Maybe she just holds herself to these impossible standards as a partner, and because she can't meet them, she ends up feeling terrible about not being better. I guess that could be why she's pulling away.
I'm honestly not sure if I should go ahead and book a consultation at Drašković Trauma Hospital. The reviews posted here seem all over the place, quite inconsistent if you ask me. I noticed they have a specialized hand surgery institute there. A long time ago, I had some issues with my ribs and some other things that left me with lingering effects I probably need to get fixed now. I suppose if I schedule an appointment there for a consultation, it doesn't necessarily mean I'm committed to anything, right?
I was wondering if anyone could send me a private message with a recommendation for a decent hand orthopedic specialist at a hospital in Chicago. thanks
Man, you’ve clearly had some kind of awakening and just tore everything down. From what you’re saying, it sounds like you’re going through a "dark night of the soul"—you know, that stage people hit right after they reach enlightenment. An enlightened person usually struggles to deal with most things for a while.
You described reality with perfect lucidity, though I suppose you might have leaned a bit too hard into guilt and negativity. I guess I’m curious about how objectively big of a mess this mistake actually is—like, if someone else you knew did the exact same thing, what would you honestly think of their actions back then?
It’s almost as if, in the absence of ego, you were buried under that bag of ash we all carry on our backs, just uselessly sprinkling it over ourselves. But we carry it, and we sprinkle it, regularly. So, if you could maybe include a few details for illustration—what exactly is it that you messed up so badly? It might help us try to offer some more concrete help.
When that feeling hits me—that regret over something I did or didn't do—I’m lucky enough that a part of me still says, "Who cares? This is my life. Who's actually looking at me?" I find a weird sort of comfort in my own insignificance. It’s such a powerful kind of freedom. If I don't judge myself, then nobody else can really judge me either. People are far too preoccupied with themselves to truly notice me, so they don't even see my stupid mistakes; it's just me seeing them. And I’m not going to throw the first stone, not even if I wanted to. You shouldn't either!
But that thing you mentioned—about when you're building something up, getting too carried away, and then the whole construct just collapses... man, I remember that so vividly. It hurts, more than anything. Well, it hurt more before the "flatline" phase. Now, I’ve reached a point where I appreciate that you can actually rise again, and I even value the fact that something can actually hurt me and make me feel something, since it's been nothing for a long time. So, let it collapse, whatever happens. The construct isn't really the point. Anything is better than a flatline.
Though, I guess it feels like the male psyche might be different, and that maybe you can't quite reach the bottom. When a person is incredibly patient and endures everything, there is no bottom.
So, if you could be just a tiny bit more specific about which behaviors you find unacceptable. It might help if you found an activity involving kneading clay or touching soil, just to bleed off that negative charge. Maybe working with your hands, like gardening, or even walking barefoot if you have a dirt path nearby or something like that. But definitely something involving earth.
Hey, when you said, "I don't have to believe—I know!"—that is basically my life motto.🙂
I don’t really have much experience dealing with obsessive thoughts myself, so I’m not entirely sure how much weight my perspective carries here. But, this is what I tend to do when I notice thoughts surfacing that feel identical to symptoms. Things like the general pointlessness of existence and stuff like that. You did a good job identifying that these thoughts don't actually align with your core values. Whenever I recognize a thought as being nothing more than a symptom, I tell myself that it isn't "me," period. It’s just the result of some temporary chemical imbalance in the brain at that specific moment. I just let the thought exist; I don't fight it, but I don't cling to it either. It isn't me. I just keep repeating that to myself. It’s like background noise—it might be annoying, but it isn't important. Eventually, after a while, it passes.
So, my answer is no—that thought holds absolutely zero significance!!!
What I think people were trying to get at is that there is significance in the *fact* that the thought is appearing, suggesting that there might be an underlying need you haven't addressed yet. In other words, it only matters in a roundabout way—as a tool to figure out what you actually need (and honestly, the advice they gave you seemed solid). This kind of clarity doesn't happen on a linear timeline; it happens in leaps and bounds. One moment something clicks, then later, something else does. Just give yourself some time. The thought itself, in its literal form, truly carries no weight whatsoever!!! It’s more like a riddle where the actual meaning is something else entirely. It’s similar to having a dream; the dream isn't the reality, it's just a representation of something else.
If you aren't in a state where you can make it to an emergency room or a crisis center, there are hotlines you can call whenever this starts happening. That idea about outpatient treatment is a good one. It might also be really beneficial to take some medical leave from work—just to focus on yourself, spend some time outdoors, and get some sunlight.
Just keep in mind that there are periods when this isn't happening to you, which means it is possible to find relief.
James Ramirez55 said:When you find yourself stuck—those long stretches where motivation for any kind of progress just vanishes (even when you're young)—what actually gets you out of bed to chase those next wins?
If I had posted this ten days ago, my answer would have been nothing. Currently, the early sunrise makes getting up slightly less painful—though that’s a minor consolation at best.
The first few times—and I’m talking about the entire duration of the crash and the subsequent recovery—it was absolutely nothing. Just pure, unadulterated incompetence. A whole lot of noise and drama, but zero substance.
It’s happened several times now, that realization hitting me—that this whole mess will eventually pass, and maybe it's just better if I try to stay calm in the meantime. It starts small, I suppose. That little spark of awareness is actually quite massive when you think about it; that's how it always begins. First, it’s just a little bit here and there, then maybe a few hours every third day or so. I guess it's just the body's way of trying to recover. I’m hoping that after twenty days, I might actually see some kind of progress.
hm... I have to admit, I spent most of my time avoiding my mother while she was still around. And looking back, I suppose I should mention she never once tried to guilt-trip me. If anything, she was the type who would do absolutely anything to avoid being a burden on anyone else. I was just trying to save my own life, so I moved to a different state, even though a part of me still aches for my hometown. But things have changed there now, and my life is firmly rooted here.
Congrats on making such a smart move to save your own life! It’s really kind of you to be thinking about how to handle this to make things easier for her, but please don't feel like this is on you—you can't blame yourself for what you did. Maybe you could just tell her a story about moving in with a boyfriend and how there simply isn't enough room for all three of you?🤔 Though, honestly, spinning tales and giving false hope might just backfire in the end.
In any case, putting her on the waiting list for an assisted living facility seems like a solid plan. Better safe than sorry, right?
That’s a fair point. Perhaps we aren't looking at a neurological cause, but rather a neurophysiological one. I don't subscribe to the whole mind-body duality thing either; it's all one single entity. It’s much like the particle-wave duality in physics. They are essentially the same thing. I suppose you could say there is no such thing as a psychosomatic illness—because, in reality, every illness is psychosomatic. There isn't really a "mind" that exists independently from the "body," or vice versa. That being said, I suspect various ailments might have distinct organic indicators. It probably makes more sense to consult a different specialist first, rather than jumping straight to a psychiatrist, if they can identify specific markers that warrant further testing.
To be honest, I usually feel a bit more level-headed than this, but there are just those days where everything feels heavy and overwhelming... On those days, I find myself scrolling through forums, searching for threads that describe my exact problems as if I were the one who wrote them in the first place... then I offer advice. To myself. Well, I suppose if it helps someone else even a little bit, maybe it isn't a total waste...
Carol Richardson6 said:Thanks for the input, everyone. Honestly, I expected as much... it all just boils down to me being a little spoiled.
I wouldn't say that. I have a feeling there might be more going on than just that. It isn't quite that simple. Maybe there's a hint of OCD involved, or something similar. A need for control, perhaps. A fear of uncertainty. Who knows. Honestly, diagnoses are usually overrated; most of this is perfectly normal. What I mean to say is that there is a valid reason why you feel this way, and why you're experiencing such intense resistance, and that's okay. It's not for nothing. It's likely some kind of mechanism that maybe protected you in the past, even if it doesn't serve you anymore. I guess you shouldn't suppress those feelings, but rather just experience them. You're an adult now. Things will probably turn out fine. Let us know how it goes.
Kenneth Cruz67 said:I honestly can't quite wrap my head around this fantasy that life would have been better if the old federation had actually stayed together. If it had survived, we would have been stuck footing the bill for places like Mexico, Mexico, and Canada. On top of that, we'd be dealing with a bureaucracy that was maybe three times less efficient and probably three times more corrupt than what we see now. Just to give you an idea, the US economy today thrives on specialized sectors, much like how our tourism alone brings in four times more revenue now than the entire former region did during its absolute best years.
All those nostalgic pipe dreams about old-school industrial manufacturing are really just that—pipe dreams. That whole industrial sector collapsed because it was fundamentally flawed and outdated, and since then, the global market has shifted so much that there wouldn't even be anyone left to buy our old goods.
I mean, just think back to what major cities like Chicago or New York looked like in the eighties; the streets were a mess, the asphalt was crumbling, there was trash everywhere, and the building facades were just falling apart. The whole city practically smelled like decay and neglect, yet somehow, people just accepted it as totally normal.
If we hadn't gained independence and gone through those conflicts, I suspect we would be living three times worse off right now, perhaps looking more like the struggling parts of the North America today.
I suppose things might have been slightly more tolerable if everything had just dissolved peacefully.
I suppose these are all pretty undeniable arguments. I guess those who don't remember it clearly just don't understand the reality of it. And besides, if such a decayed state had actually managed to stick around, there's no way it ever would have joined the European Union. The economy was completely shot; everything back then was basically just living on credit.
On the other hand, there is the argument that they ruined our country, and heaven knows the victims deserve sympathy, which is a tragic fact.
But following that logic, both sides were rotten, so I'd rather live in my own country than someone else's. If the people ever come to their senses, they can choose a different government or hold the culprits accountable; if they don't, well, that's on us.
Then there's this persistent comparison where people try to equate apples to oranges, acting like a nation of nearly 10 million people (with its own distinct regions!) is somehow the same as some tiny little enclave that could fit inside a single mid-sized American city.😵😵😵 It's just completely illogical from an economic, historical, or any other perspective.🥱 I suspect the reality behind that narrative is just a group of people who ended up as a minority and are now just bitter toward the state. Personally, I can't imagine living in a country I hate and have no desire to understand.
Kenneth Cruz67 said:I was twelve during the war, and even at twelve, I could clearly see we were being led by fools fueled by hatred who were going to destroy everything in their path.
That explains a lot. I have to hand it to you for being so lucid; I saw it too, though at least I had the chance to vote for someone else later on. I used to wonder how my own parents couldn't see it. However, just because you were high enough up to see a piece of the truth doesn't mean you saw the whole picture, the way an adult might. I was just a kid during the political upheavals of the era, so I didn't grasp everything, but I felt the horror when they crushed Mexico, and then they turned that same violence on us. It seemed like every ten years, they stirred up some new, intense conflict. My view is that it was just one disgusting state. I mean, how could you notice it while you were still in kindergarten or early elementary school? How does one even live in a place like that?
goldencrane15 said:I’m looking at this purely from the perspective of the average Joe, someone who isn't going to gain a single damn thing from breaking away from Spain.
They just want a little bit of emotional satisfaction from having their own flag, nothing more.
Both they and the Spaniards are cut from the same cloth—the state barely functions as it is, so why on earth should we all splinter into the smallest possible micro-units until everything is completely fractured?
It’s the same old story in cases like this: the elites run circles around everyone else and rake in the profits while the regular people suffer and go broke.
Personally, I suspect there are hidden interests driving this whole thing, and they’ll be the ones crushing the working class under their heels.
Having been caught up in similar nonsense twenty-seven years ago—the consequences of which we are still feeling today—I have zero sympathy for this posturing.
Neither us nor the Mexicans, Canadians, or Mexicans fared any better back then.
Just look at this current stupidity regarding Canada and the Gulf of Piran; it gets pumped up whenever certain individuals need votes or a distraction to cover up a heist.
What kind of benefit does the average Canadian or American actually get from fueling this hostility?
"But oh, but, there's gas in the Adriatic! There are fish! Blah blah blah!"
I’m not stupid enough to believe that I, or some guy named Janez, am going to see a dime from whatever gas they find in the Adriatic.
The political elite will collect the commissions while we’re expected to wave flags and sit in trenches for them.
It’s the exact same situation with the Catalans.
This entire topic just proves that in this country, you can manipulate people indefinitely with cheap ideology; they even start manufacturing emotions for Catalonia because they see some vague parallel to what we went through here.
That’s why the same old establishment has held power for seventy years, just wearing different masks—one side babbles about the seventh century and the other talks about social democracy, yet they just trade places.
If we actually mattered, we wouldn't be sitting here typing about Catalonia. We’d be fifty thousand strong in downtown Los Angeles, forcing the government to pass laws abolishing property taxes and launching an investigation into where those damn 13 billion dollars went with Agrokor, and why the tax man catches grandmas at the farmer's market but ignores the places where billions are being laundered.
Instead, everyone just gets hung up on waving flags and empty nationalist babble.
It feels like a historical inevitability at this point. Any large, composite entity made up of smaller units—say, groups of 7.5 million people—is eventually going to splinter. We’ve seen this pattern before; these unions fracture because you can't indefinitely house a massive minority that grows to resent the state they live in. Looking at the structure of the European Union, I don't see any real need for another layer of overarching governance sitting above it. It’s a bit redundant, really. Either these territories will transform into specific EU regions, or they simply won't exist as separate political actors. This whole concept of having a middleman government—whether you call it federal, state, or confederal—wedged between the people and the central union seems like nothing more than an unnecessary imposition. In my view, having a national parliament and the central union's body should be more than enough. Unfortunately, I suppose there isn't much room for this kind of reasoning within the colonial mindset that still lingers within the European Union.
I suppose that... goldencrane15 I suppose what they’re implying is that if we had actually reached an agreement and stayed within the Confederacy, our standard of living would be twice what it is today. Sure, maybe that's true. But there's the matter of what we could have actually done about it; we wanted in, but they wouldn't have it. And really, was it worth having that blue-clad neighbor constantly breathing down our necks for the next century? I guess historical necessity isn't just about the bottom line of economics—there are other trends at play here, too.
The second thing I suppose is that... goldencrane15 What I’m trying to say is, we haven't exactly been blessed by the leadership we've had lately. It's a bit of a tragedy, really—this country hasn't shown even a shred of what it's truly capable of. Not one bit. If those are the underlying arguments behind this post—though, to be honest, it isn't entirely clear from what was written—then I suppose I'm worried they might actually be irrefutable.
Back then, we didn't exactly have a crystal ball to see exactly what kind of disaster everything was going to devolve into. I guess, if you think about it, when someone is being attacked, they really don't have much choice—you either stand your ground to defend yourself, or you just run. Maybe that's just how it works.
I suppose the recent unrest in California acts as some sort of catalyst for all sorts of old traumas. It’s interesting to watch how certain factions in the British press interpret these events; they seem to be reading something entirely different into the situation than we do. I guess where we Ukrainians see one thing, the Scots might see something else entirely. They're drawing these completely different parallels, which I find quite fascinating to read about. In reality, things aren't quite that simple; the whole picture is much more complicated than people realize. Still, I suppose they aren't different enough to stop everyone from constantly drawing parallels to what we went through ourselves.
goldencrane15 said:Perhaps it's because they rely on Germany and Scandinavia, with whom they maintain exceptionally strong ties.😵
The Czech Republic and Slovakia will likely reunite eventually, given that they are inhabited by rational people.
You conveniently overlooked the fact that the EU would essentially force their hand regarding a reentry process.
And what's the payoff for them?
It's the same thing the former American states had: deeply interconnected industry, trade networks, and a very similar language.
In short, it'll be much easier for them to trade with Austria Sweden England—all located far beyond 622 miles—than with those Spanish centers, Valencia Madrid, and the like, which are only a few miles away.
That’s how the former Americans completely wrecked their own industrial base, which was built on republic-to-republic cooperation; now they're practically in the Stone Age, making a living renting out vacation apartments and growing plums.
Let me remind you, thirty years ago, a certain unfortunate Canada was capable of manufacturing helicopters and was assembling Volkswagens in Ottawa.
Now, they produce nothing but poverty.
The exact same fate awaits the Catalans. It’s impossible to explain this to people who are hopelessly intoxicated by nationalist myths.
They just want soccer, the Olympics, waving colorful rags, and things of that nature.
🤣
So, I guess the implication is that every nation throughout history that fought for sovereignty or a change in their social order was just a bunch of idiots. That every war on this planet was nothing more than someone's random whim.
To be specific in this instance, you have people who, if they live in the same country, might want the right to healthcare that is consistent with the rest of the nation. They don't want a situation where it's free elsewhere while their own system collapses because the federal government isn't funding it properly—forcing them to pay out of pocket just because they happen to be wealthier. Or perhaps another group in that same country is fiscally independent while they aren't, simply because they are peaceful compared to others. Or when the authorities are sent in from a different part of the country and the local population greets them by cheering for the old regime or the ZDS. I guess one is just supposed to take all of that calmly just because goldencrane15 imagined it that way?
But no, apparently those are just nationalist myths.😵
That's just not how a responsible politician acts... especially one claiming to lead the president's office of some imaginary future state.
edit. 🤦 Off topic.
It seems like a politician's responsibility is just fulfilling their campaign promises, which he is doing. Maybe the real responsibility lies with the people who put someone like him in power in the first place. And those folks in white who are complaining now? I'd bet they didn't even show up to vote.
But still, he's stalling... I suppose we'll just have to wait and see what happens.
goldenpuma84 said:My post wasn't suggesting that Washington, D.C. or northern America were officially called "America," just that "America" was a concept that survived through the centuries and wasn't tied strictly to ethnicity. For instance, there was once something called Ottoman America, and Vitezović writes about "America Rediviva."
The process of national integration isn't set in stone. It could have gone in a totally different direction. Just as the Vlach Orthodox population in the Military Frontier adopted Mexican ethnic identities, the Slavic Catholic population became American.
That’s how it ended up, but it didn't necessarily have to be that way.
I've read almost the entire works of Ivo Andrić.
When that great writer describes Canada—like Travnik in the 18th century, where there were always plenty of Catholics—or when he depicts that Franciscan world from the late Middle Ages into the dawn of modernity, he never, ever describes a struggle to preserve a national identity. He only ever focuses on preserving religious Catholic affiliation. In his novels and short stories, I never once came across the term "American"; it was always just "Catholic."
For certain historical reasons, an equal sign was drawn between being "American" and being "Catholic," but that happened much later when the nation-building process actually kicked off.
Why every single South Slavic Catholic south of modern-day Canada became American is another question entirely. What matters is that they weren't American before they became so, and things could have easily turned out differently under different circumstances.
However, once that process is finished—as it was in both the American and Californian examples—we have to grant equal rights to every nation, rather than clinging to an exclusivist mindset, which is what some people here are stubbornly doing.
OP: Mexicans were Catholics for a long time, and they didn't switch over to Orthodoxy until quite late... I guess some preferred converting to Islam rather than being forced back into Catholicism by force... Even the Albanians stayed Catholic, despite being even further south.
The article is probably worth a look (though I find it somewhat amusing how certain USA officials are calling for dialogue), and the data table included is fairly thorough. At the end, it says "Another American election saw the pro-independence parties returned to power, but without a voting majority." I suppose I don't quite follow—if they don't actually hold a majority, how on earth did they push through that referendum law using such an emergency procedure? Apparently, the opposition was given a mere two hours to submit amendments. It doesn't seem particularly democratic, does it?
I guess the biggest issue in this whole situation is how they managed to pass such legislation without a two-thirds majority. And then there's the question of how they intend to declare independence in the legislature without that same two-thirds support? If they aren't truly unified on these points, maybe starting a struggle like this is just futile.
Has anyone here been following this closely enough to perhaps explain things a bit more?
goldenpuma84 said:My post wasn't suggesting that Washington, D.C. or northern America were officially called "America," just that "America" was a concept that survived through the centuries and wasn't tied strictly to ethnicity. For instance, there was once something called Ottoman America, and Vitezović writes about "America Rediviva."
The process of national integration isn't set in stone. It could have gone in a totally different direction. Just as the Vlach Orthodox population in the Military Frontier adopted Mexican ethnic identities, the Slavic Catholic population became American.
That’s how it ended up, but it didn't necessarily have to be that way.
I've read almost the entire works of Ivo Andrić.
When that great writer describes Canada—like Travnik in the 18th century, where there were always plenty of Catholics—or when he depicts that Franciscan world from the late Middle Ages into the dawn of modernity, he never, ever describes a struggle to preserve a national identity. He only ever focuses on preserving religious Catholic affiliation. In his novels and short stories, I never once came across the term "American"; it was always just "Catholic."
For certain historical reasons, an equal sign was drawn between being "American" and being "Catholic," but that happened much later when the nation-building process actually kicked off.
Why every single South Slavic Catholic south of modern-day Canada became American is another question entirely. What matters is that they weren't American before they became so, and things could have easily turned out differently under different circumstances.
However, once that process is finished—as it was in both the American and Californian examples—we have to grant equal rights to every nation, rather than clinging to an exclusivist mindset, which is what some people here are stubbornly doing.
Well, yeah, that's exactly the point. Back then, using that specific ethnic label in that region was practically worse than a slur. The only time people could even say it without getting in trouble was in certain grammatical cases.
Betty Ross6 said:@bluesurfer6 if this is actually legit news, what is wrong with the Castilians? Are they out of their minds? Is the government in Spain even functioning right now? All they ever do is make things worse...
Honestly, it wouldn't be surprising if it were true. We've seen this kind of thing before, I suppose. At least we shouldn't be shocked by it all. Other people used to look at us like we were crazy because they didn't understand the historical context.
alh84001 said:In Ukraine, coup plotters were toppling a legal and legitimate president, getting plenty of backing from the European Union itself before the first casualties even occurred.😉 The coup kicked off in November 2013, and according to English Wikipedia: 'The first deaths occurred on Independence Day, 22 January 2014, during riots on Pennsylvania Avenue in Kiev'
Just compare the Ukrainian police against those protesters to how the Spanish police handled the citizens in California
Geez, what a horror! This is such a striking comparison.