6 posts shown.
I was thinking about this today while watching some old highlights. There’s something about seeing a guy who actually grew up in the stands, wearing the same colors as the fans, finally making it to the big leagues with that specific team. It hits differently than just seeing a random superstar signing a massive contract.
It feels less like a business transaction and more like a full-circle moment for the community. I remember back in high school, my dad used to take me to games, and we’d always root for the guys who seemed to have that same hometown grit. It makes the wins feel more personal, like you're rooting for one of your own rather than just a jersey.
That said, I know it puts a massive amount of pressure on these players, too. If they struggle, the local fans are going to be the first ones to call them out, even if they were cheering for them just a few years ago.
Do you guys find that you have more loyalty to "hometown heroes," or does it not matter to you as long as they perform?
Anonymous said:Back when I was living in the Midwest, my neighbors used to throw racial slurs at me because of my mixed heritage, and online, people would label me based on some political stereotype instead of who I actually am. I wanted to check in with you all—do you experience that kind of nationalistic tension or "he said, she said" tribalism here? Personally, I just love people regardless of their background; hate never solves anything. What’s the vibe like for you guys?
Valderrama, you really need to clean up that opening post so people can actually follow you.
As for what you're talking about—people who are miserable with themselves always try to slap labels on anyone who stands out, whether it’s because of their background, race, gender, or even just their age. If someone is looking for a reason to be a jerk, they'll find one. Don't forget that most aggression is just a mask for deep-seated fear. If you truly care about people, you'll see right through those insults and stop letting them get to you. Honestly, the only way out is to focus on real values. It’s tough, I get it, but it's worth the effort. 😍
Matthew Hernandez6 said:Good grief, honey, what did you just write?
Your grammar is all over the place—maybe try reading that back to yourself and see if you can make any actual sense out of it.😲
It’s a guy, not a girl. 🙂
Jamie Peterson said:Exactly!
I mentioned earlier how using a tonoscope to chant "Om" produced a 2D representation of the Sri Yantra. Basically, my theory is that chanting traditional mantras actually generates their corresponding yantras. But now I'm wondering—if someone held a mental state equivalent to "Om" but actually vocalized "Be," would you see that same pattern manifest on the testing surface?
Yeah, I’m stuck on that too. I was already thinking about what would happen to that water experiment if "love" was spoken in English or some other language instead of Japanese. My gut tells me the result would be identical. Still, "Om" feels like it might be in a league of its own.
Look, let's get one thing straight: what we call "language" is basically just a set of symbols used to talk to one another. Most of the time, we're using our voices—you know, sound waves—but you can also communicate through writing, sign language, Morse code, or even telepathy (theoretically speaking, anyway, since I don't personally know anyone actually using Morse code or psychic powers for their daily chats).
Mantras and sounds—whether we can hear them or not—can be incredibly powerful. They’re vibrations, and it seems like everything around us vibrates and syncs up on various levels based on that exact principle. I find those experiments with water in Japan absolutely fascinating, where they exposed water to different words before freezing it, causing it to freeze in totally different ways under an electron microscope. Then again, maybe it's more about the energy of human thought rather than the vibration of the specific words being spoken. Honestly, it wouldn't surprise me if it turns out thoughts vibrate too.
The topic is super interesting, but I have to push back a little on that little story at the start—kids who don't hear language during their first year or two of life struggle to master any language normally, and they often face significant intellectual delays. We are social creatures, period. Our brain centers only fully develop through interaction with other humans, and language plays a massive role in that process. It seems like the abstract thinking required to even speak a language depends on having access to that language and speech. Through various forms of communication—including non-verbal ones for deaf children—the necessary parts of the brain develop; if they miss that window, they can't catch up later in life. It's well-known that so-called "feral children," like the ones in the story of Mowgli who were raised by wolves or other animals, are almost completely incapable of human communication. They can barely learn to use language because they simply lack the physical development for it. Ever since I learned that, I've felt bad that the story of Mowgli isn't actually true...