61 posts shown.
jadehound60 said:I respect Kim Basinger, but these two—especially Scarlet—have the exact facial look of someone you'd hire to gather hay on some third-rate farm. They look like farm girls from Texas or out in the Appalachians.
Essentially, it’s a total catastrophe.
If anyone finds this attractive, they must have some kind of vision impairment.
As for the other one, have you seen the movie "Monster"?
Tell me you have. Charlize plays the lead and looks desperate, pathetic, and quite literally like a monster.
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDRe..._blu-ray5x.jpg
http://www.filmski.net/sw4i/mediaFile/12882/362a.jpgShe looks that way because that's what the character demands—and honestly, credit to her for taking the role. It proves she’s willing to ditch the makeup, strip down, and let everyone see her as she really is.
As for the rest, I seriously hope the author doesn't still think like that today. Back in high school, guys go crazy for girls with big chests—it's either porn or just hormones talking. Everyone has different tastes, it's not always that simple. Plus, how you present yourself matters—it affects everything from psychology to self-image and how people perceive you.
John Hernandez18 said:Nate Silver probably thinks she isn't your type just because you’d never actually stand out next to her..
..honestly, I doubt anyone else besides maybe Miss California
She’s one of those rare, stunning blondes
To me, she looks totally fake. I mean, she's pretty, sure, but... those overdone eyebrows, the lip fillers...
The blondes in these shots look way better and much more natural
http://ohyoumad.com/wp-content/uploa...-Theron-43.jpghttp://images.fanpop.com/images/imag...7_1280_800.jpg
It all comes down to how you present yourself. People pick up on even the tiniest hint of insecurity—and trust me, that’s an instant turn-off. If those girls can own their sexuality, then you can too. It’s not some exclusive club; anyone can do it. You just have to actually put in the effort.
I went through something similar back in school. I honestly thought I was way less attractive than the other girls in my class. They knew how to flaunt it—they actually took care of themselves (the little details, the makeup, etc., though it's obviously about more than just that)—but I didn't. I didn't give a damn, so I just blended into the background. I was always a bit too messy. But looking back, I definitely noticed how much guys gravitated toward those small, polished details.
slycrane94 said:Maybe try finding a boyfriend who actually knows how to behave if his main issue is getting banned? I hear Slack is more than happy to send pictures via DM, so maybe reach out to him for help. 😁
Look, we both got slapped with a ban because I posted a public warning about some creep—just trying to look out for everyone else—and he replied to the exact same thread. The mods obviously thought we were the same person. It's ridiculous.
I need to know how you guys handle new users coming from the same IP address. How can I be sure one of my family members doesn't get banned just because they signed up for this forum? We only have one computer in the house and we're already seeing bans—my boyfriend got hit. How are the moderators going to fix this kind of injustice?
Greetings!
Kenneth Lopez19 said:So, by that I mean 70 and up. What’s your take on this—do the older generations get in the way of the younger ones?
Thanks!
It's an interesting topic and feels like one we haven't touched on yet, so edit:
Ageism (ageism) refers to prejudices based on a person's age, though we usually focus on biases against the elderly.
It stems partly from gerontophobia—an irrational fear or hatred of aging and older people.
When explaining ageism and gerontophobia, Terror Management Theory (TMT; Greenberg et al., 1986) is the dominant framework. Put simply, older people serve as a reminder of our own fragility and mortality, highlighting the limits of our lifespan. Out of fear for our own deaths, older individuals trigger anxiety in us, which we attempt to manage by rejecting them. It's a way to distance ourselves from what we might eventually become.
Ageism is just a prejudice against our own terrifying future selves. (Nelson Mandela, 2009).
We can distinguish between benevolent and hostile ageism. Benevolent ageism involves viewing older people through stereotypes rooted in pity or a fear of aging. Hostile ageism involves active dislike or repulsion, viewing the elderly as worthless or otherwise negative.
What gets on my nerves is how stubborn they are—and their ability to shove nonsense down young people's throats. It's always some "you can't do this" or "you can't do that, or God will punish you" crap. Most of them are just packed with prejudices and there's absolutely no reasoning with them.
Eric Mitchell55 said:I was actually just thinking about this myself.
It honestly feels like the people closest to me often assume I'm the one to blame for what I'm going through.
Not too long ago, I was dealing with a situation where I felt like I was constantly communicating with another dimension, and my dad would absolutely lose his mind over it. He’d constantly grill me about why I was spacing out, and when I finally told him I was hearing voices, he just started snapping at me, telling me I needed to stop listening to them.
But look, if you had someone standing right next to your ear screaming at you for hours on end, you wouldn't exactly be "listening" either, right?
So, how am I supposed to not feel like it's my fault when everyone around me is constantly judging me for it?
I'm curious, how do these voices actually sound to you? Is it like you're talking to a person, or is it more like a fog? My mom hears voices too, but I don't want to bring it up because she isn't really in a headspace to handle it.
rapidmaker77 said:I truly cannot say.🤷
Look, if you want my help navigating this current mess, I need you to be direct. Give me the facts, lay them out clearly, and once everything is perfectly transparent, I’ll provide you with an assessment that is both concrete and fair.
Is the legal definition of marriage—stating it is a union between a man and a woman—actually a positive or constructive piece of legislation?
Even a simple pairing of a man and a woman could be viewed as discriminatory.😉 And would you personally opt to replace him?
This law? It’s a total joke. It just jumps right over the mark!
That is why I assume—and considering your signaturely whimsical way of putting things—that you deliberately grab the reader's attention and stir up the forum just to provoke some actual thought, which I find to be a positive thing.
I didn't intend to go quite that deep; I simply wanted to gain some clarity for myself, with a bit of your help.
If I were ever appointed to the Supreme Court, I would develop a rigorous methodology and a sharp intuitive sense to identify discrimination the moment it crossed my bench. 😍
What would constitute a discriminatory law? It would be any legislation that places a specific racial, national, or religious group in a different position regarding rights and obligations compared to everyone else.
Personally, if I were to strictly adhere to the letter of the law like everyone else, yet find myself being denied my basic rights in the process, that would constitute discrimination. Conversely, if the law were applied such that anyone could bypass their legal obligations while I alone was held to account, that would be just as much a violation of equality.
You tend to gravitate toward simplistic racial archetypes and broad generalizations, yet reality is far more nuanced than those surface-level principles suggest.
After all, life inherently possesses two fundamental dimensions: goodness and quality.
It’s quite simple, really: everyone has their own particular brand of indulgence. Some people find solace in a glass of bourbon, while others prefer to lose themselves in a thick novel or head out for a long trek through the Rockies.
It is common knowledge that the government supports literacy by funding public libraries, which allows us to borrow books at little to no cost.
The government offers absolutely zero support when it comes to fostering the growth of local breweries or making affordable beer more accessible to the public.
Is there an inherent bias in our society against those who enjoy a drink, compared to the supposed moral superiority of readers and hikers?🤷 Just let me know when everything finally clicks for you.
It seems your question is hiding somewhere deep within this rabbit hole, so go ahead—shake it out and let's see what you've actually got.
Are you suggesting that everyone is simply manufacturing a sense of victimhood? It seems as though people are desperate to claim they’ve been discriminated against—even when they haven't—just so they can leverage the Civil Rights Act to grab entitlements they haven't actually earned.
Of course, the logic seems perfectly clear to me, though I suspect most people are struggling to grasp it. My intention was simply to inject some clarity into the discussion and see if anyone could point out where my own reasoning might be flawed.🤷
I’ll be the first to admit I lack any real knack for philosophical definitions or playing semantic games, but I have an immediate—intuitive, visceral, let’s call it "humanist" 😍 sense of the situation...
It wouldn't make any sense within the framework of discrimination laws to whine that regulations regarding public libraries or marriage laws are discriminatory toward people who just want to drink all day, or men who prefer certain sexual acts with other men.
The question is, why aren't those specific groups considered discriminated against?
It’s because the state—society at large—functions much like any major employer would. It has DECIDED and EVALUATED what its priorities should be; it has ESTABLISHED STANDARDS BASED ON what serves the collective interest and the greater good of the country, such as supporting readers or traditional family structures. 😍
So, when we ask whether such standards constitute discrimination, should we turn to Socrates or Plato for an answer? 😉
Or is it already obvious to us philosophers that anything serving the common good and maintaining high societal standards is, by definition, justified? 🙂
👋
Don't even sweat it. Most people don't have a clue. What’s actually written in the Civil Rights Act isn't even enforced—half the stuff is just completely ignored. Take employment, for example. The law says people with disabilities should be prioritized for jobs, but in the real world? They can barely get an interview, let alone a position. Most people can't even point out a case of discrimination, let alone explain it or fix it—it's basically impossible because there are always these stubborn, narrow-minded people who refuse to change or accept anything new. It's always been this way, and honestly, it probably always will be. You can't fix the whole world, and even changing one person is a massive uphill battle. Discrimination is everywhere, and it's pathetic.
Jonathan Brooks8 said:Look, I’m certainly no expert here, but my modest take is that it’s the very nature of quality itself that prevents us from grouping things together in the first place—you can't draw a comparison if you aren't comparing apples to apples, and if there's no valid comparison, then you can't exactly diagnose discrimination as a result of one.
To put it more bluntly: a marriage between a man and a woman represents one specific quality, whereas a same-sex union represents another entirely... they are distinct categories, which means neither a direct comparison nor a claim of discrimination holds water.
The same logic applies to readers versus, say, drunkards. If we really wanted to follow this line of reasoning, we should be comparing alcoholics to other types of addicts—asking why, for instance, certain groups get funding while others don't—since they all impose an equal burden on the American taxpayer, right?
Or, why fund readers specifically, when there are plenty of people pursuing education through other media who are just as engaged? That could easily be a point of comparison.
And so...
If only things actually worked that way. Right now, especially here in America, discrimination against same-sex couples is one of the biggest issues we face. Everyone's pushing it—except for the people smart enough to realize it's all nonsense. I mean, at the end of the day, it's just about who loves whom. It's absurd to even question it. If someone loves someone, they shouldn't be judged for it—though most people do anyway. It's a massive problem. And when you really think about it, the whole "who loves who" thing is trivial. It's so small it shouldn't even be a factor in anything else. Love, a kiss—is that really such a huge deal that it warrants discrimination? We're moving into a modern era where this will eventually just be accepted once the old guard dies off and a more open-minded generation takes over, which is great. It's tough being narrow-minded and discriminatory. People ask, "Why should I have to watch two guys kissing?"—then don't look! Who's forcing you? Seriously—it's a kiss!!! Since when did that become such a national crisis, considering everyone is doing it day and night? If we're going to discriminate, let's go all the way—why aren't old people kissing? Apparently, that's "disgusting" to some. Why aren't thirteen-year-olds kissing? Because the church and parents say it's too early. People exhaust themselves over stupidity when there are way bigger problems in the world and in their own lives, yet everyone wastes energy obsessing over an individual's choice of partner. That's what freedom is supposed to be. We think we live in a free, modern world, but we really don't. Freedom is the thing that gets discriminated against the most.
rapidmaker77 said:It just hit me out of nowhere: I don't actually know what discrimination *is*.😲
I can recognize specific instances when they happen right in front of me, but I struggle to articulate a coherent, "general" definition
that functions as an elastic, adaptable concept
across various levels of society.
Is it possible to define the very essence of discrimination? Can we find an interpretation that remains timeless—something that would have held true two thousand years ago, holds true today, and will remain valid two thousand years from now?
There is also another layer to this:
Who possesses the ultimate authority to define what constitutes discrimination?
By what standard, or by whose judgment, do we distinguish between what is truly discriminatory and what is not?🤷
I am not particularly interested in the current legalistic frameworks or how the penal code handles these cases
given that our laws are constantly shifting.
What I am searching for is a "philosophical"🙄—and hopefully, an absolute—definition of discrimination.
Furthermore, I am curious about examples of false or perceived discrimination.
After all, it isn't always the case that simply not receiving something we want constitutes discrimination.
(Admittedly, this introduction isn't perfectly polished,😬 but please look past my phrasing and focus on the core intent of what I am trying to express.
Reflect on the underlying spirit of discrimination and tell me: what is it, really?
I can give you a similar example. Plenty of stuff is written into US law and is supposed to be strictly enforced—like maternity leave laws—yet you still see an employer fire a pregnant woman. That’s a specific kind of discrimination at a certain level. Or take when someone volunteers for a disability advocacy group and hangs out with them to show they care, but then in public, people see a person with a disability out with a girl and say, "I bet he's paying her to look good with him." They're stripping away that person's right to normalcy and sexuality through blatant, conscious or unconscious discrimination. Or even more common: when someone joins a bigoted crowd just to blend in and avoid being targeted themselves.
Great topic.
I don't get why posts just vanish... there were two right under mine and now they're gone... 😕 anyway, I was gone for a bit—got banned 😢 but I was still keeping an eye on the threads 😉 interesting
blured, did you run into any walls while job hunting because of your diagnosis? How do employers actually react? Do you just come out and say it? My mom went on disability at 35, and honestly, I never even thought to ask if she dealt with any pushback...
haha... check the previous page, my last post—I already listed all those acronyms you're obsessing over... clearly I learned absolutely "nothing" in high school, apparently there are way more variations than I ever thought possible.
Noah Garcia4, there are actually a few different types of schizophrenia (specifically regarding those voices you can't make sense of)
Paranoid Schizophrenia
- The main thing with this type—the defining feature—is the presence of blatant delusions. Auditory hallucinations happen too, though maybe less frequently. Interestingly, cognitive functions and emotions usually stay relatively intact here. You’ll also see symptoms like anxiety, anger, being super guarded, and just being argumentative.
Premorbid Personality
(That's basically who they were before the illness kicked in) It’s often pretty predictable: we're talking about people who are emotionally cold, perpetually dissatisfied, resentful toward others, sarcastic, and confrontational.
Hebephrenic Schizophrenia
- This is essentially the disorganized type. Key markers are bizarre or silly behavior, totally incoherent speech, and either emotional flatness or showing completely inappropriate emotions. It usually hits during puberty or early adolescence—which is where the name comes from (hebeos meaning boy, phrenos meaning mind). The prognosis is usually garbage because it progresses fast, leading to rapid disintegration and personality breakdown.
Catatonic Schizophrenia
- The big indicators here are intense psychomotor disturbances. We're talking motor immobility (catatonic stupor) or extreme hyperactivity, plus heavy negativity, mutism, weird voluntary movements, echolalia, and echopraxia. The course of the illness is typically intermittent—lots of good remissions followed by relapses—so the prognosis is actually relatively decent.
Post-schizophrenic Depression
- This is a depressive episode that can drag on quite a while. It’s basically a continuation of the illness that happens once the actual schizophrenic symptoms have weakened or vanished.
Residual Schizophrenia
- This is the state where the overt psychotic, productive, or disorganized symptoms—like the delusions, hallucinations, rambling speech, or messy behavior—are gone, provided they've already had at least one full episode of schizophrenia.
Schizophreniform Disorder
- This disorder sits right in the middle between brief psychotic disorder (where symptoms last at least a day but less than a month) and schizophrenia (which requires symptoms to persist for at least 6 months for a diagnosis).
But honestly? I have no clue which one my mom has.
Kevin Nguyen3 said:Look, how this plays out depends entirely on your own perspective and how you choose to grasp the nature of such an illness. If you view it as a total life catastrophe, then naturally, living with it is going to feel impossible. But! On the other hand, if you can just accept it for what it is, perhaps some pieces of the puzzle will finally fall into place.
She is going to lapse into these "irrational states" from time to time, even with the medication. It happens. Because during certain stretches of time, she simply sees the world through a completely different lens than we do.
Some people suggest that those living with schizophrenia actually have a much higher capacity for absorbing information than the average person. The problem is, they can't process that massive influx of data, so it manifests as aggression—directed inward at themselves—or as specific actions taken just to force the world to pay attention to them. They don't possess that healthy sense of narcissism most people do; instead, their behaviors spiral into these totally unpredictable patterns.
If you can learn to accept those behavioral shifts over time, there is a real hope that she will gradually diminish that sense of "isolation" from reality.
She isn't "crazy," nor is she emotionally deficient. Quite the opposite, really! She reacts with her own unique personality based on how her perception of her surroundings allows her to. Sometimes, she is incredibly intelligent.
Every unusual action is essentially a signal that something in your relationship isn't quite clicking—perhaps it's your own refusal to accept it, or maybe you're staring too hard at the illness itself. Plus, there's the disease itself, obviously. We all live by these societal clichés, conforming to widely accepted attitudes regardless of how little foundation they actually have. We act this way because that's how we're taught, and we rarely deviate from those conventional ways of viewing people and things.
She isn't stuck in that old version of herself anymore; her character has shifted entirely. Her ego fights against what she feels and sees, yet her intelligence tells her that everything is, in fact, exactly as you see it. That rift—that split in how she perceives reality—creates these internal movies, sounds, and often very painful emotional states within her.
Delusions aren't just illusions; they are her reality. When she’s in a bad episode, she spends the entire day dreaming, viewing reality through these illusions where everything is actually something else entirely—something almost tangible.
This isn't "cognitive dissonance" in the sense of holding two acceptable conflicting views. She isn't a double person. Most of the time, I believe she resonates with events and circumstances in a perfectly rational way.
Regressions are expected. They are normal. There is nothing you can do to stop them. Perhaps all you can do is try to accept, with common sense, that this is something that will periodically happen. It might help you to try to understand her by realizing that her perception of life is fundamentally different from yours. She is capable of visualizing things you couldn't even imagine, creating mental imagery, hearing sounds, and warping reality to infinity.
Knowing you, there will unfortunately be consequences—because the root causes are buried deep within her from long ago—but there is a possibility that it might become easier for you, and you might feel less "guilt," even though you can't actually help her. No one can, unfortunately.
Pay attention to her somewhat predictable patterns of behavior: the repetitions, her motivation for certain chores around the house, her interest in specific people or events. Just... live.
For her, life stopped in time at one moment, and she is fighting to keep moving forward, while for you, life is still steadily gliding along. I know you have to think about her, but please, remember to think about yourself too.
Look, I get it. I’ve accepted her condition from day one—I'm not some judgmental person running away from mental illness. I deal with it. But this thing about her "absorbing information"? It's not like she’s collecting fun facts just to have something interesting to talk about at dinner. It’s way more toxic than that. Everything she told me about herself turned out to be a total fabrication, so yeah, trust is non-existent. And here’s the kicker: she’s actually weaponized her illness. She’s learned how to manipulate everyone in the family and beyond. I can spot it a mile away—that shift when things aren't right and the aggression starts bubbling up. I guess I’ve just developed a sixth sense for it, unlike the rest of the family. They all try to snap her out of it by yelling, while I’m the only one actually standing up for her and trying to handle things calmly. But guess what? That always backfires on me—suddenly *I'm* the bad guy. It feels like she’s evolved to a point where she knows exactly how to pull the strings to get her way. I don't know if there's a clinical term for it, but she’s like a conscious schizophrenic—she might not grasp the medical specifics, but she definitely understands the consequences and uses them to her advantage. Call me harsh if you want, but I refuse to fall for her traps, whether she’s doing it on purpose or not.
Harold Anderson3 said:While it’s true that schizophrenia is a lifelong struggle in about 80% of cases, the reality is that most people can lead incredibly fulfilling lives if they have access to the right medication. There is such a wide range of antipsychotics available today that allows individuals to work, maintain relationships, and just live normally. Of course, having psychotherapy in the mix makes a world of difference too.
The real issue is that none of these tools really work if a person isn't proactive about their own health—if they stop taking their meds or skip their doctor appointments. When someone refuses to manage their condition, they end up causing a lot of unnecessary pain, mostly to themselves, but also to the people around them who care about them.
Yeah, I get that a high-quality life is possible 🙂 but here’s the kicker—she keeps stopping her meds. She’s basically an adult child. She lives in this fantasy world that occasionally bumps into reality. Everything is some alien conspiracy or witches or whatever... hehe 🙂 honestly, I don't think she could survive on her own without support—she'd just fall apart. By the way, is that psychotherapy covered by insurance or is it out-of-pocket?
Kevin Nguyen3 said:I haven't caught up on all the previous posts—there are quite a few, aren't there?—but when was the diagnosis actually made, and what were the criteria used?
Was she treated at a specific facility, perhaps somewhere like the Mayo Clinic, and for how long?
Well, if there is a distorted perception of reality, that is typically a hallmark of schizophrenia-psychosis.
Does the illness manifest in distinct episodes, or does it surface intermittently and then linger for a while?
Schizophrenia is far from simple to treat, nor is it easy to diagnose. Usually, it is accompanied by depression, anxiety, and fear. There is aggression, self-loathing... so suicide becomes a significant concern. They are rarely aggressive toward others, though.
I don't know what your specific situation looks like, but such patients often experience an entirely different version of reality—sounds that simply aren't there, hallucinations, they might even find the taste of food changes.
The expression of emotions? It is completely incomprehensible. They might laugh or cry when there is absolutely no reason to do so.
One of the most daunting challenges is that, in most cases, these patients aren't even aware they are ill.
With antipsychotics, regular medication, and consistent check-ups, schizophrenia can be managed well enough that patients can handle daily life reasonably effectively.😉So, we are talking about treating psychosis.
A "cure" for schizophrenia doesn't exist. Sadly, it doesn't.🙄
And now, what could the causes be? No one knows for certain. Not a single definitive cause has been uncovered.
There are theories regarding genetic inheritance, biochemical exchanges in the brain, stress, family dynamics, environmental factors, and a mountain of assumptions, but the actual root cause remains a question mark.🤷
By the way, depression and psychosis tend to alternate in schizophrenia—one follows the other, and vice versa.
It is a heavy burden, both for the patient and for the people surrounding them.
A few posts above yours describe my situation perfectly. She was diagnosed early—back in her teens. That's all I know for sure. I don't think she realizes exactly what she has, but she definitely feels like something is wrong. She goes through periods where she becomes suicidal and talks to herself—these "ghosts," voices in her head that she "fights." She describes them as people telling her how she’s going to hurt herself or her family. She'll burst into tears for no reason while sitting in a silent room, staring blankly at the floor. She's also broken things—she once smashed a glass door—and what hit me hardest was when she threatened to kill me, or just started tearing her clothes apart... We talked quite a bit about this a couple of pages back, so it's not like it's impossible to find the details. 🙂 She went to a residential treatment center in Manhattan (basically a campus with multiple facilities for rehab, alcoholics, psychiatric patients, etc.). After staying there for several months, she came back feeling completely "renewed," but that didn't last. She didn't come back aggressive; instead, she just completely checked out from herself and everyone around her. She takes her prescribed meds, but she won't go to the counseling sessions or group support she really needs. I think she's just denying her own state. I know the medication keeps things under control, and she seems happy now that she's doing better, but I'm terrified she'll slide back into her old ways. I don't want that to happen because she's older now—not ancient, but getting to that age where recovery becomes much harder. If she relapses, there might be no coming back.
But how are you supposed to fix a problem that’s fundamentally unfixable? Schizophrenia—it stays with you for life. Period.
David Vaughn75 said:Honestly, sounds like bipolar disorder to me.
Maničar types have this massive urge to go on total shopping sprees.
Honestly, who knows. Combine that with schizophrenia and you've got a real mess on your hands. Whatever.😢