Walter Brooks3 said:What does it actually feel like to be an eccentric? What does it mean to truly have a backbone? What’s it like to be an outsider, someone who refuses to fit the mold? And what defines being a total weirdo?!
I honestly think everyone should experience that feeling at least once—that spark of rebellion, standing up against the status quo, or just stirring up a little bit of trouble within yourself. But actually living that way every single day? 🙄
But living that kind of life... man, it's tough.
Some people might act like being "special" or "extraordinary" is all cool and trendy, but that same crowd will turn their backs on you the second things get uncomfortable.
It takes so much more grit to swim against the current. It hurts, more often than not. People like that usually end up alone. And misunderstood.
jimmy said:Man... things don't happen because they're labeled "right" or "wrong." It all comes down to your own level of awareness and how much you actually perceive the world around you. Morality is just a concept for people who haven't thought for themselves. I don't do things because that's what I was taught in school; I do them because I've reached my own conclusions about how things work.
Has Christianity just turned people into mindless followers so that powerful elites can manipulate them more easily? If there's a powerful God out there, why isn't He stepping in and crushing everything in His path?
Nobody has to be a fool if they don't want to be; everyone has the chance to discover the truths necessary for their own salvation. God doesn't punish anyone without a reason, and honestly, I don't think God takes any pleasure in punishing anyone.😢
I wouldn't call it having "character," I’d call it having heart; it's about stepping up when everyone else stands by, and actually sensing who needs you most. Nowadays, being spineless has become a bit of a trend. But it isn't just about a lack of character—it’s more about being scattered, an inability to find a steady moral compass. The truth is, no two situations are ever truly the same, yet people try to argue for "inclusivity" as if quantity could somehow substitute for quality. But quality is binary: it either exists or it doesn't. There is no middle ground. True quality can only manifest in a specific moment, which makes it both bound by time and, paradoxically, timeless. Opposing views might clash during shifts in perspective, but they are much harder to reconcile when they collide at the level of the heart. It’s interesting how, in an era where everyone is fragmented by every little issue, very few people actually channel that energy into becoming self-actualized. Most people just default to their social circles to find identity. They often don't realize how difficult it is to belong to a group where everyone holds a firm conviction, or where people clash over fundamental truths. In most cases, everything boils down to seeking emotional validation—and without that safety net, almost nobody dares to move forward. It feels too risky, too challenging. It’s easier to avoid self-reflection than to embrace a new way of thinking where you finally experience your own unique worldview. So, we aren't talking about mere conformity here, but about a quiet, productive revolution. Living that way consistently is exhausting, though. That's why some individuals choose to retreat for a while to process their own realizations before reintegrating into society. I also can't get behind the idea of "detached observation" for a few reasons: in today's world, that's practically impossible. No matter how you react, you can't escape interaction through space, time, or thought. Unless you physically cut yourself off in the middle of the Alaskan wilderness, far from civilization—and there are incredibly few people willing to take that step.
Do you give up your seat on the bus, the subway, or in a waiting room to seniors and people with disabilities because:
...it’s just what you were raised to do.
...you genuinely feel bad for them.
...you know you’ll be old and less mobile one day too, and you're hoping someone will do the same for you when that time comes.
...you want everyone around you... to think you’re a good and selfless person.
...you believe it is MORALLY right to respect elders and those with disabilities.
Or...
I don't stand up for seniors or folks with disabilities because I just don't care about others... actually, I was taught to respect them... but I don't see the logic since there is no such thing as actual MORALITY... it's just a made-up concept used to force subjective rules and principles on people... my own personal principle is that I have the exact same rights to a seat as anyone else... whether they are healthy, old, young, or sick...
If you could back up your reasoning... why do you think your answer is the right one?
I absolutely loved this movie!!! I was bracing myself for a ton of clichés, but honestly, they just weren't there.... It's been a long time since I've seen a film that actually makes me laugh out loud like this... so good...🙂
Robert Cooper41 said:Steven Spielberg: Minority Report Mike Leigh: All or Nothing Alexander Sokurov: Russian Ark
--------------------------------------
Takeshi Kitano: "Dolls" Tsai Ming-Liang: "What Time Is It There?" Robert Altman: "Gosford Park" Bill Paxton: "Frailty" Manoel de Oliveira: "I'm Going Home" David Lynch: "Mulholland Drive" Chris Weitz, Paul Weitz: "About a Boy"
PS. This list isn't perfectly accurate since not everything was released this year
.. and of course: Santiago Segura: "Torrente 2: Misión en Marbella"
😁 😁
Man, that new Sokurov film was amazing... though I have to say, Kitano's "Dolls" left me feeling a bit let down...🙄 The cinematography is absolutely stunning, but I couldn't shake the feeling that the movie leans a little too hard into that overly sentimental kitsch vibe...🙄
I don't have the time right now to write out a full response... but something about this is really bugging me...
But look, the crucial point here is that we're talking about a fundamental shift in how an individual is shaped during their lifetime—specifically during childhood when the brain is actually forming. If a kid grows up under the exact same conditions as an average child from 2,000 years ago, it doesn't matter at all that they were born in the 21st century.
The bodybuilding analogy is spot on because it’s also about physical changes that aren't driven by altering the genome, but rather by changes that happen throughout a lifespan. Imagine if we all hit the gym constantly. We'd be 50% stronger than our ancestors. However, that would still just be a change induced by lifestyle, not evolution, because our genetic code remains identical. The social environment today—where kids' brains are constantly stimulated and fed a non-stop stream of data that they process instinctively—is essentially "brain building." But the fact that they might end up with more developed cognitive abilities compared to peers from two millennia ago isn't the result of evolutionary shifts; it's purely a result of changed social circumstances.
So, you're basically admitting it's just a lifestyle choice... exactly what Richard Howard2 was talking about... meaning these are changes that only last a lifetime, and the next generation doesn't inherit them biologically, but rather through parental knowledge and by adopting that same way of life... Doesn't that lead to the conclusion that humans haven't actually changed at all?