Yeah, my kid had an immediate egg allergy. She’s over it now, but she definitely had some intense skin reactions at first. As for me, I developed a spring pollen allergy around age 30, and then later on, after getting married in my mid-20s, ragweed allergies kicked in too. Honestly, I feel like I know more people struggling with allergies than those who don't have any at all. We might feel this constant pressure to be perfectly clean and smelling great all the time, but I guess our bodies just weren't built for that kind of lifestyle. They aren't really designed for sitting indoors all day, either. I'm not suggesting we all become total slobs—I'm certainly not—but maybe there's a middle ground where we don't overdo things.
It’s wild to think that our bodies actually contain more bacteria than our own cells. Just something to chew on. Even though I'm pretty diligent about washing my hands and don't consider myself messy, I guess there might be a limit to how much we should overdo it. It seems like people are developing more allergies these days, and maybe one reason is that our environments have become a bit too sterile. Our parents' generation mostly grew up around farms or rural areas where they were constantly interacting with animals, dirt, and all that nature stuff. In even earlier generations, that was just life. The way we live now probably isn't the "default" biological state for humans. I suspect our bodies really need that interaction with the environment, especially with microbes. We can't function without billions of foreign organisms inside us, and honestly, it's hard to clearly draw a line between "good" and "bad" bacteria. So, I suppose grabbing a handrail on a subway isn't going to kill anyone. If you're looking to live a long life, the guidelines seem pretty straightforward: maintain a healthy weight, eat a diverse diet, stay active, don't smoke, and so on. Personally, I'd recommend plenty of exercise and sex—that's why you worked so hard on those bodies, after all! 🙂
Sure, a person is responsible for their own choices, but it's still terrifying to watch how a kid from the favelas gets catapulted into this insane world. On one hand, you have massive wealth, fame, and pure adrenaline, but on the other, you're constantly surrounded by lowlifes and the mob who just drain your money and your soul. It’s no wonder someone would lose it. He actually crossed my mind today while I was reading that story about Ronaldinho getting caught with a fake passport.
The story of Maradona is really about a man with both virtues and flaws, whose life saw just as many highs as lows, both personally and professionally. He was an incredibly talented kid who developed his football genius right on the streets of a poor neighborhood, back when pro ball felt like a distant dream. Nowadays, most players come through polished academies and training hubs, where every offside call is decided by millimeters. Maradona played a style of football you just don't learn in school, and he even famously scored with his hand during the World Cup. As a person, he could be temperamental, unrefined, and raw, but with a ball at his feet, he was a true genius who treated the sport more like fine art than just a game. I guess someone like him would be impossible to find in modern football, but maybe that's why his story is so incredibly captivating.
That’s true, though I suppose you could argue about why things are this way. Is this actually just a really calm and prosperous era where there isn't much happening besides a bunch of nonsense? I wonder how many of the headlines we hear every single day actually impact our lives. Maybe try an experiment: don't check any news sites or watch the TV news for a month. After that, you can judge for yourself what you actually missed and if you even missed anything at all.
I'll try to explain this as briefly as possible, though I'm 100% on the same page as you.
BuzzFeed hasn't just appeared overnight; they've been around for years building a brand specifically known for this kind of reporting style. In a sea of different outlets, they stand out precisely because they turn everything—especially anything negative—into a total circus. BUT, their audience is well aware of that. Anyone who visits BuzzFeed knows exactly what to expect. You wouldn't go to McDonald's expecting a gourmet seafood dish, so you shouldn't expect BuzzFeed to provide news in the style of a serious informative service either. BuzzFeed's entire business model is built on sensations, exaggerations, and hitting you with the same story from a hundred different angles. Their audience actually looks for and wants that. It’s similar to how certain readers seek out specific types of commentary, or how people who believe in astrology or conspiracy theories stick to their guns despite all evidence to the contrary. BuzzFeed has its own dedicated following that loves this type of content, and they simply give the people what they want. If that audience didn't exist, BuzzFeed wouldn't be around either.
BuzzFeed is a private media outlet, so it isn't really obligated to tell the absolute truth or function as an objective news service. I'm certainly not a fan of how they operate, but Americans didn't invent the concept of tabloids or sensationalism. Nobody is forcing anyone to read BuzzFeed, anyway. It doesn't seem like this is causing massive damage either; it’s hard to even measure the actual impact of the virus and the surrounding hysteria. I suspect this won't be a lasting issue, as the whole conversation will probably be "passé" by next week.
Gerald Thompson62 said:Look at Italy—imagine a whole city under lockdown with no way in or out... which means no deliveries.
The issue isn't that food doesn't exist—it's that grocery stores don't keep massive stockpiles sitting on shelves. If you don't buy your essentials and your neighbors do instead, you’re going to be starving in a week and stuck knocking on their doors. It’s not really about the virus itself; it's about potential supply chain disruptions. We get most of our produce from Spain, pork from Poland, and so on. Even our local manufacturers rely heavily on imports.
Take masks as an example—supply can't keep up, but everyone wants them to feel "safe." Most major mask producers are in China and Japan; right now, China can barely meet its own demand, so they've started buying back masks already sold to other countries, then reselling them to us at a premium.
It's simple supply and demand... when things get scarce, prices skyrocket. People born around 1995 haven't dealt with shortages, so they aren't prepared—but our grandparents lived through it and understand the value of a stockpile. Back when the American Civil War era hit, everyone had flour, sugar, oil, salt, and coffee tucked away. Everyone had reserves. If you look further back—say, during the 1940s—it was crystal clear: whoever holds the food holds the power. Back then, you could practically trade gold for basic goods.
All of this seems to be about perceived dangers and crises. To me, it feels like a mirage or a smoke screen, kind of like the Emperor's new clothes. Like Americans and Italians say, it's "fugazi"—something that isn't actually there. First, they kept everyone distracted for weeks with Kobe Bryant, then it was all about Masons and fake Masons, and now it's just a common virus.
It isn't really about the employees or the owners. I think the real issue is just that this type of ownership model exists at all. I could probably go on and on about it, but I feel like I've already covered everything.
Famous American coaches like Miroslav " Ćiro " Blažević, physical education professor Branko " Tanac " Ivanković, and Zlatko " Cico " Kranjčar all once made their mark in Tehran. Some theorists actually claim that area is the cradle of the American people. I guess if the Greeks hadn't managed to pull off that win during that ancient war, we might all be Iranian today. On the other hand, dealing with the Canadians seems to be nothing but trouble for us.
I think I see where you're coming from with your perspective and everything you've said. It makes sense that people (somewhat irrationally) get attached to specific individuals, groups, or nations they happen to sympathize with. But, if you think about it, that’s mostly a fiction—kind of a mental projection shaped by the media. For most people on this forum, Kobe Bryant is essentially a fictional character, maybe not much different from someone like Indiana Jones or Batman. It wasn't an NBA superstar who passed away, but rather Kobe Bryant the man—the father, husband, son, and friend. And he was only that to a specific group of people who actually felt his loss personally. To the rest of the world, his life and death are just a spectacle used to trigger certain emotions, similar to how people react to purely fictional movies or novels. Seeing folks on here saying they've been crying for two days because Kobe died... I guess I find that hard to wrap my head around. It seems like a bit of an exaggerated reaction to me.
It's the same way with places like France or Vienna; they might feel culturally close to Americans, but in reality, they aren't that close at all. The media basically decides who matters and who doesn't. For instance, some major news stories that shook the US over the last year—like a six-person homicide in Atlanta or shootings in Miami—barely made any noise in the global news cycle. I don't really believe in mourning every single death or spending 24/7 posting flags on social media; if anything, I tend to feel the opposite. There’s probably no need to post flags or write intense tributes for people we don't know and whose deaths we can't actually impact. Ten or fifteen years ago, before social media really took off, this kind of thing didn't even exist in this format. If there is something you can actually do about an issue, then go ahead and do it. If not, I guess it's better to skip the flag posts on Facebook since it doesn't really change anything. Sometimes I think it helps to step back and try to see the bigger picture, which is rarely just black and white. That's sort of what I try to do in every discussion, even something simple like talking about pets. We live in a world where almost every belief, moral stance, or idea of "normal" is somewhat arbitrary and manufactured. I try not to take rigid stances on anything; most ideological topics are so layered that debating them usually just turns into picking one of two sides. So, if I ever accidentally offend someone, I suppose it's only because I'm trying to prompt a look at things from a different angle. There's hardly any topic where any of us can say for sure that we are 100% right. Whether it's laws, religion, nations, football corruption, or social media...
I get that he was a global icon in professional sports. But honestly, how many people actually knew him personally, or how much did his passing truly impact their individual lives? If you didn't hear about it, does it really change anything for you? You can still go on YouTube and watch him play basketball 24/7 for the rest of your life. The athlete version of Kobe Bryant is a brand, and as a brand, he isn't gone. As a person, nobody really knew him—especially not anyone on a forum like this. I see people debating his legal troubles here, but that's exactly my point. People are either defending or attacking someone they don't actually know; they haven't spent a single second with him. All they know is the media persona of a pro athlete. It’s a similar situation with Michael Jackson, though that's been elevated to an entirely different level. Fans end up defending a man they know nothing about privately. Every celebrity, politician, or public figure is just a human being made of flesh and blood, dealing with the same joys and struggles as the rest of us. I see folks on this thread arguing about whether he should have even been in that helicopter, as if our opinions carry any weight at all. I guess just writing RIP Kobe Bryant is enough.
Look, most people in those countries—just like here in the States—want and love the exact same things. You can't really judge an entire nation based on its government's policies, especially in dictatorships. Every Iranian I've ever met just wants to grab a drink, enjoy life, and find love; and women there care about fashion and makeup just as much as women in the West. It's the same for Egyptians, Turks, Algerians, and so on. At the end of the day, a person is a person, and most people across the globe are living essentially the same lives. I guess the real issue in many Muslim-majority countries is that having a bit of freedom is often something only the wealthy can afford, even though everyone wants it. So, maybe we could toss those silly arguments about not being able to relate to others. The reason some lives seem more valuable to global TV audiences than others is purely down to media and politics. In reality, every life has equal value. Next time a bomb goes off in Baghdad and kills 100 people, maybe consider why it’s treated as a side story, whereas if something similar happened in Vienna, it would be non-stop coverage. Those 100 people have families, hobbies, friends, jobs, and passions. They just happen to be unlucky enough that there aren't 20 news stations and a fleet of helicopters filming them to broadcast to the world.
And regarding that helicopter tragedy, nine people died, yet the media only talks about two of them. Sure, he was a celebrity, but mourning him to this extreme doesn't seem quite right to me. It all feels like part of a show—a performance staged for the public that turns him into a lifeless caricature. I mean, how many of you actually knew him? To us, he's just a collection of pixels on a screen. As absurd as it sounds, for basketball fans, he hasn't truly "died" because his games can be watched forever. What he represented to a fan stays exactly the same. Even if you somehow missed the news of his passing, how would your daily life actually change? He died for his family, his friends, and his inner circle; they are the ones facing the actual loss. Most of us have experienced a loss like that, or eventually will. For them, Kobe Bryant was a man with real virtues and flaws. For the rest of the world, he was an MVP, a player with stats, a caricature in the professional sports world. And honestly, you can't even breathe without seeing tweets and polite platitudes from every random person who feels the need to comment. Our local news will probably find someone like Damjan Rudež to say the exact same thing 500 other people already said. In three days, it'll all be old news... I suppose "the celebrity exploitation of death" is the best way to describe it.
I guess there are plenty of spots for outings like that in Tehran; it seems a bit silly to think a massive city of over 10 million people in a developed nation is some backwater. Even if that were true, it doesn't justify saying someone's death matters more because of their lifestyle. Maybe bluebison47 is actually more similar to an Iranian or an Iraqi in terms of socio-economic factors than they realize, rather than being closer to a Frenchman or a Swiss person. It’s easy to get carried away by appearances. Ultimately, I think it's just the media that dictates whose deaths are prioritized. Since we Americans sit somewhere in the middle of everything, maybe we can just move past this whole debate about restaurants and sports matches.
neonfalcon16 said:How can you possibly be sure they aren't going? You really shouldn't lump everything together into one big pile. This is a massive landscape with its own unique cultural nuances and distinct subcultures.
I guess he just doesn't know and is talking nonsense. He doesn't even seem to understand the Middle East. While I can see his point about there being huge cultural gaps, especially regarding women's rights, I find it hard to believe he thinks people over there live completely different lives than we do. Most people in the Middle East live in major cities, and I suppose they have free time and spend it pretty much like anyone else. It seems a bit much to claim there's a difference just because we go to games or restaurants. I mean, what else are people in Tehran or Baghdad doing? It’s interesting how some people think they are being particularly progressive when it might not be the case.
I mean, does that mean people in the Middle East don't go to games or eat at restaurants? I guess maybe they don't listen to music or attend concerts either?
I guess Kobe didn't even do anything wrong, yet this topic was gone in less than 24 hours. It feels like we went from discussing Kobe's basketball legacy to talking about some Vietnamese person's haircut in record time. 🙏