Posts by David Fisher23

restlessdriver42 said:Theoretically speaking, I’m fairly certain I’m engaging in a pattern of self-sabotage, yet when the feeling hits, I find myself completely paralyzed regarding how to fix it.

It’s become a recurring theme: I am consistently uninterested in men who treat me exceptionally well. These are guys who go above and beyond, show genuine interest, and execute everything perfectly... I have enough examples at this point to conclude there is a fundamental glitch in my wiring.😵

On the flip side, if the attraction just isn't there... take my most recent encounter, for instance. We hit it off brilliantly. We can talk for hours on end; he is incredibly understanding and supportive, creating a space where I feel safe being my true self. But the physical spark? Nonexistent. If I were to list the reasons why I'm not attracted to him, they would sound incredibly childish and irrational, which is frankly embarrassing, but the lack of physical chemistry is an insurmountable wall.
I often feel like crying out of sheer frustration because, in a perfect world, I would love him—but I simply can't force it. It’s not that I doubt my own sanity; normally, I’d just shrug it off and move on, but I fear I've been trapped in this cycle for far too long without finding a remedy.

I realize posting this here might seem a bit blunt, but I don't know any other way to process it. I tend to be a very analytical person, so perhaps if I could see some data or psychological statistics proving that I am sabotaging myself with imaginary hurdles, I might finally break this loop.

Or maybe I just haven't met "the one" yet! :P

To simplify things, here are two photos... ladies, please just tell me which guy you find more attractive:

...except that, unlike those so-called bad guys, they don't provide any excitement, right? You aren't the first person to feel like you need a little drama just to feel alive, and that is exactly what they deliver. Those who are "genuinely good" to you are often predictable, boring, and lack passion. Bad guys offer a full spectrum of emotions: the anticipation, the anger, the jealousy, and the disappointment, followed by love, security, joy, and ecstasy in these almost rhythmic intervals where everything shifts. They say there’s no greater pleasure than the absence of pain—especially immediately following the pain itself.

The real question is why you accept people like that? Is it because you feel you don't deserve anything better? Perhaps it's their initiative and confidence that draws you in. Maybe you just love a challenge. Or maybe it's a combination of all three. Only you can answer that.

Or maybe I just haven't met the right one yet! :P

No. You really need to stop telling yourself that, because you're just using it as an excuse to shift the responsibility for problems you created through your own choices (...choices made under the influence of a cocktail of chemicals your brain brews every time you come into contact with a bad guy).

Carol Davis36 said:I’ve been sitting here wondering if there’s actually a meaningful distinction between remorse and guilt.

My own take? I get the sense that remorse is that internal ache—that genuine regret for something WE actually did. Guilt, on the other hand, feels like it could be something external, a weight shoved onto you by someone else.

Or am I just overthinking it? Are they essentially two sides of the same coin?

What’s your perspective on this?

I would argue that remorse is the byproduct of guilt. Guilt is that internal weight you carry when you believe—or know—that you’ve done something wrong. However, that doesn't automatically mean there is an inherent desire to make amends or attempt to fix the fallout caused by those actions.

Guilt can certainly escalate to the point where it consumes your thoughts entirely. At that stage, a realization of the full consequences sets in, which then triggers the urge for atonement—even if, realistically, fixing the situation is impossible.

I view it as a multi-step progression that looks roughly like this: guilt -> remorse -> the desire for atonement. That said, I realize linguistic nuances in American English can be tricky, so I might be splitting hairs incorrectly.

Of course, guilt can also be externally manufactured. Someone else can weaponize it to provoke a specific reaction. In my experience, this is often an unjustified assignment of blame used to emotionally manipulate someone into doing something—which happens frequently in close interpersonal relationships—or to force a certain stance in political campaigns and social movements.

Carl Rivera43 said:Oh, give me a break!

Are we seriously going to jump to such sweeping generalizations like this?

I mean, isn't the whole point of an exchange of ideas to support it whenever possible?

If things start veering into personal insults, then yeah, the moderators have their work cut out for them—but honestly, why the panic?

So, making claims that certain people chat more than others makes them "worse" is just totally unnecessary, don't you think?

You clearly have a very flexible definition of what constitutes an "idea" or "thought." What kind of exchanges are you actually talking about here? The topic at hand is mindless rambling that lacks any connection to the subject matter—content that serves no purpose other than the author shouting, "Look at me! Look at me!" just to kill a few minutes of their already (likely) intellectually stagnant life. The OP provided specific examples in the opening post. Not everyone is capable of contributing to every single thread, and certainly, not every post provides any actual value to the discussion.

John Baker said:It’s just a reflection of the society we live in. Nobody encourages deep thought anymore; everything is designed as instant content meant to be consumed in seconds. Once you get used to that, you lose the capacity to focus on anything actually intellectual. It feels like too much work, so people just retreat to the chat.
It’s honestly terrifying how many people openly admit they find thinking to be too exhausting...

But the issue isn't even the chat format itself—it's the garbage being said in it. I’ve seen actual intelligent discussion happen in chats, like over an uploaded Philosophy syllabus, for example. That was real communication. What’s being described in the opening post is nothing more than pure stupidity.

And those two PDFs mentioned? I’m not surprised that specific crowd gathers there.
As far as I’m concerned, the craving for that kind of shallow interaction usually stems from a diminished ability to engage in quality conversation. Whatever the reason may be.

Signed!

Adam Kern2 said:Someone actually told me today that they don’t believe in anything anymore—just totally disillusioned with life, people, God, everyone around them... I honestly wasn't sure how to respond at the moment, and to be fair, I still am a little bit stuck on it.

What do you all think—is it actually possible to live without believing in anything at all?

Can someone really function like that? And if not, what’s the way back to finding faith again?

I would argue it isn't possible, though I suspect the question is frequently framed incorrectly and often devolves into mere semantics. Most people fall into the trap of asking, "Isn't nihilism itself a belief system?" or "Doesn't believing that nothing matters constitute a belief in something?" When someone claims they believe in nothing, they are usually referring to a nihilistic worldview—the rejection of an objective value system. They aren't suggesting a total absence of thought, but rather the assertion that nothing possesses inherent importance; that absolute good and evil don't exist. It’s not that these individuals lack convictions, but rather that they view values as lacking any objective reality. For instance, morality doesn't exist as a physical phenomenon we can observe through the laws of physics; it is a construct developed by humans that exists within the individual mind.

Can one truly live this way, and if not, how does one reclaim faith?

Of course one can. From the perspective of the average person, such a lifestyle is completely inconceivable because they rely on the perceived importance of a higher purpose to fuel their existence. However, some people have discarded those notions entirely and lead lives that appear perfectly normal on the surface. Some might dismiss this as merely "surviving" rather than "living," but that is ultimately a matter of subjective opinion.

Michael Gonzalez77 said:The real issue is the principle, not just the small details. Staying detached from worldly desires—meaning not trying to find your entire sense of self through things that are fleeting and temporary (which is what I was getting at in my original post)—is key. On the flip side, there are certain values that have always been vital, even if they feel scarce today. I’m talking about developing character, striving for self-actualization through spirituality, seeking self-knowledge, and finding a mental freedom that isn't shackled to any specific idea or impression, all while still living life to the fullest.

The goal, then, is to recognize the importance of these worldly results without being consumed by them. It makes life feel complete because, fundamentally, a person should be able to experience and enjoy everything. Positive outcomes become a bonus, while setbacks simply become lessons for further growth. Of course, that’s easier said than done—for an average person, it’s an almost impossible mission. But even aiming for it helps unbind your psyche and frees your consciousness from the various norms that stifle true personal growth.

Are you suggesting that the drive toward human virtue and spiritual self-actualization is generally weaker in modern society than it was, say, 100 or 200 years ago? I would argue the exact opposite: the pursuit of spirituality is more prevalent today than at any other point in history. People are turning inward more than ever, attempting to understand themselves and cultivate their individualism, whether that manifests through spiritual practice or other means.

Michael Gonzalez77 said:This is a powerful, honest piece of writing. If it doesn't click for you immediately, you might need to sit with it for a minute and really let it sink in. The point isn't that we shouldn't have desires or that we should become emotionless shells. It’s about how we get dangerously attached to the outcomes. We obsess over the results, and that attachment eats us alive every single time reality doesn't line up with what we wanted. That emotional tether breaks us down internally, creating a cycle where we just react the same wrong way over and over again.

"Satisfying a desire doesn't actually end it; it just pushes it aside for a moment before it comes roaring back even stronger. Think about when you're starving—you eat to kill that hunger, but pretty soon, you're hungry again. And if you overeat, you end up feeling sick and miserable even while you're technically fulfilling that craving. It’s the same deal with everything else in this life. These desires might offer a fleeting moment of joy, but even at the very peak of satisfaction, that happiness starts to fade. Materialistic cravings can never lead to lasting peace. In fact, they almost always invite endless suffering. When someone is consumed by worldly desires, they are essentially planting the seeds for a massive harvest of pain. Desire is the root of all suffering: that's just how the math works."

I see your point, though I wouldn't limit the fallout of this "fatalistic attachment" strictly to moments of failure. When we harbor a desire, we aren't just chasing a finish line; we are pursuing a sense of purpose. But fulfillment doesn't only stem from the final result—it often comes from the pursuit itself, the very act of wanting. Therefore, I suspect this emotional erosion can also occur when we actually achieve what we set out to do, simply because the victory itself extinguishes the desire that fueled us in the first place, effectively stripping us of our purpose.

Joshua Adams41 said:The problem with how we view money in America is that we’re looking at it through a completely warped lens.
Money is meant to be the lifeblood of an economy; it’s the mechanism that allows goods and services to flow smoothly through a civilization.
But here? We see it strictly as a symbol of status, ego, and raw power.
And sure, that's part of it, but the reason it carries such a heavy negative stigma is because of the total lack of transparency—something we all know is happening.

The movement of capital isn't properly regulated, which is exactly what benefits those currently pulling the strings. That’s why people view money as "evil"—because its flow is shrouded in secrecy. It’s decided behind closed doors in high-end steakhouse booths during dinners that cost more than most people make in a year.

Take a look at why money is viewed so cynically in our country.

Think about a Member of Congress asking a Cabinet Secretary to account for expenses on a government credit card, only to be met with a cold, arrogant response: "Who are you to question me?" He’s a federal official; he thinks he’s entitled to whatever he wants without oversight.
Compare that to something like Sweden, where a minister might resign just because some eagle-eyed whistleblower discovered they used a government card to buy a magazine while shopping for their spouse.

Just half an hour ago, I was at a local shop paying $17 taxes, and frankly, I have no idea where that money is actually going. When I voiced my frustration about this system to some self-proclaimed American intellectual, he had the nerve to tell me that once I pay my taxes, that money isn't mine anymore—I have zero right to care about how it's spent.

The US government was once granted millions in funding to develop a digital platform so citizens could actually track budget expenditures in real-time.
And what happened? Not a single cent of that approved funding was ever utilized. They didn't even bother to try and embezzle it; they just let it sit there uselessly.

Look at one of the massive money laundering scandals in the US: a $10 million drain from a major shipyard was only flagged because an automated alarm triggered when an individual attempted to withdraw massive amounts of cash.

At the end of the day, the way people in places like Switzerland, Germany, or Scandinavia view money didn't just happen by accident. It’s a reflection of the societies they built.

Money should fundamentally be a force for good. Yes, it is a source of power, but it shouldn't be a source of unchecked authority. In a nation that demands true transparency, the power held by money becomes inherently limited.

Money itself isn't inherently good or evil. It’s just a tool—a means to an end that simply gives a person the leverage to act on their existing nature, whether that's for something virtuous or something malicious.

Is there anything more predictable than this? Every time a discussion touches on sensitive cultural or religious boundaries, someone inevitably drops a one-word judgment like "haram" to shut down the conversation. It’s become such a tired shorthand for disagreement. Does anyone actually expect a nuanced debate to happen when we just resort to labeling everything we find uncomfortable? It’s a lazy way to signal disapproval without actually having to engage with the substance of what was said. Are we really still doing this? kaže:
Money should be abolished entirely. It creates an inherent imbalance between production, social structures, and biological realities, while forcing unnatural, unethical divides between people that simply shouldn't exist.

Money is essentially just a universal medium of exchange—without it, the entire economic engine of this region would simply grind to a halt. At its core, money represents some other form of material or intellectual value; the currency itself possesses no inherent worth, only what it stands for matters. It isn't money that creates "unnatural" disparities between people; rather, those gaps are carved out by individual greed and the pursuit of power. Whether someone chooses to project that influence through cash, land, livestock, or even a stockpile of apples is ultimately irrelevant. Or am I supposed to believe that materialism didn't exist before we had modern currency? Did you honestly think everyone lived in perfect equality and harmony before money entered the equation?

Joshua Adams41 said:Let’s be real: money is the fuel that keeps a functioning society from grinding to a halt.
We’re staring down our first true "capitalist" crisis here—maybe even one of the absolute worst in history—and it’s managed to knock us flat on our faces.
That is the raw power of capital.
Think back to the massive meltdown around 2001 and 2002, right after the Twin Towers attacks and the whole dot-com bubble bursting.
I’d bet the average American doesn't have the slightest clue what a "dot-com bubble" even was. Back then, we were a closed-off, low-debt nation, so that tech crash barely even grazed us.
Again, it all comes down to the power of money.

People love to blame the individual. They act like it’s about how much cash you personally have in your pocket, but they miss the point: someone else playing games with massive amounts of money can wreck your life regardless.
The wealthier a person becomes, the less leverage society has over them. At the end of the day, money buys you independence.

It isn't one of the worst in history; in fact, it’s quite the opposite. Every economic system ever conceived has had to weather its fair share of crises for various reasons—capitalism is certainly no exception to that rule. The only real distinction lies in the consequences. In those other systems, periods of instability often led to massive shortages of essential resources, resulting in widespread famine and deadly disease outbreaks. The Soviet Union and China are just two prime examples of that reality.

Is there anything more predictable than this? We see a topic emerge, and within minutes, the usual crowd descends to label everything "haram." It’s become a reflexive response, hasn't it? Instead of engaging with the actual substance of an argument or dissecting the nuances of the situation, people just reach for that one specific word to shut down the conversation entirely. It’s a lazy way to debate. If you can't dismantle a point logically, why bother trying when you can just claim it violates some moral or religious code? Does calling something forbidden actually change the facts on the table, or does it just serve as a convenient exit ramp for anyone who doesn't want to think too hard? It seems we’ve traded intellectual rigor for easy labels. kaže:
To what extent does our own prosperity render us numb to the struggles of the rest of the world, and how much would a shift in our circumstances actually alter our behavior?

It really comes down to the individual. Money acts as a catalyst for personal desire; it provides the means to fund one's own interests, and in that pursuit, people often find their empathy for others beginning to erode. Furthermore, wealth fosters individualism—or perhaps it would be more accurate to say it creates an environment where individualism is allowed to flourish. Once those constraints are removed, whatever core traits a person already possesses simply move to the forefront.

Raymond Walker5 said:Another layer to this is that so many people struggle to offer genuine love—not even to themselves, let alone others. We carry these endless expectations of one another, finding it nearly impossible to accept people for who they truly are. Honestly, it’s one of the biggest systemic issues in our society today.
We constantly try to bend others to fit our own needs and desires. We want to control, manipulate, or demand things, ranking a person's worth as a human being based purely on how useful they are to us, simply because that's the pattern we've seen others use on us.
It starts with parents, continues through society, and manifests in our romantic relationships.

Sometimes, it isn't just about a lack of guidance from parents or social structures; it's also about the individual's inability to reach a level of maturity where they can finally think for themselves. It takes immense strength to break away from those heavy societal expectations and rigid stereotypes.
In the end, most people walk around believing they have a unique "personality," completely unaware that who they are is largely a byproduct of their environment. Their thoughts aren't truly theirs, and their worldview isn't something they built—it was programmed into them.

Too many people enter relationships for one singular reason: to satisfy their own lowest impulses through another person, whether they realize they're doing it or not. Of course, that's fundamentally wrong, but it's how the world operates. I truly believe we need to learn to let other beings exist as they are, helping them flourish in their own truth rather than demanding they become something else to suit us. Unfortunately, driven by insecurity and narrow mindsets, we tend to expect others to be the vessels for our own unfulfilled wants.

If every single person made just one small gesture toward someone else each day—purely out of love and goodwill, rather than selfishness, fear, or insecurity—the world would be a completely different place.

I would argue that one follows the other. It is impossible to offer genuine affection to someone else if we haven't mastered the ability to be kind to ourselves first.

We are stuck in this perpetual loop of projecting expectations onto one another, unable to accept anyone for who they actually are. Honestly, isn't that one of the fundamental fractures in our society?
We have this constant urge to bend others to our own whims, to control them, manipulate them, and demand things from them. We end up grading their value as human beings based on how well they serve us, simply because that is the toxic pattern we’ve inherited from everyone else.
It starts with parents, it's reinforced by society at large, and it carries straight into our romantic relationships.

Regarding those expectations, I'd add that people consistently demand far more than they are willing to contribute. I've seen plenty of relationships where one person is habitually unfaithful, yet they absolutely cannot stomach it when the shoe is on the other foot. It happens in all sorts of ways; for instance, people expect their partners to hang on every word they say, but the moment that partner tries to speak up, they dismiss them or shut the conversation down entirely.

Many people enter relationships for a single, selfish reason: to satisfy their most primal impulses through another person, whether they realize it or not. While obviously flawed, that is essentially how the social machinery turns. I believe we ought to allow another human being to just exist as they are and support their growth, rather than trying to mold them into something else. Unfortunately, fueled by insecurity and low emotional intelligence, we tend to treat people as tools to fulfill our own desires.

People claim to love their partners while simultaneously trying to micromanage every aspect of their personality to suit their own needs. Similarly—and I hear this quite often myself—parents will boast about providing everything for their children in terms of material wealth, yet they rarely provide the one thing that actually matters: the freedom for those children to become their true selves.

If every person performed just one act a day driven purely by love and goodwill—rather than selfishness, fear, or insecurity—the world wouldn't look anything like it does today.

But then again, as they say: "Don't hold your breath."

Raymond Walker5 said:To truly grasp what’s happening, you first have to understand human psychology, which—if we're being honest—is actually quite simple.
I don't really feel like diving into a massive deep dive right now (though I probably will eventually), but unfortunately, so many people never bother to build any actual character of their own. From a very young age, there's this deep-seated urge and necessity to belong to something. Because of that, people flock to all sorts of cliques and groups just to feel like they possess some inherent value or are part of something "bigger" than themselves.
So, you see some people joining extremist political factions, others joining a local pottery club, some diving headfirst into religion, and others signing up for a specific political party. They do all of this primarily so they can feel superior to everyone else by association. They base their entire self-worth on how much others validate them. If that external validation disappears, their whole ego just collapses into pure agony.

Of course, most people are conditioned from childhood to nurture social stereotypes and conformity. In our society, losing your innocence early—both socially and sexually—is often seen as a way to gain "status." You’re expected to be born, go through school, get a job, find a partner, reproduce, work, earn money, and then die. It’s almost like we're programmed like praying mantises; once the mating is done, the male is essentially expendable.

Society has trained us to accept a lot of nonsense as "normal," treating certain milestones as things that must be achieved at any cost. For instance, if you were in Japan and you lost your job or got laid off, you might feel like committing harakiri out of sheer shame, because to society, if you aren't materially useful or productive anymore, you basically cease to exist in your own eyes and everyone else's.

In other words, conformism is just an extended version of the herd mentality. Rising above it and saying "NO" to the status quo is incredibly difficult because most people suffer from a sort of "follower" mindset, easily swayed by either those with more power or simply by whoever happens to be in the majority.

Generally speaking, we live in a culture that believes the majority is always right, which is absolute nonsense. The majority is frequently quite foolish. Independent thought is rarely given any real value here.
A huge portion of the evil in this world stems from the fear of being cast out, which has led to people following ideologies and conforming to extremes for the sake of survival.

I know plenty of people from smaller towns in California who have told me straight up that if you haven't landed a career, found a spouse, and started a family by the time you hit 20, you're considered a total failure.
We are a primitive species that measures its worth through material success. When we fail to meet the arbitrary standards imposed on us by society, we view ourselves as failures.

One of the biggest absurdities was something like forcing young people to serve in the military—which, thank God, has been abolished—and framing it as a "duty." The idea that we owe anything to anyone simply because we were born is total idiocy, and we have to say NO to it if we ever want society to actually progress.

Early on in my life, I learned to expect absolutely nothing from anyone, and because of that, the close relationships I do have tend to be very healthy. I surround myself with intelligent people, people who are critical of society, empathetic toward the marginalized, and supportive of those whom society has rejected.

People ask, "Why do people give in to the pressure?" It's because they lack character. It's because they believe everything their parents or authority figures told them is the ultimate truth. People are trained like animals by religions, societies, and institutions using subtle blackmail and fears instilled from birth. If you won't behave, you'll be punished... if you don't have the latest sneakers, kids at school will mock you... if you don't get straight A's, you'll end up doing manual labor... if you don't serve your military term, you'll end up in prison... if you don't kiss up to your boss at work, you'll get fired... if you don't believe in religious nonsense, you'll go to hell... if you don't make a killing, you're a loser...

And that is how you create a deeply psychologically damaged society. Some will argue, "Well, that's just life; it's cruel and you have to fight to survive." They'll cling to that supposed "survival of the fittest" nonsense. But it's actually the exact opposite. It's like this because you all *decided* to make it this way and chose to make life difficult. Evolution doesn't care about the "stronger" individual surviving; if that were the case, the strong would just spend all their time devouring the weak. Evolution cares about moving forward, regardless of everything—even if it means moving forward without humans entirely. Life wouldn't fail if humans disappeared. We aren't the only ones on this planet, nor are we the center of the universe.

We’re still such an underdeveloped species, honestly. We constantly find ourselves expecting things from everyone else, yet we struggle to offer even a shred of positivity to ourselves, let alone to anyone else.

To build on what you were saying, here’s a pretty cliché example from my own life back when I used to go out more often. I had this friend who constantly expected me to get up and dance. But why on earth would I dance if I wasn't actually having fun? Why should I do something that doesn't suit me just to satisfy her specific idea of a "successful night out"?

We have this fundamental inability to accept that what works for us might be completely wrong for someone else. Just because it feels normal to us to wake up at 4 AM, commute three hours to work, pull twelve-hour shifts every single day including weekends, and essentially reduce our entire existence to mere survival—that doesn't mean it's normal for anyone else.
Personally, I don't believe that life has to be lived at any cost. Because of that, I certainly don't feel obligated to survive at any cost just to fuel those social structures that seem to crave nothing but self-sacrificing slaves. I don't see any reason to play along with anyone's conformist illusions; everything we've built around us is just an illusion that we can walk away from whenever we choose.

I lost the need to be accepted or loved by others a long time ago. In my younger years, that was my heaviest burden—this massive illusion that I actually needed to have friends, much less that I needed to cater to the whims of people who are even bigger idiots than I am.
By being born, we didn't sign some cosmic contract stating that we owe anything to anyone, least of all to people who blindly follow and suck up to every social norm and stereotype out there.

As Bukowski roughly put it: "I don't like people, nor do I want to be near them, but I need them just so I can eat." And that really is the only condition we should agree to: reducing our relationship with this unwanted social system to the bare minimum required to sustain us and provide the basic necessities of life with as little hassle as possible.

Humans are inherently social creatures, driven by an almost primal urge to be accepted by their peers. When someone fails to find that sense of belonging within their own family, they inevitably go looking for it in the wider world. This often leads to a dangerous pattern: people start bending to external pressures and compromising their own values just to secure a seat at the table. It’s incredibly difficult to unlearn this mindset, especially when it's been drilled into us from childhood. It becomes particularly problematic in smaller towns or tight-knit communities where standing out is seen as a liability rather than an asset. How much of our identity are we willing to sacrifice just to avoid being the outsider?

Raymond Walker5 said:To truly grasp what’s happening, you first have to understand human psychology, which—if we're being honest—is actually quite simple.
I don't really feel like diving into a massive deep dive right now (though I probably will eventually), but unfortunately, so many people never bother to build any actual character of their own. From a very young age, there's this deep-seated urge and necessity to belong to something. Because of that, people flock to all sorts of cliques and groups just to feel like they possess some inherent value or are part of something "bigger" than themselves.
So, you see some people joining extremist political factions, others joining a local pottery club, some diving headfirst into religion, and others signing up for a specific political party. They do all of this primarily so they can feel superior to everyone else by association. They base their entire self-worth on how much others validate them. If that external validation disappears, their whole ego just collapses into pure agony.

Of course, most people are conditioned from childhood to nurture social stereotypes and conformity. In our society, losing your innocence early—both socially and sexually—is often seen as a way to gain "status." You’re expected to be born, go through school, get a job, find a partner, reproduce, work, earn money, and then die. It’s almost like we're programmed like praying mantises; once the mating is done, the male is essentially expendable.

Society has trained us to accept a lot of nonsense as "normal," treating certain milestones as things that must be achieved at any cost. For instance, if you were in Japan and you lost your job or got laid off, you might feel like committing harakiri out of sheer shame, because to society, if you aren't materially useful or productive anymore, you basically cease to exist in your own eyes and everyone else's.

In other words, conformism is just an extended version of the herd mentality. Rising above it and saying "NO" to the status quo is incredibly difficult because most people suffer from a sort of "follower" mindset, easily swayed by either those with more power or simply by whoever happens to be in the majority.

Generally speaking, we live in a culture that believes the majority is always right, which is absolute nonsense. The majority is frequently quite foolish. Independent thought is rarely given any real value here.
A huge portion of the evil in this world stems from the fear of being cast out, which has led to people following ideologies and conforming to extremes for the sake of survival.

I know plenty of people from smaller towns in California who have told me straight up that if you haven't landed a career, found a spouse, and started a family by the time you hit 20, you're considered a total failure.
We are a primitive species that measures its worth through material success. When we fail to meet the arbitrary standards imposed on us by society, we view ourselves as failures.

One of the biggest absurdities was something like forcing young people to serve in the military—which, thank God, has been abolished—and framing it as a "duty." The idea that we owe anything to anyone simply because we were born is total idiocy, and we have to say NO to it if we ever want society to actually progress.

Early on in my life, I learned to expect absolutely nothing from anyone, and because of that, the close relationships I do have tend to be very healthy. I surround myself with intelligent people, people who are critical of society, empathetic toward the marginalized, and supportive of those whom society has rejected.

People ask, "Why do people give in to the pressure?" It's because they lack character. It's because they believe everything their parents or authority figures told them is the ultimate truth. People are trained like animals by religions, societies, and institutions using subtle blackmail and fears instilled from birth. If you won't behave, you'll be punished... if you don't have the latest sneakers, kids at school will mock you... if you don't get straight A's, you'll end up doing manual labor... if you don't serve your military term, you'll end up in prison... if you don't kiss up to your boss at work, you'll get fired... if you don't believe in religious nonsense, you'll go to hell... if you don't make a killing, you're a loser...

And that is how you create a deeply psychologically damaged society. Some will argue, "Well, that's just life; it's cruel and you have to fight to survive." They'll cling to that supposed "survival of the fittest" nonsense. But it's actually the exact opposite. It's like this because you all *decided* to make it this way and chose to make life difficult. Evolution doesn't care about the "stronger" individual surviving; if that were the case, the strong would just spend all their time devouring the weak. Evolution cares about moving forward, regardless of everything—even if it means moving forward without humans entirely. Life wouldn't fail if humans disappeared. We aren't the only ones on this planet, nor are we the center of the universe.

We’re still such an underdeveloped species, honestly. We constantly find ourselves expecting things from everyone else, yet we struggle to offer even a shred of positivity to ourselves, let alone to anyone else.

To build on what you were saying, here’s a pretty cliché example from my own life back when I used to go out more often. I had this friend who constantly expected me to get up and dance. But why on earth would I dance if I wasn't actually having fun? Why should I do something that doesn't suit me just to satisfy her specific idea of a "successful night out"?

We have this fundamental inability to accept that what works for us might be completely wrong for someone else. Just because it feels normal to us to wake up at 4 AM, commute three hours to work, pull twelve-hour shifts every single day including weekends, and essentially reduce our entire existence to mere survival—that doesn't mean it's normal for anyone else.
Personally, I don't believe that life has to be lived at any cost. Because of that, I certainly don't feel obligated to survive at any cost just to fuel those social structures that seem to crave nothing but self-sacrificing slaves. I don't see any reason to play along with anyone's conformist illusions; everything we've built around us is just an illusion that we can walk away from whenever we choose.

I lost the need to be accepted or loved by others a long time ago. In my younger years, that was my heaviest burden—this massive illusion that I actually needed to have friends, much less that I needed to cater to the whims of people who are even bigger idiots than I am.
By being born, we didn't sign some cosmic contract stating that we owe anything to anyone, least of all to people who blindly follow and suck up to every social norm and stereotype out there.

As Bukowski roughly put it: "I don't like people, nor do I want to be near them, but I need them just so I can eat." And that really is the only condition we should agree to: reducing our relationship with this unwanted social system to the bare minimum required to sustain us and provide the basic necessities of life with as little hassle as possible.

Upbringing plays a massive role in how we turn out. Too often, parents fail to teach their children how to think critically, opting instead to steer them away from forming their own independent perspectives. I frequently observe this pattern where a child asks "why?" and the parent simply shuts it down with a blunt "because I said so." It’s a conversation killer. Instead of offering an explanation, they could easily pivot by asking, "Well, what do you think?" By defaulting to that kind of authority-based reasoning, we are essentially training kids from a very young age to be passive observers. We teach them to just accept circumstances as they are, rather than teaching them to analyze the situation, draw their own conclusions, and then decide whether to act on those findings or at least form a reasoned stance. Is it any wonder we struggle with such a reactive society?