Posts by Joseph Bailey41

Harold Wilson5 said:I’m not quite sure where to begin this story.

Ever since I was a kid, I’ve always been ahead of the curve. School was honestly too easy for me—even through high school—so I would breeze through with straight A's without much effort. To keep things interesting and feed my ambition, I’d constantly push myself by entering competitions and taking on extra extracurricular activities.
Eventually, I decided to pursue a demanding university degree that would finally offer a real challenge and set the stage for a solid career path.
Back then, I had this clear vision of myself as a high-powered executive or running my own company.

Everything changed during my college years when my brother passed away suddenly. That was the turning point for me.
It was almost like a sudden realization hit me: so many things in life just aren't worth the stress. For instance, I stopped feeling guilty about postponing an exam or even failing one if I felt like it.
Even so, I managed to graduate on time and landed a great job.

At the same time, while we were always close, I found myself growing even closer to my parents. They mean the world to me, and now, I have a wonderful husband and our family life is incredibly harmonious.

Now, after five years on the job, I’m feeling something I’ve never felt before: complete burnout. Even though my job is dynamic and actually pretty cool, I feel like there just aren't enough hours in the day to enjoy my own life.
I suppose it’s a combination of
- the fact that nothing feels challenging enough anymore. I work way faster than my colleagues, so I'm left with a choice: either pull a double workload for the same pay, or spend half my shift surfing the web or reading, which eventually gets boring.
- my brother's passing and the realization that my happiest moments are spent with family and friends. Now, those eight hours at the office—plus the hour or so I spend commuting—feel like wasted time.
- the fact that my husband and I managed to get ahead of our finances early on, especially regarding our housing situation, so I don't have that crushing financial pressure forcing me to stay.
- the age gap at work; most of my colleagues are much older, so there isn't really any social buzz or grabbing drinks after work—it's just strictly showing up for eight hours and leaving.
- watching the bosses and owners grind for ten or more hours every single day, living in constant stress over monthly targets.

I caught myself thinking the other day that by my late thirties or early forties, I’d much rather work just four hours a day at a relaxed pace, maybe something remote, or even just retire early to focus on being present for my family, future children, and friends.
I honestly have no idea where that ambitious girl went—the one who wanted to be number one and a leader in her field.

I don't know what I want from this thread. Maybe I just need to vent, or perhaps I want to see if others have gone through this. Was this just a phase for you, or did it stick?

She just grew up. At the end of the day, a job is there to pay the bills, not necessarily to be this high-octane, thrilling adventure. Honestly, I think people who claim their career is the absolute center of their universe either have pretty empty lives or they're just not being truthful. 😁

mistyscout2 said:Which one, Wotan? 😁

Mhm. 🕺

Have you read it?

nimbleridge5 said:At its core, this is really just about looking at things practically. You basically just put all the factors on a scale and see which side carries more weight.

On one hand, you have this authoritarian, somewhat flamboyant leader who chased off the local farmers—which was a massive blunder because it permanently crippled the Midwest—and dealt with the Italians (though some might say they got exactly what they bargained for). He didn't spend much energy defending those who collaborated with the Nazis after the war either, nor did he seem to care much about the fates of those fleeing alongside them—honestly, the list of crimes is endless. It’s funny how people tend to pick on the losers, especially when they were so deeply compromised themselves. I mean, who was out there feeling sorry for the conquistadors when, in rare instances, they caught a beating from the Native Americans? How would the elites of our society react if they had their own camps and were busy wiping out the American intellectual elite alongside everyone else who fell into their hands? Even Douglas MacArthur ended up facing the ultimate judgment in the eyes of civilization for us Americans, and women were publicly shamed just for being with the occupiers.
He ruled with a firmer hand, sure, but nothing that couldn't be compared to other leaders in American history. And honestly, looking at how chaotic things are today, you could argue that a firm hand is actually the best way to manage such a fractured nation.

On the flip side, thanks to his leadership, you get almost perfect territorial integrity, an infrastructure that was kept up and even improved (take the massive expansion of the national power grid and dam projects compared to the single aging plant we used to rely on), and generally the easiest standard of living among all the countries that were once behind the Iron Curtain.
As a little bonus, you can point out that he was respected and held in high regard by the entire world, even by the Nazis themselves 😲 (though it feels like some people here are even bigger fascists than Hitler—pardon me, I meant Himmler 😁), and even most Americans weren't exactly throwing parades back in May of '80 🙂

To me, it’s perfectly clear where the scale tips and which of these factors actually matters more.

🤣🤣🤣

ironrider11 said:Without people like that, how many of us actually stepped up fast enough? We seriously need some righteous ones in our corner right now...

History is a two-faced coin. Sometimes it looks like a heavy bag of cash, other times it’s just empty air. But who actually takes the fall? Is it the masterminds behind the scenes, the red tape, or the masses who happily reaped the rewards of a crime? Maybe it's the ideologues spinning lies, the bureaucrats cooking the books, or the media outlets that twist "facts" depending on which side of the coin they're betting on... Or maybe it's just the regular citizens—that massive crowd always standing against an ideology they didn't sign up for... pretty much always... Nothing...?

Everything. ☕

Ronald Fisher3 said:Joseph Bailey41, don't be so shortsighted. All this stuff is happening right now across the left-wing European Union and elsewhere, and it's headed straight for us.

Our own personal experiences are way too limited to carry any kind of serious discussion on such a heavy topic.

Personally, I think it’s a bit tough to have a serious discussion about things we don't really understand, so I’d rather just stick to what I've actually lived through.

If you're looking for deep dives into strategy games, at least we have the Politics subforum over there. 😁

Bradley Nelson2 said:It’s more than just advocacy; there’s an active effort to shut down any future debate by making data collection impossible:
take Sweden for example: https://www.thelocal.se/20180508/why...ound-and-crime
They’re even willing to handicap their own ability to catch criminals just to avoid being labeled "racists": https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a6810311.html
Meanwhile, in Canada, "chromosome-deniers" are actually a legally protected group https://www.dailysignal.com/2017/06/...nder-pronouns/

On that note, it's funny how anyone questioning whether climate change is primarily man-made—despite a whole subset of scientists making a living trying to prove a century of heavy industry caused the shifts we already see in extreme forms—is branded an idiot, a lunatic, or a science denier...
Yet, at the exact same time, people denying basic biology are coddled. It's already becoming illegal in Canada (and likely in the US within ten years) to call them out on using wrong pronouns. Instead, we have to adopt their fabrications. It’s a classic case of an influential minority lobby forcing its version of "justice" on everyone else.

Anyone have insight into the psychology of people who actively support the denial of biology?

I asked you for your personal experience, and you give me links from Sweden and Canada. 🤦

Sorry, but my monthly quota for studying idiots has been reached. I’ll open those links in mid-October, so if you're interested then, maybe we can talk about them somewhere more appropriate.

Bradley Nelson2 said:It’s more than just advocacy; there’s an active effort to shut down any future debate by making data collection impossible:
take Sweden for example: https://www.thelocal.se/20180508/why...ound-and-crime
They’re even willing to handicap their own ability to catch criminals just to avoid being labeled "racists": https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a6810311.html
Meanwhile, in Canada, "chromosome-deniers" are actually a legally protected group https://www.dailysignal.com/2017/06/...nder-pronouns/

On that note, it's funny how anyone questioning whether climate change is primarily man-made—despite a whole subset of scientists making a living trying to prove a century of heavy industry caused the shifts we already see in extreme forms—is branded an idiot, a lunatic, or a science denier...
Yet, at the exact same time, people denying basic biology are coddled. It's already becoming illegal in Canada (and likely in the US within ten years) to call them out on using wrong pronouns. Instead, we have to adopt their fabrications. It’s a classic case of an influential minority lobby forcing its version of "justice" on everyone else.

Anyone have insight into the psychology of people who actively support the denial of biology?

Personally, if I wanted to deny natural sciences, I’d just start a church. 🥳

Ronald Fisher3 said:So, I guess from here on out, anyone with dyed hair is just... 🙂

Seriously though, why is this thread even sitting in the Psychology sub?

I usually just run into terms like "Black" or "person of color" (like when talking about a Black basketball player or actor). Using "African American" doesn't really make sense if we're talking about Black people born here in the US or anywhere else in the West. As for the phrase "colored person," I haven't stumbled upon that one yet, though it's entirely possible I missed it since I don't read every single thing out there.

Ronald Fisher3 said:So, I guess from here on out, anyone with dyed hair is just... 🙂

Seriously though, why is this thread even sitting in the Psychology sub?

We're just trying to work through some hang-ups. 😁

Bradley Nelson2 said:Political correctness isn't just about policing vocabulary. It’s a gag order on actual conversation.
Look at the recent wave of migration into Europe. There was an outright ban on mentioning that terrorists were among the migrants—not just in the media, but in plenty of other important discussion spaces too. Anyone who dared to point out the reality of the situation was immediately branded a racist or a fascist. In the end, they were proven right, but the labels were already handed out.
With this kind of gag order on discussion, right when we're in the middle of a migration crisis, any chance of actually drafting rational policies to protect our citizens from these "refugees" is dead in the water. And honestly, that term isn't even accurate. Some of these people aren't fleeing anything—they’re just dodging prison time after serving as ISIS fighters.
Shutting down debate carries heavy consequences. It’s always the left pushing for these bans, claiming they’re acting on some higher ideological principle. We’ve seen this movie before. History shows exactly where these "untouchable" ideologies lead. One group claims racial superiority is off-limits for discussion, while another insists that forced multiculturalism is beyond reproach. It’s the same old pattern. Once you decide certain ideas are too dangerous to even mention, you're heading down a dark path.
Censorship is a bigger threat to society than any specific rule change. One targets the group; the other hits the individual. It’s a double-edged sword.

Personally, I don't know anyone who actually advocates for banning discussions on just anything. The only exceptions are sensitive topics like suicide, where public conversation follows very strict guidelines set by medical professionals to ensure that reckless language doesn't trigger imitation among vulnerable people. That’s why I asked you directly where and how you felt you encountered any discrimination (which could also include being barred from discussing something). But hey, if you don't want to answer, there's no pressure.

analogorca6 said:First, they used the N-word N-word —apparently that’s racist now, so you have to call them Black. Back then, everyone just called them Black. Then they decided you shouldn't say Black because that was supposedly offensive, so they switched to African American. After a while, they started pushing African American. Now, suddenly, you can't even use African American because that's "racist" too, so instead, you're supposed to use person of color, or POC.

At this rate, I'm just waiting for the day when POC becomes an offensive slur, too.

Alright, that’s how it works in the USA. But what about how we refer to people here?

Kenneth Cruz67 said:Are you suggesting that people are being picked on simply because they refer to Black people as Black?🤷

I’m not saying that. I’m asking. ☕

From what I can tell, that word only gets flagged when it’s used in a hateful context, like in a slur or something similar. At least, that's how it works here on this forum. ☕

Kenneth Cruz67 said:In my experience, people don't really get targeted for what they *don't* say, but rather for using certain terms that might be perfectly accurate and appropriate yet happen to be considered politically incorrect.

Maybe try to focus a little bit more; I guess you don't always have to be Flying 😁

I took his post quite differently—it felt more like someone was calling him out for not wanting to stick to politically correct terms, like using "African American," for example. But honestly, it might be best if Bradley Nelson2 just clarifies what he actually meant.

Bradley Nelson2 said:The whole point of political correctness is to stigmatize conservatives who stick to plain English. They invent new terms and jargon just so they can discriminate against anyone who refuses to adopt the modern left-liberal vocabulary. It’s basically a verbal crime punishable by social exile—something they haven't managed to codify into law across the US and other Western nations yet. But give them time. They're getting there.

That's an interesting theory. ☕

Has anyone actually bullied or discriminated against you just because you wouldn't use certain buzzwords? 🤔

Bradley Nelson2 said:Trolling someone over established facts just shows you can't handle reality.

Established facts? What kind of facts are we talking about—the ones from Catholic Charities? 🤔

Kenneth Cruz67 said:So, how exactly do people actually shift their political perspectives? I mean, what's the real reason behind everyone swinging from one side of the aisle to the other?

If our political leanings were strictly tied to our core personality traits, then I suppose we’d only see shifts in those truly extreme cases—you know, maybe after someone suffers a stroke or ends up with a literal screwdriver stuck in their frontal lobe. But, as we all pretty much know, that isn't really how things work in the real world.

People evolve; the brain is neuroplastic, after all. The formation of our beliefs isn't just about how we were raised or our traditions; there are countless social influences at play. Someone who is more susceptible to outside influence or driven by external motivations will likely drift across the political spectrum much more than someone defined by a certain stubbornness. As individuals, we have inherent inclinations that pull us toward specific worldviews, but you can't ignore the "meme transfer" effect—those two forces are constantly interacting, and they play a huge role in one's personal stability. So, rather than pinning a diagnosis on conservatives like Nosonja_ did, I’d say it’s more accurate to look at anyone who shifts their convictions whenever the wind changes direction. It’s actually quite interesting that you brought up Churchill, who struggled with depression; I suspect his quote is a direct reflection of those long-standing mental health battles.

To be clear, that doesn't mean I view people with (or who should have) certain diagnoses as less valuable, less capable, or somehow inferior to those without them. There is absolutely no reason to hate someone because of it, and if I judge by their previous posts, it seems Nosonja_ feels the same way.

Kenneth Cruz67 said:You know, it strikes me that the person who started this thread was being somewhat passive-aggressive right from the jump, since they immediately singled out conservatives as a group that needs to be banned and labeled as mentally unstable or sick. If they had just said we should ban extremists from both ends of the political spectrum, well, fine, I could get behind that, but it really feels like their intention was to take a swipe exclusively at conservatives.

Just as an example

Conservatives believe in a flat Earth, or maybe a hollow one, they think vaccines are used to spread autism, they believe in chemtrails, and all sorts of other nonsense.

I guess Men might actually believe in that nonsense more than conservatives do 😬 especially when it comes to the whole vaccine and autism thing.

I've been running into this specific argument quite frequently lately, and most of the time it's coming from people who don't really understand the origins of either political movement. To be fair, the claim is actually somewhat accurate if we are talking about political parties and the prominent figures on the daily news cycle—pursuing politics is a job just like any other, and it tends to attract people with a very strong desire for money and influence, while the ideological foundation of their involvement can sometimes feel as superficial as the charm typical of individuals with certain personality disorders.

However, when you look at the genuine desire to reshape society in a particular way, the motivations for people on the left and the right differ drastically. I suppose it isn't enough to just look at that simple left-right divide; you also have to factor in the vertical axis of authoritarianism versus anti-authoritarianism, which gives us those famous political quadrants representing the four fundamental orientations. Someone's position within a specific quadrant reflects their vision of an "ideal world." Since those four visions are so vastly different, it seems reasonable to assume that they are driven by different personality traits. And that, I think, is exactly what we are trying to discuss here.

Using the "quadrants" thing is really just a more polite way of saying the exact same crap in different packaging.

Churchill once said—if you aren't a liberal in your youth, you have no heart; but if you aren't a conservative in your old age, you have no brain.

I don't really believe that personality traits have such a massive impact on one's political stances, per se. It seems to me that things like upbringing, tradition, and life experience play a much larger role in shaping who we are.

Quote : The Pew Research Center has conducted two surveys that asked about vaccination. One survey in early 2015 asked respondents about whether they thought vaccines were safe, and another survey in late 2014 asked respondents about U.S. vaccination policy and whether vaccination for children should be required or a parent’s choice.

When you start looking at how those Pew survey responses align with people's political leanings, I think you'll notice a pretty fascinating divergence. It seems that the further someone leans toward either the conservative or the liberal side of the spectrum, the more likely they might be to harbor doubts about vaccine safety.

I was actually quite intrigued to see which side is more extreme—the right or the left—so I did a quick Google search and found this article, which honestly just seems to confirm that both sides are essentially cut from the same cloth.

Believe it or not, this kind of thinking is pretty classic for someone in the upper right quadrant. 😁

hollowtrucker77 said:So, let’s take a moment to revisit the reality that Nazism and fascism aren't actually right-wing ideologies at all; they’re firmly rooted in the left, sitting right alongside Stalinism, and the entire historical conflict was basically just a massive collision between national socialism and international communism.
It’s also pretty easy to spot the patterns in how both sides operated and settled their scores—they were just so incredibly "humanitarian," "tolerant," and "progressive" toward their opponents, especially when it came to crushing anyone who simply had the audacity to think differently.
Just look at the prosperity and well-being of every single Country that fell into the socialist pit and see how those stories always end.

The bottom line is that the left serves as a total beacon of hypocrisy, lies, and semantic gymnastics.
Every single one of their social experiments has inevitably spiraled into a dictatorship characterized by massive loss of life, leaving the average citizen to rot in poverty and misery while the party elites live in absolute luxury.
Even here in America, our own leftists spend their time dreaming about moving to Germany or maybe Ireland or the UK.
It’s funny how nobody seems to have any sentimental attachment to Cuba, Venezuela, or North Korea.
Honestly, being a leftist feels like a genuine psychological disorder, which becomes particularly dangerous when they actually get the chance to put their theories into practice in the real world.

Now, this is typical of the lower right. 😁

Kenneth Cruz67 said:It’s all just a bunch of nonsense, really.

I honestly feel like those on the extreme left are cut from the exact same cloth as the extremists on the right. They both tend to fall into the same patterns of being murderers, terrorists, dictators, and criminals.

Take Che Guevara, for instance; while he's often held up as some sort of icon for the left, I guess you could see him as just another mass murderer and criminal who personally took the lives of hundreds, ordered the deaths of thousands, and sent tens of thousands more off to concentration camps.

What’s particularly interesting—and quite dark—is how openly homophobic he was, apparently even finding a sense of enjoyment in the killing of homosexuals.

Whether it's the right or the left, it feels like the same old garbage, just wrapped up in different packaging.

Maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea if we stuck to psychology on this subforum instead of getting bogged down in historical and political debates. What really upsets people—and why this thread was even started—isn't these specific historical figures (they have their own dedicated threads), but rather the people we share our living spaces with (and the internet) who push all sorts of crazy theories and extreme solutions. Modern leftists are often criticized for being too sexually permissive, specifically for their uncritical acceptance of homosexuality, transsexuality, gender identity, and basically any sexual practice involving consenting adults, no matter what it is. So, bringing up Che Guevara's alleged homophobia feels like passive-aggression to me—kind of an attempt to dodge a direct clash of opinions by using minor jabs that aren't even particularly relevant to the topic at hand.

Kenneth Cruz67 said:It’s all just a bunch of nonsense, really.

I honestly feel like those on the extreme left are cut from the exact same cloth as the extremists on the right. They both tend to fall into the same patterns of being murderers, terrorists, dictators, and criminals.

Take Che Guevara, for instance; while he's often held up as some sort of icon for the left, I guess you could see him as just another mass murderer and criminal who personally took the lives of hundreds, ordered the deaths of thousands, and sent tens of thousands more off to concentration camps.

What’s particularly interesting—and quite dark—is how openly homophobic he was, apparently even finding a sense of enjoyment in the killing of homosexuals.

Whether it's the right or the left, it feels like the same old garbage, just wrapped up in different packaging.

I've been running into this argument quite a lot lately, usually from people who don't really understand how either of these political movements actually formed. That claim might even hold water if we're talking about political parties and prominent figures on the daily news cycle—getting into politics is a job just like any other, and it attracts people driven by a desire for money and influence. In those cases, their ideological stance is basically just surface-level charm typical of certain personality disorders.

However, when it comes to a genuine desire to shape society, the motivations of people on the left and the right differ drastically. It isn't enough to just look at the horizontal spectrum, though; you also have to add the vertical "authoritarian vs. anti-authoritarian" axis. That gives us the famous political quadrants, representing the four fundamental political orientations. Where someone lands in a quadrant reflects their vision of an "ideal world." Since those four visions are wildly different, it's reasonable to assume they stem from very different personality traits. And that's really what we're trying to discuss here.

Roger Kern16 said:So true. Honestly, this just fuels my frustration. 😁 My brain just can't process a crime committed out of pure boredom or malice—something totally devoid of any logic that could actually explain it (even if it doesn't excuse it). I think that’s my biggest fear, really... the inability to make sense of things. Pure destruction born from randomness and nonsense; that's actually scarier than the destruction itself.
Basically, I went to that site (and a million others just like it) hoping to find some clarity, but I ended up feeling completely overwhelmed... 😬

You took the wrong approach. When you're trying to understand stuff like this, you have to work from the big picture down to the individual details. Basically, first you head to the library for Mass Psychology of Fascism, then maybe spend some time trolling on Politics, and only then do you step into the snake pit. 😒

It might sound complicated, but the beauty of that method is that halfway through, you’ll realize that interacting with that entire mess isn't going to yield anything positive. You start to see how the key players all operate on the same toxic pattern of self-hatred that they project onto everyone else, followed by people who only feel secure when they're huddled in the suffocating warmth of a mob. So, when you try to talk to a user like 'desankasakic666,' you aren't actually talking to a person with their own opinions; you're just talking to a number that mindlessly repeats whatever they heard from their aunt, someone on the street, or heaven forbid, some random guy on YouTube. ☕

"A sexually satisfied primitive is honorable, aware of his responsibilities, brave, and calm, and none of this seems particularly extraordinary to him. These views are an organic part of his personality. He who is sexually weakened, contradictory in his sexual structure, must constantly remind himself to master his sexuality, to maintain his sexual honor, to be brave against temptation, to practice restraint, and so on."

darksurfer4 said:Do you honestly believe those types of American right-wingers should be stripped of their right to vote? Or should there be some kind of legal sanction against anyone making public claims that the Earth is just some flat plane?

Honestly, they can go ahead and vote for those clowns all they want, but I’d personally love to see some mandatory intelligence and general knowledge tests required before anyone is allowed online or—heaven forbid—to step in front of a camera. ☕

Roger Kern16 said:I had absolutely no clue what kind of creatures were lurking in the dark corners of the web. I've been frantically hitting the mental undo button on everything I've stumbled upon, but it's too late. 😬 :Stared too long at the abyss:

Personally, I'm right in the middle of trying to mentally rearrange everything I've seen—kind of like attempting a hard drive defrag. This actually helps. ☕

There are times when any relativism of view disappears in a cloud of heartfelt indignation. Then an interested, exploratory stance to what the other person thinks they are doing becomes impossible. The internal discourse changes from one in which the other person is "construed as behaving strangely," or as "seeing the world differently," or even as mistaken; the discourse becomes one in which they are "wrong," "wicked," "simply a bastard," and should be treated as such.

Gonna print this out and stick it on my fridge. 😬

darksurfer4 said:I don't know, I'm left with this nagging impression that the right wing is significantly more prone to swallowing conspiracy theories, the whole flat Earth nonsense, and all that other stuff, you know?🤔

Yeah, that nonsense actually started with American conservatives (though they’re a bit different from what we see here). The whole Flat Earth thing began as a joke (Flat Earth Society), but then some people actually started taking it seriously.

Roger Kern16 said:In my quest for something a little... different, I found myself lurking on forums like Stormfront.

We are a community of racial realists and idealists. We are White Nationalists who support true diversity and a homeland for all peoples, including ours. We are the voice of the new, embattled White minority!

😬

I really gave it my all, trying to wrap my head around it and actually learn something. But yeah, I failed miserably. 😳

I ended up landing there once, looking for a specific Jungian essay, and immediately... 🙂