I was watching a clip the other day—not even a news clip, just a general broadcast—and it hit me how much the "background noise" of modern life is fundamentally breaking our ability to focus on anything meaningful. It wasn't even about the specific topic being discussed, which was actually quite heavy, but rather the sheer, jarring randomness of the interruption. It felt like a metaphor for the entire 21st century: you try to plant your feet, try to make a point, try to engage in a dignified exchange of ideas, and then *boom*—some massive, chaotic, external force crashes into the frame and completely devalues the moment.
It’s happening everywhere. We try to have dinner with family, and someone’s phone chirps with a notification that demands immediate emotional attention. We try to watch a movie, and a construction crew starts jackhammering outside the window. We try to engage in political discourse, and suddenly there’s some loud, physical manifestation of power or chaos happening right in the periphery. It’s like the world has become so hyper-active and hyper-reactive that "stillness" is no longer a default state. We are constantly being yanked out of our headspace by things that are loud, sudden, and often entirely indifferent to the human attempt at communication.
I find myself wondering if this is actually eroding our capacity for empathy and nuance. If we are constantly being startled or distracted by sudden bursts of activity, do we eventually just develop this sort of emotional callus? I feel like I’m becoming more desensitized. When something loud and disruptive happens, my first instinct isn't "Oh, that's strange" or "How does that impact the context of what we were saying?" My first instinct is just a flash of irritation, followed by a quick attempt to tune it out so I can get back to my original thought. But once that interruption happens, the thread is broken. The gravity of the conversation is gone. You can't just pick up a serious thought where you left off once the atmosphere has been punctured by something sudden and jarring.
There’s also the element of "optics" versus "reality." We live in an era where the setting is everything. We expect certain things to happen in certain places, and when the physical world refuses to follow the script of a "civilized" or "controlled" environment, it creates this surreal, almost absurd feeling. It makes everything feel a bit like a dark comedy. You’re trying to be professional, you’re trying to be serious, and the universe is just over there being loud and chaotic for no reason other than because it can. It makes the people trying to maintain decorum look almost ridiculous, doesn't it? Like they’re trying to play chess in the middle of a thunderstorm.
I’ve noticed it in my own life, too. I’ll be deep in a project, or having a really heartfelt talk with a friend, and then a siren goes off, or a neighbor starts shouting, or a dog starts barking incessantly. It’s not just a distraction; it’s a disruption of the *sanctity* of the moment. It reminds you that we have zero control over our surroundings. We like to think we can carve out these little bubbles of order and reason, but we are always at the mercy of the chaotic, noisy world outside our windows.
It makes me skeptical about the future of public discourse. How are we supposed to build consensus or understand complex issues if the very environment we inhabit is constantly being shattered by unpredictable, loud, and sometimes even aggressive interruptions? It feels like we’re moving toward a world where "the spectacle" always wins over "the substance" simply because the spectacle is louder and harder to ignore.
Do you think we’re becoming too desensitized to these kinds of sudden disruptions, or do you think it's actually making us more anxious and unable to focus on anything that isn't "loud"?
1. Someone who’s intellectually stimulating—you know, someone I can actually bounce ideas off of without things getting boring after five minutes 2. Physical attraction—that specific kind of chemistry that's mostly just between us 3. Willingness to meet in the middle and compromise.
You can't really draw any solid conclusions from just two samples. But there's this general idea—that men tend to be more driven by visual cues than women are. And women? They usually lean more toward someone reliable and dependable—though, granted, looks still play a role in that too.
"Physical appearance" is such a broad term, isn't it? If we actually started breaking it down—like, if I prefer blondes while he’s all about brunettes, or one person likes a certain build and another prefers something else—well, then we'd be here all day having a massive debate.
It's also entirely possible for someone to be incredibly brilliant and intellectually gifted, yet struggle to apply even a single bit of that theory to real-world situations.
Honestly, I feel like you can’t really judge someone based on their own standards—because, at the end of the day, what are those standards actually telling you about them? It sounds a bit philosophical, I know. 😁 But it’s really just about being self-aware—figuring out what your own actual deal-breakers and requirements are when you're looking for a partner.
Lately, I’ve been having a bit of a hard time really pinning down who I am—just trying to figure myself out, you know? But hey, at the end of the day, this is me. 👍
What would be your top three non-negotiables when looking for a partner? Let’s stick to just three—honestly, if you start listing a dozen different things, it says more about how scattered you are than what you actually need in a relationship. It might sound a little silly or intense, but it's actually a pretty serious question—if you haven't figured out your core deal-breakers yet, there's a 99% chance things won't work out long-term. In my book, a partner really needs to hit at least two of those main criteria for the relationship to have a fighting chance.
And please, don't give me stuff like "tall, dark, and handsome"—that all falls under one single category, which is physical appearance.
Prozac is one of those relatively newer antidepressants out there—very common in America. But honestly, for people dealing with high anxiety, it can sometimes backfire and cause the exact opposite of what you're looking for—things like hypertension or just feeling super jittery. And, it’s pretty much useless—actually, potentially harmful—for anyone struggling with bipolar disorder (you know, those manic depressive episodes). Take something like Paxil, for example; it works as both an antidepressant and an anxiolytic, and it’s actually quite effective at helping prevent panic attacks. There are plenty of older antidepressants that have been around way longer than Prozac—like certain older sedatives, for instance. Those older options usually lean heavily into that sedative effect. It’s funny to think about, but the very first "antidepressants" were basically just speed and other amphetamines... and sure, they worked "great" at first, until doctors finally realized they had messed up big time—just like they’ve made a million mistakes before.
But look, all these antidepressants are basically a thumbs down if they're the only thing you're relying on. They should really just be treated like a crutch while you've got your leg in a cast—once the cast comes off, you've actually got to learn how to walk on your own and deal with life's problems solo.
A psychiatrist who can't tell the difference between psychosis and neurosis is basically like a mathematician who doesn't get the distinction between an integer and a fraction. Anxiety, depression, panic attacks—that’s just the ABCs of neurosis, which is usually handled through psychotherapy. Honestly, I’m convinced almost the entire Western world is neurotic; it’s pretty standard. Being neurotic is basically just being mentally "normal." (Though, if you ask me, deciding what’s "normal" versus "abnormal" is often just a matter of where society decides to draw the line)
That treatment plan your private doctor handed you... it looks intense, and honestly, you might not even need it. But hey, if nothing else, let it give you something to chew on—because nobody would just recommend a heavy-duty antipsychotic like unknown out of the blue without a reason. So, my advice? Go ahead and "open up" to a therapist. Even if you have to pay for it, go for a few sessions. They’ll be able to figure out if medication is actually necessary and what the best path forward is for you.
Hang in there, buddy! 👍
I say this with some skepticism, though, because I have a really close friend dealing with schizophrenia—specifically diagnosis F20.4. On the surface, his issues seem pretty mundane, like social anxiety, being withdrawn, or a lack of drive. But once he starts opening up, it becomes crystal clear why he’s on Zyprexa and Paxil, which are much more humane options than stuff like unknown, Ativan, or unknown.
For the longest time, I really thought Polanski’s *Rosemary's Baby* would hold onto that number one spot on my all-time favorites list—until that other story came along. You know, the one with the knives and the telepathy... honestly, I don't even know how to put that movie into words. When I first sat down to watch it, I was just frozen in my seat—and the whole crowd at the Angelika Film Center felt the same way. It was like nobody wanted to even breathe, just so we wouldn't break the spell.
🙏 🙏 🙏
P.S. By the way, do you happen to remember the director's last name? I know it's Laurent. I've checked out some of his other stuff too, and they're almost just as incredible. 🙂
Extrapyramidal disorders? I’d be super grateful if anyone here actually knows a thing or two about them—not looking for some textbook definition since I pretty much get the gist of that myself, but more along the lines of what the actual indicators are, why they show up in the first place, how you can manage them, or even just the long-term effects...
Also, just a general curiosity question: what exactly are those electrochemical processes happening in the brain?
I'm asking this totally sincerely, because honestly, if I were to bring this up with any psychiatrist I know, they'd probably try to commit me to a mental hospital.
Honestly, I’ve reached a point where I’m not even sure if my serotonin levels are doing anything anymore—I mean, clinically speaking, I know it's there, but at this stage, the only neurotransmitters actually worth my attention are AMO and GABA. This whole serotonin and dopamine thing... the way they just cycle through your system... it's honestly wearing me out.😎
I find myself wondering how society should actually handle addiction—specifically when we're talking about those people at the end of their rope, like heroin users. It breaks my heart that people react with such disgust when they see them out on the street, though, I guess you can understand it to some extent—people get scared. And honestly, someone like me often ends up feeling pretty disillusioned.
For instance, maybe two or three months ago, I was walking down Fifth Avenue near a 24-hour pharmacy when this young girl approached me, asking for just a couple of bucks. She looked maybe sixteen. I asked her what kind of "fix" she was looking for, and once she realized I wasn't some high-and-mighty academic type, she told me she needed money for some oxycodone. In that moment, it all clicked for me—she probably had enough morphine in her system to kill a horse. So, I started chatting with her, and she tells me she’s trying to quit the heroin, but let's be real, she's doing it solo, which is basically a death sentence. I told her she should move away from Fifth Avenue so she wouldn't have to face that shame, and suggested we sit down in a nearby alleyway to talk. She spun this whole story about trying to get clean, but man, she was popping a whole box of 10mg Valium a day along with the oxy, because she hasn't hit that withdrawal stage yet and is clearly just desperate to numb the pain. We sat there talking about how life is just one mess after another—we both have our struggles, I'm no saint either—so I gave her a pack of Valium just to take the edge off, rolled a joint, and she declined since she can't smoke while she's out begging—I totally get that tactic. To keep it brief, I walked her back toward my neighborhood, over to Friendship Park, and I took a little bit of liquid Luminal for myself while giving her a few clean needles and my phone number, telling her to call me in a few days once the pain subsides so I could point her toward actual help.
But damn, just a week later, I'm waiting for the bus near Times Square and I see her lying on the ground. I asked her what she needed, and it turns out she'd relapsed on the dope again. and yeah, the usual stuff...
Those are the tough ones—cases where it feels impossible to help until the person completely hits rock bottom. It’s just tragic that people often only decide to seek treatment when they've reached that point.
That’s really the crux of it—distinguishing between when drugs are an actual problem and when they aren't. My colleague—well, his take was a little cynical, which actually surprised me—claims he's studying philosophy but apparently doesn't grasp the fundamental core of philosophical history. Still, I honestly believe that one day he'll sit down with Hegel and realize that with him, the whole history of European metaphysics and the concept of identity—running from Plato all the way to Hegel—reaches its turning point.
Now, pharmacological drugs are always a problem when they're being used illegally, but what I mean is that most people looking for a fix view hospitals, community clinics, pharmacies, or addiction prevention centers as nothing more than a "meat bank"—because let's be real, there is so much damn drug supply available there for anyone desperate enough to look. Of course, if you're just looking for cocaine, or ecstasy, or smoke and visuals, you won't find them there. No, you'll mostly run into opiates and analgesics—things like morphine, various pills, and all that other junk. We're primarily talking about opioid addicts, those hooked on heroin, where everyone is sharing needles and dealing with Hepatitis B and C. In that specific case, drugs are absolutely a massive problem because the substance eats them alive, and they become a burden on society and their families in the process.
However, I’d argue we should focus more on the danger of the drugs that most people think are harmless—you know, the ones where people say, "Oh, it doesn't cause addiction, it's totally fine, it's normal."
Why am I rambling about this? It's because whenever the media talks about drug addiction as a social issue, they always fall back on the same old tired tropes. They've been doing this job too long; they only ever talk about the specific type of addict I mentioned earlier. Back in the eighties, that was pretty much how it was—maybe a kid would smoke some weed or hit some glue at fourteen, then move on to heroin, and that was that. But things have shifted completely. Today, there’s a totally new trend happening globally, and it's hitting us here in the States just as hard.
Back in the early nineties, the US saw some of the highest import rates in the world—mostly due to the war, obviously, so weapons were coming in that we actually needed—but along with all that, some strange drugs started trickling in too. It’s almost funny trying to remember all the different names they had back then.
In my crowd back in '95 or '96, right around the time the party scene started taking off, everyone felt so lucky. We thought we were part of this "golden generation" compared to the old-school junkies, because for us, it seemed to stop at ecstasy and speed. Later on, of course, the dealing started, and girls would gravitate toward whoever had the cash and the gear.
I won't ramble on forever since maybe nobody cares about this, but I could give you a hundred reasons why amphetamine and hallucinogenic drugs might actually be worse than heroin—not necessarily because a user might live longer, but because of the sheer quality of life they lose during those years.
To me, someone can be an addict whether they're using hard stuff or just smoking weed, provided that the altered reality has seeped under their skin and become more appealing than actual existence. That’s the heart of it: when you start altering your perception of reality—consciously or not—you create a root of dissatisfaction that can either spiral out of control or lead you to try and accept reality as it is. With drugs, it's almost always about escaping.
loneangler82 — regarding ecstasy, in 99% of cases, you can't really be "addicted" in the traditional sense, simply because no addict is crazy enough to take ecstasy every single day knowing they'll either be dead in two months or spend the rest of their lives in a psych ward.
loneangler82, those specific drugs are actually what I find most fascinating—mostly because I’m pretty convinced that anyone currently on a legal permit for them is either caught up in some serious drama or totally out of commission, so I highly doubt they'd even bother logging online.
To be honest, loneangler82, I’m curious where you actually heard that... are you personally using those substances? If you are, then I’d definitely view your take through a different lens, but if not, then please, give me some actual arguments from someone with real experience to back up what you just said.
So, I’m starting this thread with the hope that people who—let’s call them "enthusiasts," if we want to be academic about it—can share their experiences here. I also want to open the floor to anyone dealing with physical or mental addiction; maybe I can offer some insight based on what I've been through, or perhaps we can all just talk openly without any sugarcoating.
To me, drug use is a chronic issue rooted in our current society and the era we’re living in. Honestly, I think it’s a really positive thing when people actually discuss it—even though, from my own experience, I know there will definitely be folks who don't see it as a problem at all, mostly because they feel like they're walking on the moon with a serial killer, or for a whole host of other reasons.
I was just thinking—maybe we could spark a slightly different kind of discussion here? Instead of just listing our favorite movies over and over again without any real direction...
Beauty is such a subjective thing, isn't it? But when you start digging into the actual framework of a movie—the core idea behind it—that’s where the real thinking begins.
Take a film like Joan of Arc, for example. I’ve seen the old German version, and then there’s this newer one by Luc Besson. To be honest, I think the German film holds more weight in terms of pure cinematic quality, but—and this is a big but—this new adaptation really sheds light on some historical figures that I found genuinely impressive. Every time I think back to Joan, my mind always drifts toward the theological questions she raised.
It’s wild, really. The film forces you to question that whole concept of doing something "in the name of God"—you pursue this incredibly noble cause, yet you end up committing sins in the process. It makes for a classic, timeless tragedy.
We all know the history—Joan was burned as a heretic, only to be canonized by the Vatican five hundred years later. Which, if you look at the broader context, ties right back into how England eventually broke away from the Vatican to establish its own church.
Even now, I find myself stuck on a question that I can't quite wrap my head around, and I'd love to hear what you guys think. Was what Joan experienced purely psychological—maybe a result of childhood trauma—leading her to fight for herself rather than for God? Or did she truly see visions sent by a higher power? Did she see what she *wanted* to see, or were those messages actually divine?
And that final moment in the film, when she admits her sins... it makes you wonder during that last confession before the stake: was that truly God speaking to her, or was it just her own conscience?
It feels like this just keeps happening—mostly because our healthcare system is basically in a coma right now, and honestly, what they're doing with this strike feels pretty wrong to me.
In my personal opinion, everyone should be allowed to walk off the job except for doctors, priests, and artists.
I mean, imagine you’re heading in to confess your sins and the priest just looks at you and goes—sorry, I'm on strike today.
Take the sister of my ex, for example—she was diagnosed with schizophrenia, code F-20, and spent four years on Lexapro, only to travel all the way to Washington, D.C., where the doctors there concluded she didn't actually show any symptoms of schizophrenia under that specific diagnosis.