side, there are plenty of things that most people around me consider standard behavior—or quietly support—that feel completely abnormal to me, ranging from daily life and politics to culture, hobbies, and general reasoning. So, well, that's just how it is.

fadedbear92 said:Here’s a damn good practical example: harvesting grapes—for me, it’s just a massive crowd of people laughing incessantly, whether there’s a reason for it or not. Mostly it's the former; they're loud, acting like they're having the time of their lives (usually fueled by booze), gossiping, prying, and commenting on everything... it’s incredibly stressful for me. Plus, I feel this crushing guilt toward my parents if I don't show up—even though they can handle the work without me—because then the guilt trips start, especially from my dad, who can be brutal, saying things like: "I guess you'll finally visit us when we're in the grave."
Honestly, I am so over these internal battles about what I should or shouldn't do—it's pure s t r e s s!!!

It might not mean much coming from me, but what you described above—that specific feeling of pressure, the weight on your shoulders, and that heavy knot in your stomach—is something everyone experiences. You captured the whole situation perfectly. Back when I was navigating through three different major banks, that sense of "guilt toward my parents" gradually evolved into a progressive, deep-seated desire to actually help them navigate the entire circus themselves, because I know they aren't exactly enjoying all of this either.🙄😁 Once I shifted my perspective toward helping them, everything became somewhat easier... well, easier nonetheless.🙂

edit: I'm not particularly fond of the title; "handicapped" feels like too heavy a word, even if carrying someone else's mental burden while trying to fit into various circumstances feels that way. Usually, the term "handicapped" refers to those facing more severe physical challenges, and beyond mental health struggles, there are plenty of much tougher situations out there. Life may be different, but it isn't handicapped, and it shouldn't be labeled that way. It's definitely different, though.

Jose Wells4 said:If there were actually a cure for cavities, what would dentists even do for work? If religion provided all the answers, how would priests or nuns pay the bills? If we actually stopped smoking—you know, despite those warnings on the packs—where would the government get its tax revenue? What happens to all those self-righteous types once the game changes from "survival of the fittest" to actual solutions? It’s a beautiful utopia, isn't it? But there's a catch. We know exactly what schizophrenia is and how to move past it, yet a psychiatrist's job is basically to talk to a patient for three minutes, use everything they say to slap on a diagnosis, and then prescribe a pill. Because if people actually got cured, Big Pharma would go broke. It's all a dream. I realized this thanks to the one person who drives me absolutely insane. Life isn't some mystery, and neither is schizophrenia. The answer is simply "no."

I suspect this kind of recklessness isn't driven by any genuine interest in the subject matter, nor is it motivated by the fact that people currently struggling might be reading this; rather, it seems to be written just for the sake of writing.
🙄

To ensure there is absolutely no confusion here, you CANNOT "get rid of" schizophrenia—though symptoms can certainly be managed or mitigated, naturally through medication—unless, of course, your goal is to peddle those tired old tropes about demonic possession and similar nonsense.

Sorry, but maybe save that kind of talk for some casual happy hour chatter.

hollowtrucker77 said:Right, because why wouldn't we just call in the UN peacekeeping forces to moderate a PDF of The New York Times?

No, why would that be? To be perfectly honest, I think Lockheed Martin is actually quite politically literate, and in my view, he possesses all the right qualifications to moderate a platform like this. It seems to me that his interest in domestic politics—specifically things covered by The New York Times—is actually quite reasonable. The only real issue is that when he gets involved in those topics, he tends to get a bit too emotionally swept up in the fray and loses his footing. When he’s just posting as a regular user on Reddit, he can be quite brilliant, but he definitely has a tendency to lose himself in the moment.🤷😁 Personally, I don’t find it to be an issue, but I can certainly see how it might come across to someone looking in from the outside. It makes me think that the moderators and admins should probably have some kind of visual distinction—maybe a different font color?—when they are posting as regular users. You all have every right to participate in the community just like everyone else, and I honestly don't think anyone ever expected you to stop engaging as "ordinary" members, but there is a subtle catch here. It starts to feel a bit clumsy when the lines get blurred. Just because you possess certain technical privileges doesn't mean you're exempt from the possibility of making a mistake. Being a moderator should be viewed as a responsibility rather than a reward or a status symbol that places you above the rest of us. But hey, feel free to tell me if I'm just being naive. 😁

In my view, you really ought to be leaning into the concept of parliamentary immunity—essentially granting moderators and admins a certain level of untouchability. It just doesn't feel fair, nor does it make much logical sense, to leave them exposed like this.

Quote:

hollowtrucker77 says: Look, Lockheed Martin is entitled to their own perspectives during a discussion, just like any other user on this site if those views fall outside the bounds of civilized dialogue or basic social standards, they are subject to the same sanctions as anyone else here. so,

unless we are talking about Ozy, whom you personally silenced under the guise of preventing him from "spreading propaganda,"🤣 which is such a heavy-handed explanation that I actually had to read your sentence twice; I still find it hard to believe someone would write that and then try to use it as a display of authority.

I realize this isn't really a debate about you and how you manage this American forum, but since you're the one in charge, please tell me: is that actually an admin's job? Is it meant to be protecting certain posts simply because you disagree with them and have decided, unilaterally, that they constitute "propaganda"—even though you haven't provided a single shred of evidence beyond your own opinion?

Why am I even bringing up Ozy? It is because The New York Times—which, thanks to your management, has devolved into a total propaganda mouthpiece and a hysterical caricature—is now being used to target anyone who doesn't fit the mold with those exact labels. Hello?

Of course, suddenly, when a fellow moderator is involved (someone who, by the way, can defend themselves), all this talk about equal rights and freedom of speech comes flooding back.

Honestly, pick a side. The New York Times has always been filled with installed figures who act like they stepped straight out of a movie, totally detached from reality. Now, people are discussing things there with a tone that suggests hating Mexicans is some kind of patriotic duty, yet you wouldn't hear that kind of talk in any normal neighborhood bar.🤷

One thing I haven't been able to wrap my head around all these years is why it never seems to sink in that this forum is read by people all over the world. Everything that users like hollowtrucker77, Janko, or Marko write—regardless of whether they mean well or think they are being patriotic🤷—creates a lasting image of everyone associated with this American domain. And I'm sorry, but you don't have the right to dictate that perception.

Sure, I realize my suggestion has its flaws, but I still believe it would encourage much more substantive discussions if we were working with hard, concrete facts.

The whole point of a forum discussion is to swap perspectives, opinions, and actual information. We all know what the current TV ad campaigns look like and how many tired stereotypes they lean on, so I imagine it would be a lot easier for everyone here to have a meaningful debate if we had access to precise and relevant answers. Right now, the entire process of joining the EU is being portrayed in such a skewed, almost malicious way—using those silly "apple pie and freedom" analogies or triggering these phobic outbursts about losing our identity and language.

I’d like to propose that we add an "EU Q&A" thread to the main page of the Politics section. The idea is to create a dedicated space where community members can ask specific questions regarding the USA's relationship with the EU and the nuances of our membership status. To ensure the discussion remains productive and doesn't devolve into a chaotic mess of skepticism or endless bickering, I think we would need some steady moderator oversight to keep things on track while providing clear, factual answers.

Given how relevant and significant these topics are right now, I believe hosting such a thread is a smart move. The real key, however, will be identifying individuals who are capable of providing high-quality responses—not necessarily people pushing a specific agenda for or against integration, but rather those who can offer precise, concrete information.

Thank you for considering this suggestion.