Posts by Chris Williams

Donna White50 said:Indirectly, yeah—it all lines up with this twisted modern science claiming everyone is basically bisexual, that being genderfluid or gay is the new "cool," and that we should all be striving for that kind of sexuality. They love pushing the idea that sexuality is totally fluid, shaped by whatever external stuff you're exposed to that links up with pleasure... Basically, if you read the newspapers, this whole obsession with queer culture makes it look like we're dealing with a sexually unhealthy group struggling with identity, which eventually bleeds into issues with relationships, starting families, and raising kids...
But hey, whatever, it’s all "cool" now, right? It’s gotten to the point where transvestites are practically the role models to follow, especially since—as you put it—they can be more feminine than the average woman. And who cares if their lives mostly end up revolving around prostitution? That’s totally fine and even desirable these days... plenty of women monetize themselves one way or another, so I guess that’s become the new standard for behavior...
And of course, you're totally right because you're just riding those modern liberal trends while completely ignoring the fallout—that's clearly not your problem...
Anyway, here, enjoy the "sex appeal":

Well, no... being fluid doesn't mean it's shaped from the outside; I guess it just means it can shift over a lifetime or perhaps even change within a couple of weeks.

It is entirely up to you whether you want to slap labels of degeneracy on everything based on your own value system—but personally, I find it perfectly natural not to care what anyone else does with their genitals, who they touch, or whether someone feels like a man or a woman internally regardless of their anatomy.

If you don't care what car someone buys, what school they graduate from, or whether they decide to play sports, then I suppose it is strange that you are so bothered by someone engaging in sexual activities that you wouldn't personally choose.

Between consuming pornography and the media constantly pushing this agenda, it seems this group is becoming sexually unhealthy, struggling with identity, which eventually leads to issues in their sex lives, family building, and raising children...

Is there perhaps a specific study, some concrete evidence, or any actual statistics suggesting that being gay makes someone ill or causes the specific problems you mentioned?

But whatever, it's all "cool," and apparently to such an extent that transvestites have become role models because, as you say, they can be more feminine than the average woman. And the fact that their lives often end up in prostitution doesn't matter either; I suppose that’s just the new desirable standard since many women monetize themselves one way or another anyway... it's become the new behavioral model, I guess.
And of course, you're right, because you embrace these modern liberal trends and simply don't care about the consequences...

I never actually said they were role models or sexier than the average woman; I merely suggested they can be fascinating.

I wonder, what exactly is so unsettling about ladyboys to you?

I am not calling you a homophobe—heaven forbid, I don't know you well enough as a fellow forum user to make such a claim—but I will mention something regarding homophobia so you don't think I am targeting you specifically...

In one study involving a penis, a group of homophobic men was given a small paper band, similar to a control group of straight men, and they were shown various short clips, including occasional scenes of sex between two men. In every single case involving the homophobes, the paper band snapped. Because of an erection, I guess... so, you get the idea.

Donna White50 said:Also, biologically speaking, trans people who undergo transition are infertile and can't have kids, so you can be happy about whatever you want at this point...

I don't quite follow... I don't recall mentioning fertility, nor am I sure how the survival of the species relates to anything I actually wrote.

Jacob Miller4 said:Transgender people strike me as a pretty fascinating phenomenon. It isn’t just about the individuals themselves—though there has already been plenty written about gender dysphoria in Psychology here and here—it’s also about how everyone else reacts to them.

It seems that even in places where transgender visibility is relatively high, like Thailand or Brazil, they aren't entirely shielded from social stigma. They still tend to exist in a sort of half-world. Take Thailand, for example: you see them everywhere, and they aren't getting jumped in the streets or called slurs constantly, but finding a job outside of the sex industry is an uphill battle. Most end up in janitorial work. It’s a similar story in Brazil. I have better intel on that because I used to be friends with a Brazilian gay man—not trans himself, but he knew quite a few during his time in New York City. He told me the biggest hurdle is employment. They fare better on the street, where demand is high and the pay for sex work is actually better than what men earn, but if someone wants a "normal" career, the options are incredibly narrow, usually circling back to cleaning houses.

That said, while there is significant social stigma surrounding such a radical shift in gender roles (which often involves "cosmetic" changes rather than full surgical reassignment—think silicone implants, removing the Adam's apple, and standard hormone therapy), things look different when you strip away the social norms and look at it from an individual level. As I touched on earlier, transgender prostitutes in New York City (according to my friend) can out-earn men in the same business. And everyone knows they are a major pillar of the sex industry in Thailand. My takeaway is that they simply tap into a market that exists beyond the traditional male homosexual demographic. In Thailand, this is even more obvious; a huge portion of their clientele consists of middle-aged, heterosexual white Australians. These guys identify as straight and only sleep with women, except for these specific encounters.

For the skeptics, here’s an even more interesting case... That Brazilian guy I mentioned is the type of effeminate man whose sexual orientation you can spot from thirty yards away. Honestly, he doesn't even try to hide it; it shows in his clothes, his gestures, and his facial expressions. Once, a buddy of his—just a friend, not a partner—came to visit him, and they ended up getting jumped on a beach here in the States. A group of guys saw them, identified them as gay (especially since one was clearly effeminate), and decided they needed to teach them a lesson. It traumatized my friend so much that for the rest of his trip in America, he was terrified of being attacked by strangers.

On the flip side, there was another instance involving an art project. He had to dress as a woman for the stage (he’s done this before, and I can vouch that his camouflage was top-tier—he actually looked better as a woman than he did as an effeminate man). After the work was done, he and the crew went out to a club in the city. He stayed in his feminine disguise (so, a typical transvestite without the breast implants or the missing Adam's apple...). He told me that throughout the night in that packed club, a massive number of men were hitting on him. Like, a lot. Between being attractive (😁), speaking English and Portuguese with a Latin accent, and being all dolled up and made up... it worked. What was particularly strange was that a good portion of those men kept flirting even after he told them he was male.

What I'm getting at is that while social stigma is one thing, when you look at the psychology, you see something else entirely. The typical male disdain for homosexuality often softens the moment the person looks like a woman. You have these "hardcore" straight men who probably think they sit at a 0 or maybe a 1 on the Kinsey scale, yet they'll travel to Thailand and flirt shamelessly with a gorgeous, stunning woman with beautiful clothes, perfect makeup, fragrant hair, smooth skin, and a small penis and testicles. Some even go as far as more than just flirting. How does that work?

1. I don't find it particularly likely that any hardened, traditionalist American man would suddenly lose his edge just because he meets a man without a mustache.

2. I suspect that sexuality is somewhat fluid; while most of us are defined by that binary split as heterosexual regarding gender, eroticism is something a large number of people can feel toward both their own sex and the opposite sex.

3. In my view, trans women and men are quite attractive, and certain trans women personally fascinate me and I find them irresistible, perhaps because they seem to possess the best qualities of both sexes—the strength of a man combined with the softness of a woman. It’s a sense of completeness that I personally find appealing, though mostly just visually... well, maybe a little bit more than that.

It isn't really surprising that in various cultures throughout history, and even today, individuals who manifest both genders were respected; they were often automatically granted shamanic roles within a tribe and viewed as divine beings, being called upon for weddings and other ceremonies to provide their blessing.

Karen Richardson3 said:Questions:

1. For all the Americans out there who identify as atheists or believers but still think religious education shouldn't be part of the public school curriculum:

What's the actual logic behind saying the government isn't truly secular just because religion is taught in classrooms? Do you really think other Western nations—places that aren't strictly religious cultures but still include religious studies in their schools—are somehow non-secular?

2. For the folks who support religious classes because they believe it teaches kids about ethics and morality:

If that’s the case, would you be okay with scrapping specific religious instruction entirely—since, let's face it, Catholic instruction is specifically about teaching the tenets of that faith rather than just being a general guide on "being a good kid"—and replacing it with a mandatory Ethics course for every single student, regardless of what they believe?

And honestly, how do you even draw a line between someone's personal ethics and their religious identity? When you look at the facts, faith doesn't actually define whether a person is a saint or a sinner, especially when you see plenty of religious people doing absolutely terrible things, ranging from theft and murder to much darker stuff.
At the end of the day, skepticism is really a product of the modern era; not too long ago, almost everyone believed in some kind of deity, and the amount of bad stuff humans were pulling wasn't exactly small.

I suppose I believe that school and religion ought to be kept separate. It seems to me that the church and faith don't really have a place in the classroom. If someone wants their child to be Christian, they can send them to Sunday school or whatever that is called, take them to mass, or teach them prayers...

My grandkids didn't attend religious classes. I didn't have them baptized, either. I raised them to prioritize empathy above all else. I guess the fundamental principle of any ethics is empathy toward others; it’s the foundation upon which every moral law is built. Once a child grows up, they will decide for themselves whether they want to be religious, spiritual, part of some movement, agnostic, or an atheist.

It seems to me the government and public schools have no right to indoctrinate a child into religious beliefs, though they do have a duty to teach ethical principles like loving one's neighbor, respecting others, tolerance, and the willingness to help people in need.

In that regard, an ethics course would be ideal.

Paul Thompson3 said:But honestly, that shouldn't have anything to do with practicing some kind of spirituality.
Who exactly has achieved such a state—and actually made it permanent?
Almost anyone can feel that sensation if they just hike to the top of a mountain peak.
Some people probably find it at a nightclub in Vegas, for instance.

The real distinction lies in the intensity and depth. We are talking about what are known as peak experiences, though I suppose not every summit is equally high, so one person's experience won't be as profound as another's.

If you're interested, you might find more insight by looking into the work of psychologists and philosophers like William James, Abraham Maslow, or Steve Taylor.

I suspect the common thread tying all these moments together is the presence of both external and internal silence, along with a sense of relative solitude.

Sure, these things happen spontaneously, but you can never really predict when they might strike. It seems to me that through spiritual practice, people are simply trying to cultivate the right conditions to trigger those peak experiences.

Maria Robinson2 said:Everyone here is a stranger; nobody is actually close.

Whatever—let the universe worry about it, I guess. It isn't as if we have to carry the weight of everything on our shoulders.

I suppose I agree, though perhaps one can only truly begin to understand others once they have actually managed to understand themselves.

Realization tends to occur on its own accord, I suppose. But then again, if we actually want to be capable of accepting it, maybe we need to approach it with... Perhaps it’s just an empty cup. .....

Thomas Nelson25 said:I mean, it depends on what you define as spirituality. Personally, I don't get the people who force that fake positivity—loving everyone, living in a dream world, just constantly convincing themselves they're happy... there’s zero actual spirituality there by my standards. No truth, no originality, no wisdom—just vibes. (Maybe I'm wrong though, I struggle to put these things into words sometimes.)

From what I've seen, this stuff tends to isolate you from the rest of the world. Most people just don't get it—maybe a tiny handful sense something is up, especially those with similar interests, but the vast majority have no clue. If you tell them, they'll just label you a weirdo, so honestly? It's better to just play the part.
For me, I don't care about private religions or following some specific leader.
To keep myself grounded, I stick to real-world jobs and goals, and my creativity naturally flows into this lifestyle... those are the perks. As for the downsides? Hard to say, since I didn't force myself into this—it's just who I am.

I suppose altered or expanded states of consciousness occur quite frequently among people, regardless of whether they actually pursue spiritual practices or not.

I suppose that during quiet walks through the wilderness, within the solemn stillness of old cathedrals, or perhaps while seeking solitude deep in the woods—sometimes following intense psychological distress, during fasting, or even in the wake of intimacy—many people experience altered states of consciousness. In these moments, the ego seems to dissolve, replaced by a sense of being part of a greater whole that feels inherently loving, gentle, and benevolent, as if the entire universe exists in perfect equilibrium. It might be that during such times, colors appear more vivid, the beauty of the landscape becomes almost unbearably pleasant, and one experiences a profound, lasting bliss where everything around us feels vibrantly alive and inseparable from our own being.

I suppose it’s fair to suggest that many spiritual practitioners have encountered these types of experiences at varying degrees of intensity. They aren't necessarily the ultimate peak, but they are deeply spiritual in nature; perhaps, through consistent meditation and inner work, one might encounter them again, or even—as I've read—they could potentially evolve into a permanent shift in how one perceives reality.

I suppose one could argue that the spiritual rewards alone are more than enough to justify the pursuit.

The typical stream of consciousness is little more than an endless loop of tedious, repetitive thoughts—perhaps eighty percent of which are just recycled versions of yesterday’s mental clutter. This is accompanied by that constant, simmering internal emotional churn we endure while trapped inside our own bodies, peering at the world through the narrow periscopes of our eyes and ears; we touch the world through our skin, I suppose, yet we never truly encounter one another, failing to really see or know our neighbors, much as we remain strangers even to ourselves.

I suppose one might argue that pursuing altered states of consciousness—those moments where happiness, well-being, joy, love, security, connection, and bliss are all drawn from an internal reservoir—is perhaps a pursuit worthy of a lifetime.

Maria Robinson2 said:Another personal insult for the collection... how predictable.

What does this tell me?

It suggests that I happen to be right while you are clearly in the wrong—which is why my presence is such an inconvenience to you, I suppose.

There is a saying, if you will:

My strength lies precisely where your weaknesses reside; had you none, I wouldn't have an advantage to speak of.

Quite a lesson, really.

God forbid, you could never bother me. You are just some stranger on an American forum. I don't even allow my own inner circle the strength to disrupt, annoy, or irritate me, let alone someone like you.

That is perhaps one of the benefits of spirituality. Once a person finds their inner peace, regardless of how small that oasis might be, they don't permit anyone to come in and start making waves in their internal world.

You know the old saying:

My advantage lies exactly where your flaws are; if you had no flaws, I wouldn't have any advantage at all.

Quite a profound proverb.

No, I'm not familiar with that saying. I am sorry if you felt insulted. I was merely testing the waters to see how thin your tolerance is when your ego is poked. It seems rather thin.

Moving back to the topic:

- A frequent lack of true spirituality manifests as a growing arrogance that makes people feel incredibly superior. I have noticed that many use spirituality to compensate for a total lack of material achievement—things like degrees, careers, property, or a steady income—so they can pose as spiritual teachers or leaders for those who are actually successful in the real world, even if they are lower on the evolutionary scale.

- I have also observed that people already struggling with mental health issues often embark on a spiritual path only to develop even deeper pathologies.

- More often than not, people claiming to be spiritual lose touch with reality, choosing to socialize only within their own bubbles, which frequently leads them straight into cults, followings, or total submission to some spiritual leader.

- These so-called spiritualists begin to reject the small things that make life worth living—the profane, the material, the mundane. Some seem to think it isn't "spiritual" to peel a potato, shovel snow, walk the dog, or read the paper, creating these sharp divisions between the sacred and the secular. They are wrong. Everything is spiritual.

Maria Robinson2 said:It almost sounded like the birds in the trees have their own theological takes.

That would certainly be interesting, I suppose.

☕

Here is a little gift from me, Maria Robinson2—you lost souls...

I suppose you might find yourself in a similar situation.

I suppose there is little point in dwelling on fear or shame, really. I won't spend another second waiting for Gala to call, though I have no intention of following her lead either. I am moving toward a place where everything aligns with my own will—if only to keep from losing my mind, to stop the constant overthinking, and to shield myself from seeing or hearing anything that might cause me to burn out in all that blinding glare. I am going where things are finally under my control.

@ Maria Robinson2

You’re on a forum, not sitting alone on a park bench talking to pigeons. If you're going to post opinions or views—or if you're just posting nonsense because you have nothing better to do—then I guess you should expect people to comment.

Nobody is trying to convert you, nor is anyone expecting you to enlighten them. This is a forum, which is meant to be a space for exchanging ideas. Maybe try dialing back the sense of... 😵

Maria Robinson2 said:I suppose you have a point there—if one actually bothers to distinguish things—in that most people aren't searching for God at all, but rather for themselves,
and then they go ahead and label it a "spiritual quest."

It reminds me of that old saying—having an advantage in something isn't quite the same as possessing actual virtue.
Unless, of course, someone happens to mistake their own ego for being some sort of divine instrument.

But did you start your own search with the divine in mind? You set out to find the ultimate truth, yet I guess you don't truly know who it is within you that is doing the seeking.

You seem to want to encounter the master of creation—whose very existence is debatable—rather than focusing on yourself, which is the only thing you're certain you actually ARE.

Megan Sanders3 said:A lot of people have mentioned feeling a sense of relief—like a weight being lifted—once they finally open up about their struggles to someone else..
I’ve always dismissed that idea as pure foolishness; you're essentially handing people a roadmap to your vulnerabilities, and most folks will just use that intel to manipulate you... But honestly, I feel like I’m hitting a breaking point, so I suppose I’ll try laying it all out here, if only because maybe it truly might help..

I don't have any friends left, so I find myself typing this out to strangers on the internet... It probably sounds pathetic, but I made a promise to myself to give this a shot, just in case.. So, here goes..
I'm 24 now, but the downward spiral really started when I was 12. Before that, life was actually decent—I had friends, and my parents were relatively normal! But since we were refugees, the old folks decided it was time to move back to where we lived before the war broke out. They kept telling us how wonderful and beautiful that place was, so I actually looked forward to the move...
That optimism didn't last long; the town was a ghost town, really. Most people there were either tiny children or stuck in that awkward 25-to-25 age bracket. There were only two girls my age in the whole village, and I used to hang out with them until my brother started seeing one of them—then suddenly, I was persona non grata... It didn't bother me much at the time, though, because I preferred playing soccer with my brother's crowd..

In sixth grade, I managed to make some girlfriends, though we mostly just saw each other at school since they lived in the next town over. A couple of years passed, and by eighth grade, my parents let me stay over at a friend's house occasionally, and vice versa. But then my best friend developed a crush on my brother. I thought it was great and tried to play matchmaker, but that blew up in my face. She ended up turning the entire social circle against me, leaving me completely isolated...

Back then, I was dating David, who was 18, so I hung out with his group of older guys, which provided at least a little bit of solace... Around that time, my grandmother fell ill and was bedridden. Since my parents were working, the responsibility of feeding her, cleaning her, and everything else fell on me—both before and after school. I was incredibly close to her, so losing her was a massive shock to my system. Following her death, my health took a hit, and I was even being sent to see a psychologist on a weekly basis!!
I broke things off with Darren, but I immediately started seeing Drake. Things seemed to stabilize for a moment, but then my mother spiraled into alcoholism, and my father followed suit. It turned into a cycle of constant, nightly fighting, and my brother and I would often flee the house just to escape the noise..
About eighteen months later, I ended things with Drake and started dating Anthony. When I turned 17, our parents announced they were getting a divorce. We weren't shocked; it felt like it was just a matter of time. My brother was 18 then, so he decided to go with Dad, while I stayed with Mom. At the time, she had a lover, so we moved in with him. I hated it—it was just one cramped room where the three of us slept. I felt like such a burden that I told Mom I wanted to move back to the old house in the village; it was closer to my school, and it would give her some privacy. She agreed, mainly because since I was 13, I’d been doing all the cooking, cleaning, and basic adulting anyway. I moved back, but my mother never stopped drinking. To make matters worse, Anthony became incredibly controlling; he forbade me from seeing the one true friend I had made in high school. It actually escalated to physical altercations twice. I tried to end it, but he wouldn't stop stalking me, knowing I lived alone and had nobody to turn to for help (Dad and my brother were present during one of those fights and didn't lift a finger—they claim they didn't want to get involved in my business).. I fell into a deep depression and started using food to numb the frustration; I ballooned up to 270 pounds..

After I finished school, my mother blindsided me with news that she was pregnant. For a split second, I was happy, thinking maybe this would be the thing that finally makes her quit drinking, but of course, it didn't. She kept drinking, and the baby was born two months premature—but even then, the alcoholism didn't stop. I fought with her constantly about it, but nothing changed. Her partner, my stepfather, is an addict too, so he couldn't care less about the baby or my mother. In the first two years of her life, the little one spent more time in the hospital than at home. Eventually, they asked me to move back in to help watch the baby while they worked. I agreed, partly for the sake of the child and partly to finally get away from Anthony... And it worked. I found a new boyfriend who is from a major city—he's wonderful. We dated for a few months, and then he moved into the apartment where I was living and helping raise the little girl. He’s given up a lot to be with me; back home, he has a house, a car, and his father owns a successful business. He keeps trying to convince me to move back to the city with him. But I can't. Not because of my sister. I love my sister more than anything, and I can't leave her at the mercy of my mother and stepfather. My mom doesn't cook, she doesn't clean—her place is a total pigsty—she's perpetually drunk, and she has zero interest in caring for the baby. And my stepfather? He's gone 24/7, constantly avoiding any responsibility, even though he keeps insisting how much he loves her.

I recently moved out to a house in the countryside—it’s peaceful, mostly—and we had this whole agreement where the little one would spend two weeks with me and two weeks with them. But now, they’re only taking her for a single week at a time, and honestly, she doesn't even want to go to their place anymore. It drives me absolutely insane—this sheer refusal on their part to actually step up and care for her, to just *spend time* with her... and yet, their negligence is basically holding my entire life hostage. I am more than ready to take full custody and raise her properly, the way any child should be raised. Right now, I’m living 186 miles away from my boyfriend because our finances were becoming completely unmanageable—he actually had to move out because of these idiots who clearly didn't realize that making a child is one thing, but actually raising one is a whole different story...

I’m at a total loss. I keep thinking how much easier everything would be if we could just head to Chicago and live as a normal, cohesive family. I know I can never truly replace her mother—and I’m not even trying to—but I want her to feel like she belongs somewhere. I don't want her sitting there during Christmas listening to her father tell her Santa isn't real, or that he doesn't celebrate, or that there's no point in decorating the tree... and then having to deal with him getting drunk because the festivities bother him while she just sits there, forced to watch and listen to it all. My dad keeps telling me to look out for myself—that by keeping her here, I'm just throwing my best years away and carrying my mother's baggage.
But what about the child? Am I supposed to just abandon her and go live my life? Am I actually losing my mind for staying here and putting my own life on hold? I've thought about calling Child Protective Services, but I fear the little one would be the one to suffer most from that. I just don't know what to do anymore... I feel like I'm reaching a breaking point.

What should I do? Does anyone have any actual, decent advice? 🙂

I suppose I don't really know what you should do, though maybe you could try reaching an agreement with your mother so she agrees to let the little girl live with you. Perhaps if you approach her cautiously and present enough logical reasons, she might eventually conclude that this is the best path forward. Based on how you write, it doesn't seem like you are overly attached, so she might be willing to agree.

Reporting this to CPS and seeking custody would essentially mean severing your relationship with her entirely; it would cause quite a scandal, and you would also need some way to prove you have a steady income....

It's difficult... I honestly don't know what to tell you..... maybe you should post this on the legal subforum, where there are people who actually understand the law and might be able to advise you on what can legally be done. From a psychological standpoint, I would suggest having a very careful, gentle, and positive conversation, hoping that after it's over, your mother won't be able to refuse letting your sister stay with you.

I just want to say that you are a wonderful person, and it's impressive how all this grief and trouble hasn't destroyed you or hardened your heart; you remain such a kind, dear, empathetic, and responsible person. It is genuinely moving that despite all the hardships and lack of love during your childhood, you have remained so stable and healthy, and that your heart is so good. You deserve a good man and a normal life. I wish you a lot of luck.🙂

Joshua Garcia5 said:Hi everyone

I've found myself dealing with a situation that is incredibly difficult to navigate, and even though my friends are supportive, they just don't seem to get it.
Let me explain the situation first, and then I'll address the title.

I chose this specific format because it feels more serious than the others.
I'm writing this because of what my mother is currently going through.
After battling four different incurable illnesses, she’s now facing a fifth. In my eyes, it's the worst one yet: breast cancer.
The doctors say they have to remove her entire left breast. That's "for now," at least.
I realize she isn't alone and that countless women have faced much worse, but it hits differently when you're dealing with someone who has been struggling with depression for years. She's already seen four different psychiatrists who basically gave up on her, telling us, "Psychiatrists are for people who don't understand why they are depressed. You already know why, so there isn't much more we can do." Dealing with a diagnosis like this on top of that mental health struggle makes everything so much harder.

Now, for the reason behind my title.
My friends have always been there for me, just as I've been there for them. But honestly, right now, I can't stand being close to them. One after another, they all tell me, "Don't worry, everything is going to be okay." I know they mean well. I truly do. But I simply cannot handle the empty gestures and the constant "it'll be fine" anymore. And no, I'm not blaming them, I'm not pushing them away, and I'm certainly not accusing them of anything. I'm also not looking for pity. I just want to know: have you ever been in a position where you thought, "If I hear 'everything will be okay' one more time..."?

Again, I understand how hard it is to navigate these moments and why people resort to these optimistic monologues. But really, out of all the ways you could show support, is it truly the best approach to have ten different people all tell you "it'll be fine"?

Have you ever felt that way? Have you ever felt a flash of anger the moment you heard "it'll be okay" in response to your crisis? How did you deal with it? Did you ever tell people how you actually felt about that "magical" little phrase?

No, I haven't judged people for being confused and not knowing what to say—whether they are stunned by bad news, overwhelmed by talk of cancer, feeling hollow, or simply wanting to say something kind but struggling to find the right words.

"It'll be okay..." feels more like a cliché, almost like a joker in a deck of cards; it's just a convenient platitude used when someone doesn't know what else to provide.

If those are your friends, I assume you are dear to them and that they truly care, so I don't think there is any malice in their confusion or in them falling back on a tired phrase when they are speechless. If a mother is facing four heavy diagnoses, depression, and now cancer, it's genuinely hard to find the perfect way to comfort someone when your instinct is just to say something positive. Especially if they truly love you.

So, I wouldn't trade them for anything.

Roger Sanders said:Take a look at this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UyDdq1wpqA

They absolutely tore this woman apart. They relentlessly attacked her over and over until she finally had a complete mental breakdown.

I want to know if this kind of treatment can cause permanent psychological damage. Is it possible that this leads to chronic nightmares, severe anxiety disorders, or even various psychosomatic illnesses?

Well, it seems quite possible that after such a shock, a woman would experience both emotional and physical reactions to the trauma.

Though, I guess I am more preoccupied with the mental state of those idiots who kept joking around even after it was obvious she was in total shock and clearly distressed.

It was somewhat satisfying to see her punch one of them once she realized it was a hidden camera, and then take a chair to the other. I certainly hope she filed charges against them.

Regarding the Consciousness thread over in Philosophy, the moderator, executioner, keeps deleting my posts for reasons known only to him, without providing any explanation whatsoever. It isn't just me either; other users have already complained about this specific thread, and the executioner has been mentioned twice here for these exact same issues. Yesterday, he wiped out every single post, including mine, which were written between 10 PM and 2 AM—again, with zero explanation. If someone is going to moderate by constantly deleting content, I suppose they could at least reach out and explain how they think the discussion should actually be structured.

The subject matter is philosophically sensitive since it deals with two diametrically opposed explanations of what consciousness is, making the topic incredibly active due to those conflicting views. It seems this individual is simply purging any posts that don't align with his own perspective. I guess after that last scandal involving the moderators, it was stated that there wouldn't be any more unilateral moderation or forced interference in discussions without clear criteria or explanations.

Yesterday, I wrote several posts where I truly put in the effort—I mean, I really did my homework, searching online, providing statistics, citing sources, and explaining experiments—only for this guy to delete all of it, along with everyone else's comments in the discussion. There wasn't even a hint of trolling, off-topic rambling, insults, doxxing, or hate speech in them.

I am requesting through this forum that the executioner be cautioned and that the posts be restored. I’ve reported him to the senior moderators, but honestly, I don't know... maybe it isn't even worth writing this. I'm angry, so I suppose I'm writing this just to vent, even if it serves no practical purpose. I haven't exactly dedicated my free time to something this serious just to have some random guy delete it based on nothing. it appears he does it simply because he candelete the posts of anyone he disagrees with, which is pretty obvious from his comment right here in this thread.

your interlocutors and their problematic viewpoints which prevent them from reaching the truth are not the subject of this debate, so I deleted that post as off-topic and have no intention of restoring it.

"Problematic viewpoints," my foot. Those arguments have been part of philosophy since the beginning of time. It just so happens you disagree with them, so you manipulate the thread.

cosmicmason9 said:I recently finished reading Jung's "Man and his symbol," and I’m curious what you all think about the work and his general approach to dream interpretation. Is this stuff just pure speculation and guesswork, or is there actual substance behind it? Personally, I enjoyed the book quite a bit—that blend of psychology and mythology is fascinating—but I wonder how much scientific weight it actually carries. Also, as a prospective therapist, I want to know if his theories still hold up today or if they've been tossed aside. Are they still being used in psychoanalysis?

The language of the unconscious is inherently symbolic and archetypal, so I suppose it wouldn't be accurate to call it mere guesswork. It seems to me that Jung attempted to translate that specific language so we might better grasp the messages being sent from the unconscious.

Furthermore, it appears that the unconscious is somewhat cooperative; once one learns the language of symbols, the unconscious tends to present recognizable imagery in dreams, which perhaps makes the messages much clearer when we attempt to interpret them.

frozendrifter7 said:Is he a die-hard fan of the Los Angeles Angels or the LA Galaxy? A football hater? Some kind of con artist? 😁

There is no way he's from Miami. He’s become some activist in the local ultras and a soccer coach out in the rural outskirts near Trilja.

It seems unlikely that someone with a name like that would end up as a member of the New York City Ballet.🙂

The name often defines the person, I suppose... quite frequently.

When discussing names, one really ought to consider the context—the circumstances a child is born into and whatever was going through the parents' minds when they chose the name.
Maybe Derek will enter life as a little prince because DAR implies a gift to his parents, whereas Nathan might just be an accidental child. I think the psychological difference between being raised in a family where your birth is seen as a divine gift versus being an unplanned result of a slipped condom is fairly obvious....

rowdytiger8 said:Back in elementary school, everyone used to give me crap because of my name. It actually got to the point where people started hating me—I kid you not, all because of a name! 🙏 And I didn't do anything else to deserve being disliked.
Because of that, I ended up becoming one of those losers that nobody would even give the time of day to.
Every single time I introduced myself to someone, they’d just laugh right in my face.
This went on all the way through high school. Seriously, I didn't get even a shred of respect or basic decency from anyone I introduced myself to.
Eventually, I started lying to people about what my name was and stuff like that.
But I’d usually only do that with people I had no intention of showing my real self to, or with people I was certain I’d never run into again.
But honestly, things are totally different now that I'm in college. I say my name and that's it—every reaction is basically, "Whoa, that's such a cool name!"
Out of pure disbelief, I'll ask, "Are you kidding me?"
The response is always, "No, really, it's a great name, super unique and interesting."
I mean, alright then. At least now I actually feel comfortable introducing myself.
But did it leave some lasting trauma? Definitely.

So, you end up having this bizarre name that caused people to mock you—you even mentioned they hated you—and now, when faced with an endless selection of cute, charming, or cool names you could choose for yourself, you decide to go with rowdytiger8.🙂

Changing subjects—any kind of teasing during childhood (whether it’s about a name, glasses, weight, braces, skin tone, or even something as minor as birthmarks) can certainly cause pain, humiliation, or a sense of inadequacy in a child. For some reason, young kids can be quite cruel, especially toward those who seem different, which leads to all sorts of issues. But I suppose it is difficult to claim that someone became neurotic solely because of that. I say that tentatively, because I guess creating a true childhood trauma usually requires underlying family dysfunction or significant life events that leave much deeper scars. Mockery over a name isn't really something that would inflict a wound deep enough to be classified as a trauma.

However, as Eric Berne noted—and someone did mention him earlier—a strange name can definitely be one of the factors in shaping identity, forming conclusions about who we are and how we should behave, determining our place in the world, and ultimately influencing how we construct what he calls our life "script."

To illustrate, I wonder what kind of person someone becomes if their father named them Los Angeles Angels? A die-hard sports fanatic, I imagine.

Gary Carter said:True, in communism, the central element was the leader. In a democracy, it is the corporations that lobby Parliament for laws, while the rest of us act as mere figures. As we can all witness, they try to push poison into the daily diet of the individual, making it seem essential by stripping away anything natural. I recall reading a study where American scientists conducted research on Americans showing that people are simply too unintelligent to select a quality leader; they aren't capable of recognizing true leadership qualities, so instead, they just vote for whoever appears most frequently in the media.

Regarding communism, that style of governance is mentioned in the Bible. Even back when Jerusalem was ruled by might makes right, the early followers dealt with such structures. Later, the Greeks took over, and eventually, this model met its end when the Roman Catholic Church condemned such a way of organizing a nation, effectively condemning biblical writings in the process, which is inherently contradictory. That is why communism is mostly compared to a utopia, as its goal is to satisfy all parties, whereas in a democracy, the attempt is made to satisfy only the corporations while ensuring others have nothing but the illusion of a vote.

I once came across an interesting philosophical take—I can't quite recall the author—suggesting that the American Dream might soon morph into a nightmare, largely due to literal overconsumption. Generally speaking, people are becoming heavier, which I suppose leads to increased lethargy and a decline in cognitive sharpness. They might be getting so intellectually stunted that they feel compelled to import intelligence from other nations with superior education systems and healthier diets 🙂. In fact, they could be so uneducated that one in five American adults actually believes the sun revolves around the Earth.

I guess this will eventually impact their future, and by extension, the future of the entire world. If this results in the end of American global dominance, then perhaps China, being the most populous nation with a fairly stable and growing economy, could step in as the new global policeman. And since it operates under a communist system, maybe socialism will emerge from the shadows of history as a valid option once again. Who knows...

On another note, here is a list of the best-organized countries, ranked highly for their quality of life regarding economics, politics, social welfare, security, and international relations—essentially the places where life is most seamless according to research. You can find the full list on this page:

1 Vatican
2 Sweden
3 Luxembourg
4 Monaco
5 Gibraltar
6 San Marino
7 Liechtenstein
8 United Kingdom
9 Netherlands
10 Ireland
11 New Zealand

If you look at how many small nations occupy the top spots, the first seven are all tiny states; even Sweden, the largest among them, only has about 9 million people. This makes the argument that a small nation like ours is too insignificant to progress without major European support seem somewhat hollow. I suspect it isn't really a matter of scale, but rather a matter of lacking sufficient intellect.

Gary Carter said:It isn't just about the individual or the system; it’s the intersection of both.

Regarding Scandinavian countries, specifically those further north, one noticeable characteristic is a certain social tendency toward racism. Take Norway, for instance. The same applies to Australia, which has pursued anti-Asian policies in recent years. I might single out Iceland, though; regardless of everything else, they seem to be doing the best socially. However, it is true that the aforementioned countries have some of the best systems for managing social welfare.

Conflict and war will always exist, I suppose, because someone will always try to push their interests at the expense of others. It is a lie to claim there is no crime or tension in Scandinavian countries or that their states are perfectly organized. The same goes for Australia, where the indigenous population is often marginalized or cast aside; even the government didn't grant them a voice until a politician recently changed things, but it’s still nowhere near how Australia is portrayed. Australia is incredibly unwelcoming to the true owners of the continent. For a white person with a middle-class income, Australia represents opportunity; for a Chinese person, it’s an unreachable dream; and for a Native American, it is a source of struggle and poverty. Australian society simply doesn't want them.

As for communism, it didn't fail, nor was its end particularly ignominious. Research suggests that communism is arguably the best ideological way to organize a society, and it’s been proven that former America had the most profitable and effective version of such rule—one that was higher quality than what we currently call democracy. The issue wasn't communism itself; the flaw was the lack of a mechanism to select a capable leader. The entire society was beholden to a single person and their ambitions; if that person wasn't enlightened or competent, you ended up with situations similar to what happened in Korea, Russia, and so on.

Communism is a highly effective way to structure society based on social equality, where the integrity of the community, the state, and its institutions and companies was preserved. I don't quite understand why they didn't work on improving the leadership selection process, but modern democracy seems to cause more harm, more poverty, and more intolerance. It has allowed for class divisions that are valued differently, creating hierarchies of people.

Communism was essentially wiped out by the rise of capitalist society. As you can see, the spread of democracy has actually led to increasing inequality and conflict, even fueling nationalism to the point where neighbors clash just because of their existence. As Canadian explorers once said regarding American communism: "An unrepeatable utopia, an unreachable goal for democracy!"

You are undoubtedly right on all counts. I mentioned those states because they represent the best model we've seen so far; nothing better has existed, nor can we expect more while the collective level of consciousness remains what it is. And what that level is has been pointed out by other users in this discussion.

Communism was crushed by the emergence of capitalist society, and as you can see today, we are seeing an increasing number of cases of inequality and conflict following the rise of democracy; even nationalism has developed to such an extent that people enter conflicts with neighbors simply because of its presence. As Canadian explorers once said regarding American communism: "An unrepeatable utopia, an unattainable goal of democracy!"

I am not entirely sure if, now that it is behind us, socialism is merely being romanticized or if it truly was as good as the nostalgics, communists, and those who were in their prime during that era believe it was.

I find it particularly suspicious because every one of those socialist systems was based on the strength of a leader (read: a dictator) and one-party dogma. However, I might agree that at least the old America (not the other states that carried out the socialist experiment) was quite well-organized regarding social issues, healthcare, education, economic development, and exports; there wasn't as much crime, even though everyone was mostly equally poor due to forced equality... but at least nobody was scavenging through trash cans. Nor did people have such consumerist mentalities as they do today, which is not negligible. When you lack that internal greed and the external pressure of the market and its propaganda to constantly buy something new, life is much calmer, and people are far more satisfied. Therefore, compared to the wreckage we have today in our beautiful country, it seems there was more order back then.

Scandinavia and Australia are arguably the most organized and economically stable regions out there. They offer exceptional social safety nets for the elderly and the vulnerable, highly efficient healthcare systems, and a solid balance between agriculture, manufacturing, and general industry. Their export sectors are strong, their food supplies are healthy, and pollution levels remain low. In those places, everyone has a roof over their head and can afford regular meals—provided they don't want much more than that basic standard of living.

I suppose this represents the absolute pinnacle of what is achievable in our world today, and perhaps ever.

Given the current collective state of consciousness on this planet, nothing could be fairer or better. That isn't to say we won't evolve as a species toward becoming better people—less greedy, more honest, more tolerant, less aggressive, and more respectful of those in need, which might eventually allow us to inhabit even superior systems. Of course, it also doesn't mean we won't collectively degenerate into new conflicts, wars, destruction, and anarchy. Whether we face evolutionary growth or revolution, progress or decline—something new is always happening on this planet. History suggests a somewhat comforting pattern where each successive system built upon the ruins of its predecessor (moving from slavery through feudalism to capitalism) has been marginally better than the last.

For now, if we set aside utopian fantasies, the only viable model—which is certainly not perfect, since the people living within it aren't perfect either—is the one already established in the countries I mentioned.