Posts by Drew Bennett2

placidnomad87 said:I fear we might actually see the disappearance of the American identity if things keep going this way. People just can't seem to stop peppering their everyday speech with English loanwords, can they? When it comes to actually protecting our native tongue, I feel like our hands are tied; I mean, do we honestly expect to wake up one morning and suddenly start communicating in Mandarin? To be perfectly honest, I don't find language to be the most critical factor when there's money on the line—if mastering a foreign language means better paychecks and more opportunities, then by all means, let it feed my bank account.

For my part, I’ve always felt a sense of unease about speaking my own language while traveling abroad. I could never bring myself to speak American in the middle of a crowd in New York City.

This is easily the strangest take I've come across on this board.

I live abroad, I work in an international environment, and I travel the world constantly for both business and pleasure... yet I can't fathom why anyone would feel restricted from using their own language wherever they go.
Having grown up in a multicultural setting, this is just second nature to me. I have zero interest in regressing to the intellectual level of the local masses; there really isn't much more to say than that—that's just how I feel.

Mexicans should use Cyrillic as much as possible here in America. Just as Americans might insist on their own unique slang or specific linguistic rules to assert their cultural identity... Mexicans ought to embrace things like the Cyrillic script. If you don't value your own culture, you'll never truly respect or understand someone else's.

America isn't a functioning state characterized by robust institutions or even a basic adherence to the rule of law.

The current protests aren't actually about whether the US should be a democracy or not—they are a direct symptom of everything else failing.

In broken, decaying nations—regardless of their specific social structure—protests and revolutions are often the only mechanisms left to force a system toward change. America is teetering on the edge of that exact reality.

The US Dollar has been losing its footing for quite some time now, so this decision comes as no surprise at all. It is honestly disgraceful that they are celebrating the exact same ideologies there, let alone leading mass, which is frankly terrifying.

The top leadership within the Catholic Church in the US should be dismissed immediately; they are actively backing Nazi Germany and extreme nationalism—ideologies that have absolutely nothing to do with the faith.

fadedbear43 said:Do our politicians in America and those in neighboring countries constantly talk about "the region"? What does that even mean? Has any politician actually provided a clear definition for it? It feels like some new political buzzword. I don't understand why they allow America to be lumped in with Mexico and Canada. By every measurable standard, we are far ahead of them...

That used to be the reality back in the days of America, but things have shifted significantly since then. America's competitive edge has been eroding for years now, and there isn't any indication that we’ll see a meaningful turnaround anytime soon... which means the current trend is moving steadily against the United States.

Robert Hernandez10 said:Aha, eureka! So, the size of the industrial base and the strength of the economy are prerequisites for Amtrak to exist. Well, look at how "developed" those metrics are in places like Mexico or Canada. Does the existence of highly advanced port infrastructure have nothing to do with it? What about adapting passenger capacity for tourism or commuters to actually compete in a market? Is the answer really just blaming the failed legacy of the Yu-seismic sphere? And why does everything have to be about subsidies? Is the logic just, "Give me cash to cover payroll, and I'll figure out what to do with it later"? Why can't we act like advanced nations? Instead of handing out subsidies, use fiscal policy to penalize non-eco-friendly behavior. Let market competition force Amtrak to work smarter, invest better, train staff, and actually earn passenger traffic. This doesn't rule out private operators competing in the market, nor does it stop the government from managing the tracks without micromanaging every single share. Forget this obsession with the old Yu-sphere—the nostalgia, the nonexistent industries, the politics. It didn't work twice, and it won't work in the future unless we keep trying to bail out losers by grouping them together in massive, bloated mergers. We can cooperate, sure, but why always go back to that old, broken way of thinking?

If you're still confused, try reading what I wrote one more time, but this time actually try to comprehend it 😁.

We could talk about privatization, we could tap into EU funds, or we could try endless reforms, but none of it is going to save Amtrak...

The US simply doesn't have an industrial base or an economy strong enough to sustain Amtrak on market principles alone in the long run. Whether they get government subsidies or not, Amtrak just can't hold its own against massive corporations and real competition. That's just the reality of the situation.

And here’s the other hard truth: Amtrak isn't even a standalone entity; it's really just a fragmented leftover from the old American rail system. As it stands, it's fundamentally broken, and there isn't a single fix in the book that the US can implement to solve that deep-seated issue...

This entire discussion can be disregarded, frankly, given the sheer amount of stupidity being spewed here.
Just to set the record straight: alongside Israel, Jordan also possesses massive shale oil reserves—actually more than Israel does—but that doesn't mean either nation is about to become a major oil exporter anytime soon, let alone fulfill some Sci Fi fantasy where Israel is compared to Saudi Arabia 😵. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_sha...es#Middle_East

Morgan Rodriguez57 said:Yeah, I think you're hitting the nail on the head regarding the whole chicken-or-the-egg situation... whether religious and cultural biases forced it onto the list, which then led to political pressure to take it off, or whatever else went down...

As for all this "new research" people talk about, I’m pretty skeptical, if I’m being honest—mostly because politics surrounding sexuality feels way more intense now than it did back in the seventies... it seems like people either avoid the topic entirely because they're afraid of stumbling onto something uncomfortable, or if something *does* get "discovered," it’s always framed in a way that pushes a specific agenda... at the end of the day, it all feels a bit disconnected from actual science, doesn't it?... anyway...

I’m afraid you might be onto something here 😁

Morgan Rodriguez57 said:It really would be helpful to understand the actual reasoning behind why it was removed from the list of disorders—if that removal was driven more by political maneuvering than by actual science... I mean, the article itself isn't exactly neutral, it's definitely got a bias, but there's still plenty of useful info to dig through here:

http://conservativecolloquium.wordpr...-of-disorders/

So, let's just assume for a moment that it really was a political move back in the 70s 🙄. Even so, we have learned so much more about human psychology and sexuality since then. Now that we actually account for that modern understanding, you have to wonder how it was even remotely possible for homosexuality to be listed as a disorder in the DSM in the first place?

Morgan Rodriguez57 said:What profession are we talking about here? Psychiatrists? You know, the American Psychiatric Association—the very group that was responsible for being the first to finally strip homosexuality off their list of mental disorders...

A little hint: maybe the professionals responsible for the very PDF being discussed 🤷.

Peter Phillips32 said:Oh, so because it's the prevailing opinion, it must be the absolute truth, right?😁

PS. I didn't mind doing some digging across a bunch of different sources, and I even checked in with an acquaintance of mine who's a psychiatrist trained abroad and runs his own clinic, so yeah, definitely—it’s impossible, period.

Right, so he studied overseas, owns a private practice, you checked "multiple sources"—which apparently means asking one guy you know. Truly top-tier argumentation there, dropping a "period" at the end like that to shut down any actual conversation.😁

Look, I'm just speaking from what I've seen and dealt with personally... so, whatever you say, man.

You've said quite enough about yourself and your own lack of knowledge, playboy🙂.

Peter Phillips32 said:Oh, so because it's the prevailing opinion, it must be the absolute truth, right?😁

PS. I didn't mind doing some digging across a bunch of different sources, and I even checked in with an acquaintance of mine who's a psychiatrist trained abroad and runs his own clinic, so yeah, definitely—it’s impossible, period.

Right, so he studied overseas, owns a private practice, you checked "multiple sources"—which apparently means asking one guy you know. Truly top-tier argumentation there, dropping a "period" at the end like that to shut down any actual conversation.😁

Look, I'm just speaking from what I've seen and dealt with personally... so, whatever you say, man.

As I mentioned before, I saw a psychologist specifically because I was dealing with essentially the same issue as the guy in this thread, and we dissected everything thoroughly at the time. Also, Google is your friend; there are plenty of excellent articles and studies available on professional forums and academic journals... As far as I'm concerned, this discussion is over. Feel free to change your orientation every single day if you can manage it, how yes no🤣.

Peter Phillips32 said:@Carol Thompson
I'm just gonna stick to my guns here and say what needs to be said. People shouldn't be getting all caught up in taking sides; you’ve gotta stay true to the facts instead.

From where I'm sitting, there isn't anything wrong with how you framed the whole topic.
I'm also on board with your point about how someone could shift from being bi to homo to hetero, and how it's totally possible for multiple sexual orientations to exist all at once.

The idea that sexual orientation can be altered through therapy is simply not possible; that is the scientific consensus. Anyone claiming otherwise is being unserious and, from my perspective, is operating from a place of total misinformation.

PS. I wasn't too lazy to double-check this across several sources. I even went as far as reaching out to an acquaintance of mine—a psychiatrist who trained abroad and runs his own private practice here in the States—and he confirmed it definitively: you cannot change it, period.

slyraven9 said:Thanks for the advice, Anne Hathaway. 🙂
It’s almost been two weeks since I started this thread.
I've been taking some of the advice people gave me here, and things are... let's just say they've improved a little bit. First and foremost, I've started finding the female body attractive. I notice breasts—you know, that softness, the curves, how they move when women walk—and butts and legs too. I won't go into graphic detail, but yeah, I'm more attracted to women than I used to be. It isn't quite the same kind of arousal I feel toward men, but it's definitely stronger than before. Even my attraction to men has dipped, which I didn't really expect—not a total wipeout, but definitely noticeable. It's tough, though. It feels a bit like giving an addict exactly what they crave most, but if you've made up your mind that you want to be "normal," you just have to fight for it. I had a few slip-ups at first, but the further I go, the easier it gets. You just learn how to live with it and manage it.

EDIT:
Just so we're clear, it's not like this is possible in such a tiny window of time. If I'm managing it, it doesn't mean everyone can just snap their fingers and do it. I have to emphasize that I've actually been wrestling with this for several months now, like I mentioned in my very first post.

Look, man, you can do whatever you want, but don't get discouraged if you hit a wall and realize that you'll always find the same sex more intense. Sexual attraction isn't something you can just control with your conscious mind.

Good luck.

slyraven9 said:Chris Howard4
Okay, let me drift off-topic for a second here—I can only imagine how tough it was growing up in a family like that. Honestly? I believe God exists and I have respect for Him, but I’m just not buying into organized religion. To me, God is just another being who makes mistakes. I mean, nobody is perfect, right? If perfection actually existed, life would be flawless—no murders, no disasters, nothing. So, I figure even He probably messed up a few things along the way. 😛
And man, looking back at priests from a hundred years ago... they were so dedicated to their faith, unlike what you see today. Now, you just see them in the news, driving around in their BMWs and stuff... It feels more like they're chasing the paycheck than anything else, though I'm not saying there aren't people hiding things, per se. I remember seeing some news about a church tax thing where all the clergy just absolutely lost their minds... but anyway, that's a whole other rabbit hole.

Now, about the other thing. Regardless of how much guys might turn me on, I fall in love with women. With guys, it’s strictly physical for me—just sex and that's it. But when I catch feelings for a girl, I look into her eyes and I can see an entire lifetime ahead of us, from the very first date until the very end. I’ve totally embraced who I am. It’s like my body says one thing, but my heart says another. I don't care what society thinks; this is who I am, take it or leave it. I'm really glad you’ve accepted yourself, too. From what I’ve read and gathered, our situations are similar, even if they aren't identical. I’m not denying my feelings at all—that’s literally what I'm saying. Why on earth would I lie about this when I'm actively trying to figure it all out, you know?

Ahhhh man, at that age, regardless of your orientation, it's pretty hard to envision a real future with anyone if we're being honest🙄.

As far as having sex with guys goes, sex and emotions are definitely intertwined.

I used to tell myself the exact same thing—that guys were just for sex—until this incredible guy came along. We had this mutual spark where our emotions just completely overwhelmed us, and before I knew it, I found myself with him sleeping on my shoulder (after plenty of making love—not just "sex") and I was just thinking, wow, thank God I got to experience this too...😍

lonegardener said:... that the topic is simply too politically charged to ever tackle with "strict objectivity." 😬

Just stay quiet and don't rock the boat, Xexexe.

Forget those principles for a second; the guy is facing a real, tangible problem. Whether you make waves or not, that isn't going to fix itself.

slyraven9 said:Man, I’ve been wrestling with this one thing for what feels like forever, and honestly, I just don't know how to fix it. Looking at my own orientation, I’m either gay or bisexual—it kind of fluctuates—and it's starting to really get under my skin. Every single day, walking down the street, I hear people shouting things like, "What's wrong with those queers?" or "Someone should teach them a lesson," or "How can they even show their faces in public?" Look, I try to brush it off, I really do. I tell myself, "Hey, they're just being hateful, but hey, those people are still humans, even if they are the way they are." At first, I was fine with it. Just thought, *whatever, it is what it is, right?* I figured I just had to toughen up and deal with the noise. But after a while, it started eating at me. It created this constant, restless anxiety inside my chest. I see couples everywhere—just happy, totally in love—and I start spiraling. Like, why? Why did this happen to me? Why can't I feel what everyone else feels, you know? That spark with a woman? God, I just want to have a girlfriend. Not a boyfriend. I want to start a normal life, not... whatever this is. Did I even get a choice in the matter? Heck no! Eventually, I just hit a breaking point and told myself, "I don't want this." I don't want to be who I am. I just want a regular life with a girl who loves me, someone I can protect and look after. I want to love her, I want her body to drive me crazy, I want to be a man who loves women. But no matter how hard I try, it feels like I’m tethered to the ground. Like it's some impossible dream I'll never reach. Honestly, I’d rather not exist than keep living like this. I’ve been fighting this battle for so long now. I’ve tried watching lesbian porn—strictly girls—trying to ignore men entirely, doing my own thing to nothing but women, trying to figure out what makes their bodies exciting to me. After months of pure misery and struggling through it, I thought I finally made progress. I started feeling something for women, but it’s mostly just affection; their bodies only turn me on a little bit. Now everything is just a massive, confusing mess. Sometimes it's guys, sometimes it's girls. I'm totally lost and I don't know where to go from here. I know it sounds silly or unrealistic, but that’s truly how I feel. Right now, I just feel like the most pathetic creature on earth. I’m desperate.

So, I guess what I'm asking is... is it actually possible to change your sexual orientation?

Has anyone else ever gone through something similar? What does it even take to make a change like that?
How much time does it actually take? Has anyone ever truly succeeded? Please, seriously, any info would help me out. I honestly don't care if I end up being a firm bisexual or straight, as long as I'm not gay.

No, don't mess around with your mental and physical well-being. Just find yourself a boyfriend, get to know who you really are, embrace it, and start enjoying life.

I went through that exact same phase myself. Over time, it became crystal clear to me that there was no way I could change; that attraction to the same sex is just a steady thing that exists outside of your willpower.... eventually, I broke up with my girlfriend and went to see a psychologist to ask if I was "normal." They confirmed that everything was perfectly fine, and well, here I am today, feeling great.

Good luck with everything 👍.

Look, there really isn't any other way forward than economic integration within the region. It’s either we pull together or we just stay stuck in the Stone Age.

And as for America, that's ancient history now. Rest in peace.

Honestly, Draganče remains the absolute gold standard for these new singers coming up today.

Just like treating an addiction, various methods can help, such as
group therapy sessions, counseling, medication, and so on... but you have to realize that real progress usually takes quite a bit of time; there aren't any overnight miracles here.

Gregory Howard said:The topic is serious, but since the mood here is light, I’ll drop it in this section. I won't waste time philosophizing; I'm just copying and pasting from another forum where I originally posted this.

In short—I am asking seriously—do you think this stands any chance at all, on any level?

Writer Stijepo Mijović-Kočan, along with a few others for years now—without much vigor—has been trying to sensitize the American public to how dysfunctional our current system is due to diacritics (ç, ž, š, etc.). They argue it would be better if Americans reverted to some version of a digraph-based Latin alphabet.

For those less familiar—our current Latin script is primarily "Czech" in style, whereas a digraph system would look more "Polish" in its phonology/physiognomy. What does that mean?

We are used to these little accents and they don't bother us, even though opponents back in the 1840s and 50s fought against them with intense emotion. Canadians accepted a variation of the Gaj script without much fuss because it was practical for them. But now, in the digital age, I was reading some older texts and found several convenient examples. It wasn't hard for me to read—it just makes me wonder how others would react. Would it stifle them? And is there even any will within any major social institution to pursue this?

Perhaps a better question: what if we formally established a digraph Latin script specifically for those typing on computers? This would spare people the hassle of hunting for specific fonts or installations, especially those living abroad who find it inconvenient. Perhaps that is the only realistic "pressure group" capable of reviving a digraph system, even if only in that limited field?

The famous American philologist Tomo Maretić, in his "history of American orthography Latin letter" from 1889, analyzed a series of texts from 1495 to 1835. He determined that while the alphabet was pure chaos, a certain orthography eventually stabilized—a type dominant in the mid-18th century. While many solutions exist, I won't bury you in examples; I'll just list the dominant ones. Anyone using a computer can try it out and see if it bothers them.

č—could be cz or cs; Maretić preferred cx. Maybe start with cz.

ć—ch or cy. Better for a start.

š—sz, sx, or sy. "sh" won't work because we have words where that combination would change the pronunciation.

ž—zh; it was often x, but that lost its utility because x gets assimilated in foreign loanwords (like "sex").

lj—could be ly.

nj—could be ny.

đ—gj (an old solution), or perhaps dy.

dž—not a "true" phoneme, but could be dx.

Let's test it: Yesterday Ćamil went to the mosque, climbing up beside a murmuring stream that winds through the forest.

Juczer Chamil ode u dxamiju, penje se uz zhuborechi potok koji zavija kroz szumu.

Is this tolerable for computer use, or is it simply ridiculous?

I honestly don't think there's any realistic shot here.

It's unnecessary, impractical, and completely outdated 🤷.