Posts by casualcanyon3

Does anyone happen to know of anything remotely similar to this animation? I’m looking for recommendations—specifically regarding the overall point, the general vibe, and the sheer quality of the storytelling. It could be an animated short, a series, or even a full-length feature film. 🙂

For me, it isn't just about the mere passage of time—I tend to pace myself by watching one or two movies a week rather than bingeing daily, sometimes managing only a handful in an entire month—but it’s also about how the narrative unfolds. The plot refuses to offer even a hint of rounding out or reaching a resolution until you have slogged through a massive pile of episodes or even entire seasons.

Movies. As for TV series, if you ask me, they are nothing more than a massive waste of time. ☕ I don't care how brilliant the writing is or how high the production value might be. Just give me a solid film that starts and finishes within a single evening—maybe even a sequel or two over the next few days if I'm feeling ambitious.

Chris Anderson55, it is actually quite refreshing, for once, to stumble upon a post like this. 🙂 I find myself in complete agreement with every single word you've written.

I actually found myself quite enjoying the film. 🙂 The inherent naivety didn't bother me in the slightest; after all, that’s simply the nature of this kind of story. I also thought Christina’s little song at the end was a lovely touch—Loyal, brave, true. 🙂

Whenever I find myself staring at a sudden gap in my schedule—those little pockets of downtime between obligations or tasks I’ve planned out—I find myself drifting almost reflexively toward Reddit or Pinterest. It isn't some deep-seated addiction, per se, but it has certainly calcified into a mindless habit. For instance, I used to spend my pre-meal moments lost in a book, but lately, I mostly just find myself scrolling through those two sites. Every so often, I’ll get sucked into an online debate far deeper than I ever intended to go. There are moments when it feels significantly easier to exchange a few lines of text with strangers online than it does to engage in a genuine, face-to-face conversation with someone standing right in front of me. 🤔

In any case, spending time on these forums has sharpened my awareness in a way that makes it impossible to go back. Not everything about this newfound perspective is positive, mind you; I’ve become far more cynical and suspicious than I ever was before.

hiddenhound3 said:... if you were to cross paths with your own self, would you actually like the person looking back at you?

It is understood that this inquiry remains purely hypothetical. Let us attempt to envision a scenario where you encounter your true self in its purest form. What would be the very first thing you noticed about your own being, and what kind of impression would you leave upon yourself? Ultimately, would you find yourself to be someone you truly admire?

I certainly wouldn't see myself fitting in at a party, given that both versions of me are incredibly guarded and reserved. 🤣 I might eventually spot my reflection in some rare, deep "philosophical" debate. If I were to meet myself within my own professional industry, I suspect I would end up competing against my own shadow. All things considered, I imagine it would take quite a significant amount of time before I could truly begin to decipher who I am.

coastalwalker9 said:...I just don't feel capable of handling the communication on this forum right now, so it's better if we leave things at this.
...

There’s a profound irony in what you’re saying, because when I look at the sheer effort required to view any situation through a lens of broad perspective, genuine constructiveness, and actual good faith, I find that most commenters here aren't even remotely on your level. What I pointed out is a rare occurrence on this platform, frankly. It would be a genuine loss if you stopped posting, as your specific way of communicating provides a much-needed breath of fresh air in this digital wasteland.

The internet will always be crawling with vitriol and pure malice, populated by people who are practically salivating at the chance to latch onto someone else's words and poison the well. My advice is to simply stop giving them any oxygen at all. Read what interests you, write what you want, and refuse to grant even a second of your attention to the nonsense that doesn't serve you.

As for the constant, biting sarcasm and the endless petty sniping that defines these comment sections, try looking at it from a different angle—sometimes, there is a certain dark amusement to be found in the chaos. 😁

Semi-spoilers? 🤔

It’s a wasted concept, plain and simple.

I would have found it profoundly more compelling to witness a granular "psychological transformation"—watching a sweet, unassuming little kid evolve into a dark triad supervillain, complete with all the nuanced triggers that could have ignited such a descent. Instead, we're just given a rushed, haphazardly executed transition. It would have been far more gripping to see a genuine internal struggle, a tug-of-war between whatever remnants of humanity he possessed and the cold-blooded psychopath who sits there calmly studying the anatomy of his victim.

Something about the untapped potential of this character reminded me of the unsettling ways certain children play with animals.

Ultimately, what I got was a horror flick that peters out into a sort of low-stakes joke, feeling much more casual and half-hearted than it ever should have been. Such a shame.

Drew Ross2 said:If some random Redditor showed up now and started trashing every thread by spamming posts and chat, I doubt anyone would find it nearly as charming.
Since Wikipedia is a major figure here, it’s not quite that catastrophic.

I like Wikipedia as a user—far from it being an issue—but he knows perfectly well how many warnings he’s had, and how many times he's promised me he’d fix his act.
Countless times.
He stays on his best behavior for a few days, then slips back into the old ways and starts chatting again.
The partial ban was used as an educational tool because, clearly, nothing else worked—not the formal warnings, not the one-day bans, nor my own warnings that a partial ban was coming if he didn't improve.
At the end of the day, a partial ban on the US or Forest isn't the end of the world; Wikipedia's crew likes him, and from what I can see, they followed him over to the Off-Topic section, so he won't be left totally isolated. Plus, six months will fly by.
If he asks to have the ban lifted later, I’ll probably vote to give him one more chance.

Uh uh. I had no idea. In that case, I find myself in complete agreement with you. 👍

Hmm. In my estimation, permanent bans should be strictly reserved for those individuals who weaponize crude insults, peddle overt or thinly veiled hate speech, indulge in chauvinism, or spout misogyny and misandry; I’m talking about the types who systematically derail entire threads, ignite flame wars, and effectively poison any discussion they touch... all while doing so with a calculated persistence even after receiving multiple warnings and temporary suspensions. To me, a permanent ban represents the total "excommunication" of a user's digital identity, which is an incredibly heavy-handed move.

The tendency toward "compulsive post spamming" mentioned on Wikipedia (😁), while certainly disruptive to a thread's flow, is practically harmless when compared to the behaviors I just described, and frankly, a permanent ban feels far too draconian in this instance. Perhaps this serves as a sufficiently stern warning for them to watch their step, and if we are to avoid jumping straight to a lifetime ban, we ought to grant one final opportunity. Personally, I don't perceive this individual to be malicious or truly harmful, and it seems quite clear they are actually part of the community here.

crimsonhound422 said:Even if we're looking at OCD, you could suggest that someone used to scheduling every single minute of their day try adding just five unplanned minutes to their routine. Once they get used to that discomfort, maybe bump it up to ten. Who knows? They might actually build some new habits...
They say it takes about two months of consistent effort to bake new routines into your life.

That’s overkill; all they need to do is disable the antivirus.

You’ll simply end up with an individual who treats relaxation as just another item on a checklist, which means they haven't actually escaped their mental prison at all.

To really kick things off, one should probably attempt to take an entire day completely devoid of any plans or programs—assuming that isn't too much of a shock to the system.

ironrider11 said:It’s gonna be wild when the whole structure slows down just enough to be noticed, or maybe it just hits an explosive panic before finally collapsing. It's inevitable. It isn't a question of if, it's just a matter of when. Then there's the other side of learning—actually grasping it, accepting the loss, letting go of that fake sense of "control"... maybe even fully embracing it. All those years spent perfecting that rigid, stubborn way of living... maybe it was all just a setup for some completely different way of existing in the moment. And everything else that comes with it. Do androids dream of electric sheep?

Exactly this.

I wouldn't go so far as to call this self-control, nor would I label it some sort of commendable discipline. To my mind, what we are witnessing here is simply someone surrendering to their own obsessions. You can only truly discuss self-control when dealing with individuals who actually possess the agency to choose not to act like a machine. For those who lack the capacity to function any other way than through rigid compulsion, they aren't practicing restraint—it is the compulsion itself that is exercising control over them.

The solution requires a gradual process of dismantling these structures rather than reinforcing them with even more meticulous planning.

Jeffrey Ramos4 said:Maybe, if work isn't strictly about survival, the solution is just to scale back what you want and expect from life. I get it, though... it's incredibly hard in this high-tech, hyper-advanced world where consumerism and materialism are shoved in our faces 24/7, at every corner, in every nook and cranny.

Even Maslow ended up tweaking his pyramid because he realized that treating self-actualization as the sole ultimate destination was a bit hollow. That's why he added transcendence at the very top.

True. I've met people who were naturally gifted in certain arts but lacked the drive or the guts to show it to the world. Then there are the talented ones who work their tails off but just can't catch a break. On the flip side, I know people with zero talent who have endless grit, but they managed to rub elbows with the right social circles, and suddenly they're being promoted by the elite and so on...

And frankly, those types usually end up making something of themselves. Even 😁 Vitruvius touched upon this concept—the notion that talent carries very little weight if you aren't connected to the right power players.
For me, this presents a significant dilemma, because even engaging in basic, everyday small talk requires me to switch into a specific social mode that I find utterly draining. As for the crowd I would actually need to network with—particularly those personalities drifting through the "popular" art scene—I find them profoundly unappealing. I have gone to great lengths to avoid them entirely. I simply cannot stomach that pervasive snobbery, the arrogance, and that performative, "elite" posturing; honestly, I often feel an impulse to mock them to their faces. I can count on one hand the number of people from that echelon whom I actually respect and with whom I would genuinely desire to maintain a sincere connection.

Edit: What I was really getting at is that socializing with "influential" figures must essentially become a lifestyle if you want to be noticed or to ensure a broad spectrum of opportunities. But in that pursuit, how much of your true self can you actually manage to preserve?

Joseph Bailey41 As stated by:
My corporation is just so incredibly benevolent that they’ve actually gone out of their way to show concern for the digestive health of their employees. Specifically, they’ve seen fit to decorate the interior of the restroom stalls with various proclamations regarding our corporate vision and mission statements. Honestly, who wouldn't want to contemplate the company's grand strategic direction while they're sitting there? It’s truly touching. ☕

This is absolutely appalling. Honestly, someone ought to compose a biting parody to account for this kind of absurdity.

To be perfectly honest, I harbor a certain level of disdain for those employees who seem to derive some sort of misplaced sense of fulfillment from their corporate identity. They carry themselves with this nauseating enthusiasm for their company's "brand," acting less like independent professionals and more like the quintessential brown-nosers you’d encounter in an elementary school hallway, desperate for a gold star from the teacher.

I have already taken a look at this—quite angrily, I might add—and reached the firm conclusion that the damage to one's health isn't something you can simply undo once it's been done.😁

Let it be. 🙂

Unless you’re currently drowning in childcare costs, suffocating under a mountain of debt, or playing full-time caregiver to a critically ill relative, there is absolutely no logical reason to tolerate a job that leaves you perpetually stressed or mind-numbingly bored. It completely defeats the entire purpose of employment, which is to earn the capital required to make your life more comfortable. Unfortunately, we haven't yet found a way to strip that middleman—money—out of the equation, though people constantly attempt to bypass it using all sorts of psychological gymnastics, trying to forge some direct link between labor and immediate gratification. Of course, capitalist propaganda is more than happy to facilitate this delusion; its primary objective is to manufacture a fleet of compliant drones who won't demand actual raises, but will instead be pacified by "team-building" retreats, free gym memberships, routine wellness checks, office Wi-Fi on company phones, or those pathetic little holiday gift baskets. My own corporation, despite dumping massive amounts of cash into every single one of those superficial perks, viewed my repeated requests for a meaningful salary increase as an "inappropriate expense." Consequently, the only math that actually works for me right now is to work less. I spend my energy mastering the subtle art of minimizing my presence at my desk and finding clever ways to minimize my actual workload, all while staying just within the lines necessary to avoid getting fired without severance. At this stage, my sense of satisfaction comes from those small strategic victories—and, frankly, from the rapid proliferation of posts I manage to churn out during business hours. 😍

Just consider the sheer fulfillment found in certain callings. Imagine a professor who finds genuine joy in mentoring his students, only to have an adult walk into his office years later to tell him that those very lectures sparked a lifelong passion and inspired them to pursue the field as a career. Or think of a pianist who performs at local weddings, finding deep satisfaction in effortlessly picking up a melody on the fly and weaving it into the atmosphere. Even look at a physician who finds such profound purpose in patient care that he radiates a sense of genuine empathy, becoming the kind of person everyone in the community speaks of with nothing but reverence.

It’s those same old grievances that people tuck away in the back of their minds until they’re absolutely fed up with the daily grind, or they suddenly drag them into the light the moment their personal lives start falling apart.

Jesse Barnes69 said:I agree, and I'd add that in certain fields—especially the so-called "creative" ones—this mindset is treated like a taboo. You're labeled untalented or a failure if you aren't constantly performing some act of genius. Nobody wants to admit that in creative roles, maybe 10% of the work is actually pure creativity. The rest is just grinding through admin and managing finances.

Sent from my G3311 using Reddit

My entire education following elementary school has been within the arts. Throughout that whole period, they kept hammering home the same tired narrative: that the "famous inspiration" or pure creative spark accounts for that tiny ten percent, while everything else is just endless, repetitive labor. 🤷 In my view, anyone who actually approaches artistic work with any degree of seriousness or true quality isn't going to buy into this myth of constant, nonstop creativity. Those people are just posers, and frankly, there are far too many of them out there.

Joseph Bailey41 said:Pure capitalist propaganda. ☕

I had a similar experience, though my loss of ambition, combined with lethargy and depression, was just brushed off as an "adolescent crisis" since I was only 16. Because of that, I didn't view it as an actual illness, just a passing rough patch. I went to the college I wanted, realized toward the end that there wasn't much of a future there, changed directions a few times, and so on. The whole concept of a "career" feels alien to me. Even though my resume looks pretty solid, I feel this deep-seated disdain for the corporate world—not just from my own life, but from what I've seen others go through. All those attempts at the famous turn on, tune in, drop out approach usually fail miserably because, let's face it, a person needs food and shelter before they can even begin to contemplate abstract concepts like "willpower" or "ambition."

So, I honestly can't recommend anything to the author except practicing a bit of Stoicism—basically accepting that a job is just something you do to bring home a paycheck. This whole search for lost ambition through career changes, finding cool hobbies, starting a family, or other external markers of success is really just a way of delaying the inevitable: facing the fact that it's all somewhat meaningless. But hey, we have to live, and we have to eat. At least for another few decades. 😁

It’s nothing more than corporate propaganda designed to sell you on the illusion of self-actualization through their brands and the curated lifestyles of their mindless little corporate drones.

So, I really can't recommend anything to the author other than practicing some serious Stoicism—essentially learning to view work as nothing more than a transaction to bring home a paycheck.

And then what happens when, after ten or twenty years of living that way, you look back and realize your mental and physical health has been irrevocably shattered? What then?

Over the last six months, I’ve brought in a decent amount of money, but at the cost of my heart skipping beats all day long because of the sheer volume of stress I've endured. There is absolutely no universe in which I would accept that, nor would I ever settle for some tedious, repetitive grind that makes me lose my mind. Not a chance. Spending your entire life doing something you dislike—or even outright loathe—with more than half your waking hours vanishing into it, year after year, decade after decade... No freakin' way. If you have to deal with it right now just to survive, fine, but you should never, ever mistake that temporary struggle for your permanent reality.

Flying As stated by:
It’s a simple equation, really. The larger the ego, the greater the payout in terms of social standing and perceived influence. Now, sure, humiliating someone once in a while might theoretically tip the scales back toward some semblance of balance, but in most practical scenarios, it just triggers an equal and opposite reaction. It breeds resistance, which in turn fuels even more massive ego inflation—people start crafting this impenetrable, invincible persona of themselves, presenting an image of being utterly unshakable and immune to any slight or setback. They convince themselves they are these uncompromising warriors fighting for a cause. I see it in my own reflection too; after every major disaster or personal failure, I find myself dancing along the edge of some secular version of a messiah complex. And let me tell you, that is a dangerous place to be.

This whole discussion about balance brings to mind a specific part of that "priestly" concept of humility that has always rubbed me the wrong way. It’s the notion of humiliation—a term that, if you ask any clergyman, they’ll tell you is central to the whole idea of being truly humble. A direct connection. When we talk about the concept of humility, what we are really discussing is the only thing capable of balancing out an ego that has already spiraled into pure arrogance, sheer conceit, and unadulterated pretension. If one can actually manage to achieve that balance—which is a tall order, let's be honest—it serves as the final safeguard against being fundamentally wrong, both in our own eyes and in the eyes of everyone else around us. Sin.In such an instance, a crushing blow to one's pride might actually serve as a necessary corrective—a harsh lesson that could potentially steer a person back toward a sense of equilibrium. Of course, that assumes the individual possesses even a modicum of capacity for introspection.

What the Pope is attempting here—and what we see whenever similar demands for humility are made in these contexts—is nothing more than preemptively projecting one specific failure onto everyone else. To demand humility, or rather humiliation, under the guise of "regulating the ego" is essentially a preemptive strike; it’s a way of whipping someone before they even have a chance to step into the mud, all to ensure they never get anywhere near it. This forced submission is being framed as a necessary prerequisite for recognizing our own "mere humanity," our inherent ignorance, and our capacity for error. Personally, I find this to be an extreme overreach and profoundly unfair to the concept of human good will. By forcing a person to live in a state of constant, anticipatory shame simply because they are a human being and not God, the logic becomes inherently flawed. The notion that a person should proactively "beg for mercy" because they are crushed by their own potential for mistakes is, frankly, repulsive to me. Ultimately, the idea that a human can exist in a state of perpetual shame alongside God is a concept I find entirely impossible to accept.

To is fundamentally anti-life; it smothers that inner spark within a person, systematically eroding their self-confidence and stripping away the very dignity that defines our humanity. Such doctrines serve only to diminish the individual, reducing a living, breathing soul to nothing more than a passive, hollow vessel.

Perhaps the sheer volume of depravity and malice we see in this world stems from a deep-seated, subconscious refusal to believe in our own capacity for greatness. It seems most people are far too preoccupied with their own inherent flaws, treating their failures as an immutable state of being rather than a temporary condition. Instead of standing tall and proving that they are capable of something more, they choose to retreat into a cycle of endless prayer, performative humility, and a perpetual sense of indebtedness to some higher power. They simply lack the creative spark required to ascend, because, quite frankly, they possess absolutely no faith in themselves.

What on earth is this? She. They tell me that it serves as a roadmap for life, a guiding principle to live by, yet personally, I have never once had the inclination to label such a thing as humility.

True humility can only be possessed by those who hold themselves in high regard, for self-respect is the essential prerequisite for truly feeling, respecting, and loving everything in one’s orbit—be it our fellow citizens or the raw majesty of the American wilderness. A humble person is someone who actually listens, someone who remains receptive, and someone who possesses the courage to engage in a brutally honest analysis of their own soul. Such an individual is perpetually hungry for new knowledge; yet, with every grain of wisdom acquired, they find themselves gripped by an even deeper thirst for learning, accompanied by that subtle, creeping sense of panic that arises when one becomes acutely aware of just how little they actually know. It is that breathless sensation you feel when you stand paralyzed by the sheer scale of Niagara Falls, or when you are struck by the delicate fragility of a poppy petal or the intricate beauty of a butterfly. It is that visceral, skin-crawling sweetness we experience when we recognize genuine sincerity, honesty, and goodness in another—when we sense the very soul of a person radiating the presence of God through their every action. Conversely, it is that instinctive, sharp resistance we feel when we encounter deceit or falsehood. For the person who is truly humbled before the Magic of Life—who understands how infinitesimal we are beneath the vast expanse of the stars and stands in silent awe before the magnitude of the Divine—there is simply no room to honor what they perceive as evil.
There is such an immense amount of humility inherent in true art. The most profound masterpieces were forged by individuals who understood they were merely vessels—that they had been graced with a gift, a talent they simply channeled from the very depths of their soul and, by extension, from the very heart of the Source.

Because of what she is articulating, I never want to lose my capacity for wonder; I refuse to let go of the ability to be fascinated, to fall in love, to be moved, or to feel a deep sense of reverence for something far greater than myself, or even something inexplicable. I want to remain capable of noticing things that are beautiful and allowing them to matter. I don't want to be indifferent to them, but rather to cherish and protect them if I can, or to pass that essence along through my own being.

In those specific moments, I don't actually feel any sense of humiliation. I am not suppressing my true self at any point during those experiences; instead, I am expanding. In those instances, there is no need to stifle the ego, because it has already been forgotten, rendered utterly irrelevant. It is precisely in that spontaneity that human freedom should reside. Everything truly worthwhile, everything that triggers what she describes as humility, does not require "subjugation" to be understood. It only requires an open mind, a willing spirit, and the preservation of that inner child.

Which is why, for me, the term itself feels misplaced within the context of my own "life journey."

Melissa Stewart6 said:Humility doesn't have to mean groveling or throwing yourself at someone's feet.
It can simply mean surrender—surrendering to someone or something. To surrender means there is no resistance left; there is nothing left to defend.

"Perverse humiliation."
Sure, that might hold water if you are absolutely certain about what "God" or "something higher" actually means, and equally certain about what "self" means.
I suspect your interpretation might be off, because that "higher power" is also a part of the human experience... just as the "lower" parts are.
In other words, you could say all good things come from God if you don't view God as an external entity—some old man in the clouds or an imaginary friend.

The real question is: why is humility viewed as a bad thing? Why is it considered wrong to admit that something exists beyond our own limited selves?

Well... at the end of the day, everyone is entitled to their own judgment of right and wrong. If hollowpuma762 decides you aren't right, he doesn't see much reason to respect your opinion—especially if you aren't willing to respect his.

It is fascinating how rituals in the most prominent traditional spiritual teachings consistently demand a physical demonstration of this "surrender"—the crawling, the kneeling, the prostrating oneself against the ground.

And how humility, which is supposedly not meant to be linked to the concept of humiliation, is, according to the Pope himself, impossible without—well, humiliation.

Forgive my bluntness on such a spiritual topic, but it feels like someone here is trying to sell us snake oil.

"perverse humiliation"
That holds true only if you are entirely certain about what the term "God" or "the higher power" signifies, and just as certain about what constitutes the "self."
I suspect your understanding is flawed, because that "higher" element is also a part of the human experience... much like the "lower" one.
In other words, one could argue that all good originates from God, provided that God isn't treated as some external entity—an old man in the clouds or an imaginary friend.

Humility reveals that everything good within us, whether in terms of our nature or our grace, belongs to God, for "in Him we live and move and have our being." Everything grand and virtuous within us stems from the Lord; our misery and weakness, conversely, belong to us. Before God, we feel like "debtors with nothing to pay back.
(...)

Link.

Our misery and weakness, on the contrary, are ours alone. What a pathetic way to perceive oneself—as a human being.

Quote:The real question is why humility is considered bad, why it is wrong to admit that something exists beyond ourselves? For something to qualify as a "real question," one must first avoid using a straw man argument. I never stated that it is wrong to acknowledge that something exists beyond us. Nor do I believe that this is achieved...with humility.

Well... at the end of the day, every individual possesses the capacity to assess and judge right from wrong for themselves. If Omen decides you’re off base, there isn't some inherent obligation for him to respect your perspective—especially when you aren't showing him any respect in return.

Nobody on this thread needs a defense attorney.

Melissa Stewart6 said:On one hand, there’s nothing wrong with having a sense of pride. You could say it's actually a good thing.
Putting yourself above everything else is a mistake. At least, that’s just my take on things.
And there we go again—what was the phrase? Learning from everyone? I have to wonder, though... is there actually anything to be learned from hollowpuma762, or is that just wishful thinking?
Is there really any value in learning exclusively from people who already agree with you?

Even if you choose to ignore them, those hollowpuma762 types and their opinions aren't going anywhere.

You don't have to abandon your convictions just to extract knowledge from someone else. You can't force learning upon yourself if you don't see the merit in it.

But Omen and his opinions still exist, whether they are ignored or not.

My point wasn't about the opinions themselves, but rather the manner in which communication occurs. I have no intention of dwelling on this further.

Betty Patel172 said:Everyone is entitled to their perspective, but this specific attitude toward humility is reminiscent of how settlers acted during the conquest of the USA, the displacement of Native Americans, and the era of slavery, which effectively subjugated entire populations. Even today, we remain enslaved to various metals and non-metals. 🙂

It is precisely the spiritual tradition that birthed those very settlers—those who have spent millennia exploiting lands and people—that harbors this specific, almost masochistic interpretation of humility as a virtue. It's worth asking why.

Truly humble individuals don't go around broadcasting contempt or belittling others. To express even a shred of either is fundamentally at odds with the very concept of humility we’re supposedly discussing here.

A person ought to walk through this life with their head held high, maintaining their dignity. Anything that attempts to strip that away by default feels—to me—utterly pathological. It is perversely sick and twisted. Even the ego, which is a perfectly healthy and necessary component of the human psyche just as much as our physical limbs are, will eventually find a way to breach those barriers of suppression. In the context of this specific thread, people do it in a particularly insidious, self-righteous, "messiah" sort of way.

The best course of action is simply to ignore it. 🙂

Joseph Bailey41, I'll circle back to some of your points more thoroughly once I'm back at my laptop. 👍

Joseph Bailey41 said:The second one feels much worse to me than the first, if you can even rank how awful they are. 👎

Generally speaking, I have a huge problem with concepts that pin "all evil" onto a single person or group. That's why I'm skeptical of ideas that attribute "all good" to something else either—especially when that "something else" is some abstract, untouchable entity. To me, evil usually stems from exactly that kind of separation—splitting a whole into two parts where one half is black and the other is white. But honestly, I wouldn't even go that far, because I've encountered evil enough times to know it doesn't work like that. Evil is pathetic and banal, yet it somehow convinces itself it's righteous. While people who have lost their way could certainly use some humility (maybe even a little public humbling), preaching that kind of stuff to people who are fundamentally decent and trying their best is, in my opinion, the absolute bottom of the barrel.

As for the first example, it sounds more like a practical guide for developing thick skin and petty spite. It feels Machiavellian—you're willing to endure any amount of humiliation just to get what you want. Whether you're aiming for a ticket to heaven or just trying to climb the ladder in a corporate office in Chicago, it all seems pretty much the same.

I can wrap my head around other things, I suppose. I can even grasp the notion of being genuinely struck by the goodness within another person—to the point where one mistakenly believes that such virtue originates from some higher power manifesting through them, rather than being an inherent part of their own character.

First, we have this perverse flagellation of the ego—this ritualistic internal slaughter performed solely to achieve some semblance of spiritual equilibrium. I’ve been dwelling on this lately, and frankly, I believe it strikes at the very heart of our cultural malaise: this massive, bloated American ego. It is an oversized, suffocating thing that constantly demands compensation through self-abasement just to find its footing again.

Generally speaking, I harbor a profound resistance toward any concept that attempts to pin "all things evil" onto a specific individual or group X. This inherent skepticism extends just as much to those who attribute "all things good" to some other entity—particularly when that entity is something abstract, untouchable, and entirely non-reactive. I used to argue that evil arises precisely from this kind of fragmentation, where the whole is split into two distinct halves—as if one side must be black and the other white. However, even I wouldn't go so far as to notarize that theory, given that I have had my fair share of run-ins with true malice. Evil is, quite frankly, pathetic and banal, yet it possesses the sheer audacity to imagine itself righteous. Those who have lost their way by following that path could certainly benefit from a heavy dose of humility—perhaps even a necessary amount of public humiliation. There is absolutely no sense in preaching such nonsense to people who are, at their core, decent individuals simply doing their best to navigate this mess; frankly, it’s nothing more than an attempt to drag the bottom of the barrel up to the surface.

I would venture to say we are looking at nothing more than a classic case of someone projecting their own massive ego onto everyone else. It happens with exhausting regularity.

To me, this first example feels less like a guide and more like a practical handbook on how to develop thick skin while nurturing a petty, vengeful spirit. It’s a certain kind of Machiavellian humility—being willing to endure any level of indignity or public humiliation if it means ultimately securing exactly what you want. Whether we're talking about earning your way into heaven or simply sucking up to the higher-ups in a federal agency, the end goal remains the same, and frankly, it's all quite indistinguishable in the grand scheme of things.

I’ve always interpreted it as a sort of rigid dogma—a brand of spiritual perfectionism that stands in total, diametric opposition to the path I personally strive to follow.

I’ve been spending some time reading through various threads regarding the concept of humility from a religious perspective. Some people argue that a truly humble individual should be willing to endure humiliation without complaint. Their logic is that since you already know exactly who you are deep down, nothing from the outside world—not even blatant disrespect—should have the power to shake your internal composure.

Then you have others, like a certain priest I read, who claim that humility is essentially just the realization that every good thing within us stems from God, while every single flaw is entirely our own fault.

Just think about that for a second. According to this, none of your virtues, none of your strength, and none of your drive to be a better person than some higher power is actually a credit to your own character; it’s all just a gift. Meanwhile, every mistake and every dark impulse? That’s all on you.

It is a profoundly perverse way to strip a human being of their dignity, regardless of which version of this ideology you subscribe to.