Look, you aren't "just like everyone else"—nobody actually is from the moment they're born. People just pick up different roles or masks to try and blend in. But eventually—whether it’s in this life or some other existence—you start seeing through those performances, and you slowly begin to embrace who you truly are.
So, here is the real question: is it better to dive headfirst into life, put on those masks, and eventually learn how to strip them away? Or is it better to sit on the sidelines, judging everyone else for their pretenses while you never even give yourself the chance to experience them—or outgrow them? That’s the crux of it.
Truthfully, you’re afraid of all of it, just like anyone else would be. It’s a terrifying prospect. But you have to realize that feeling that fear is completely normal; the trick is learning not to let it paralyze you.
Taylor Hall2 said:Look, I get that things are moving forward, but I'm going to have a massive uphill battle trying to get healthy like everyone else when I haven't been "normal" for eleven years now. And if someone keeps kicking you while you're down, why on earth would you ever want to be like them one day? Of course, if anyone wants to play along, be my guest.
Alright, look—you’re doing that thing again where you dig your heels in and refuse to see my side. It’s like you think the whole world is pitch black, that everyone is inherently corrupt and just out to kick others around. And then there's you—so vastly different from the rest, a perfectly pure flower sitting in the middle of this entire muddy swamp, having absolutely nothing in common with the masses. Well, that’s all fine in theory, and I suppose anyone could choose to believe that, but you have to prove it through action—by actually engaging with life rather than retreating from it. To truly shake off both the imaginary and the very real stigma, you have to stop stigmatizing everyone else at the same time.
It's honestly the same flawed logic used by those so-called saints or yogis over in India and wherever else. They claim to be holy, spending all their time meditating and cultivating these "higher thoughts," yet they basically withdraw entirely from life and any real activity. I'm struggling to put this stupidity into words, but it's a mistake—the right way would be to do the exact opposite: to live within that world, to dive into action instead of constantly holding yourself back.
David Nelson74 said:Well, maybe I messed up a little myself. I was admitted to psychiatric wards twice, and looking back, those experiences happened while I was on heavy medication, so I probably didn't process everything perfectly. Regardless, Dr. Smith probably doesn't know much of anything. Maybe I just misunderstood what I heard.
You likely heard her correctly—I think she might have even guest-starred on a major news network or something, or perhaps one of her colleagues did, and they were saying something quite similar. But honestly, I'm telling you, these people aren't all-knowing, regardless of whether they hold PhDs or whatever else. They aren't high priests. It’s exactly what Dorothy 😁 was getting at. History is full of instances where much more prominent scientists talked nonsense about scientific topics that turned out to be complete garbage just a few years later. What she's discussing is part of a dying paradigm—those theories that are increasingly being shown to be riddled with holes. For a long time now, cutting-edge scientists have been developing new theories that don't have those flaws, which essentially means a new paradigm is on the horizon. Meanwhile, those still clinging to proving their old views are correct simply choose to ignore all the inconsistencies. Look, I'm not saying you shouldn't trust her in most matters 😉 (though, in my view, whether a person has a psychological diagnosis or not, one should still use their own discernment and common sense.)
Taylor Hall2 As follows: I’m feeling pretty damn good—honestly, my optimism is through the roof right now. Unfortunately, it seems scientists are operating on that old "better to amputate the leg than lose the patient" principle—just trying to keep him alive at any cost.. That’s just how we see things. If only we were more advanced. A society that finally manages to cure schizophrenia—or sees it vanish entirely—is one that will look back at us with the same detached curiosity we reserve for the Early Middle Ages.
Look, you’re simply less informed on this than I am. Everything in that post is practically spot on—except for that second part of your first sentence regarding the "diminished" aspect, which isn't quite right. To be scientifically accurate, one should say that developments in that field are evolving and shifting—though, in truth, all scientific disciplines move forward toward new turning points in parallel, so a field doesn't just "move" in isolation.
Once that book finally hits the shelves, I’ll make sure to get you a copy—just so you can stay better informed. 😍 I actually have a few book recommendations up my sleeve. These are mostly popular science titles written by dedicated scientists or researchers who specialize in translating groundbreaking discoveries—and their broader implications—into plain English. They do a fantastic job of explaining those massive scientific shifts and paradigm changes I mentioned (while also diving into why progress often feels like it’s moving through molasses). The books are heavily documented with scientific references, yet they remain incredibly accessible; you can walk away with genuine insights that you might actually apply to your own life. But perhaps most importantly, they offer the reassurance that things are, in fact, moving forward...
Yes, it’s true—verified, actually—a specialist from Restek over at St. John's Parish, tenth department, told me herself.
As if she has any real authority; most conventional scientists don't even have half of it. There isn't some single "schizophrenia gene" that causes the condition. There are genes *associated* with it, but that is an entirely different matter altogether. I’ve heard all sorts of things on TV, but people claiming they'll just find a specific gene and "fix" it—as if we can just tweak a sequence and call it a day—clearly haven't kept up with recent research. Even older studies that challenge this rather clumsy paradigm seem to be ignored by them.
The reality is that our biology—and we as humans in general—isn't governed solely by our genes. Genes are merely a record, a kind of memory, not the brain itself. In a cell, the membrane functions as the brain; and—not to get too technical here, as I'm currently translating a book on the subject and wouldn't be able to explain it clearly anyway—that's the gist of it.
A cure for schizophrenia will be found through other means—once the existence of the soul is scientifically validated—and it won't involve pills or genetic tinkering.
By the way, there is already experimentation underway with therapies meant to replace electroconvulsive therapy (electroshock). They are using non-invasive methods—instead of direct current, they use specific electromagnetic waves that achieve the same effect.
It honestly frustrates me how many scientists remain so narrow-minded and rigid—though they’d never admit it, and rarely even realize it—much like religious fundamentalists. Their stubbornness and obsession with proving their own preconceived notions really slows everything down; it prevents the development of medical methods that could actually help people. For instance, anything involving energy-based methods is practically ignored, placebos aren't properly studied, and anything non-material is dismissed entirely. Well, if this nonsense continues much longer, I'm just glad I won't have to deal with it for the rest of my life.
Well, let me address a few of the senseless arguments being thrown around here. Most people writing these kinds of posts probably couldn't grasp my point, but I'll lay it out for any other readers following this thread:
Frankly, I don't care about labels—whether we're talking about Palestinians or Israelis, or even how Americans view Canadians and Mexicans. My focus is strictly on justice and truth. And those things apply to everyone equally, regardless of who they are.
There’s no hatred involved here. What the Nazis did to Jews is fundamentally similar to what Israelis are doing to Palestinians right now—which, by their own admission, is something I detailed in my previous article, along with several other parallels. For instance, there were reports of Israelis forcing a Palestinian student to play the violin at a checkpoint, much like how Germans forced prisoners in concentration camps to perform concerts. Now, if anyone finds this truth uncomfortable, that’s their issue. If they can't face reality and instead choose to live in denial while spreading hate and intolerance, that's on them—it doesn't concern me, as I've already said.
It feels redundant to even mention that I harbor no hatred toward any nation or faith. As I noted before, and as reported by Share International, there is a growing movement of conscious citizens within Israel—countless anti-war organizations, doctors, and others who are standing up for Palestinians and expressing horror at the actions of their own government and military.
Roger Robinson682 said:I suppose one might wonder how you would even label a woman who detonates herself and takes five human beings with her? 😲 😲
And then there’s the matter of a three-year-old boy and a five-year-old girl being made aware of their mother's supposed "heroism," essentially being raised from infancy to harbor hatred toward Jews. I can't help but wonder what kind of future lies ahead for them once they actually grow up...👎 👎 👎
If a people has been living under intense terror for 30 or 40 years, it’s honestly predictable that it creates fertile ground for more terrorists. Nothing surprising there. (It's just like how poverty and injustice provide the breeding ground for terrorism—if we're willing to look reality in the eye and set aside our biases. Do people really think someone is just born a terrorist, or that they kill for no reason? Not trying to justify terrorism at all, but I can easily see how that cycle starts.)
However, it's absolutely insane how the media constantly reports on one side of it, completely stripping everything out of context.
To be specific, everyone here in the States knows there have been many suicide bombers among Palestinians (which is why they are labeled terrorists), yet we practically know nothing about the day-to-day reality there—what those kids go through, if they even have kindergartens or playgrounds left. I won't list everything, but just a quick fact: roughly 60% of school-aged children there suffer from PTSD, and that's just it.
So, what is the world doing? What are journalists actually doing? Look at Taylor Swift, for example. Instead of tackling the root causes and finding solutions, they just push propaganda and write sensationalist headlines. They end up causing harm rather than providing the benefit that journalism is supposed to offer. This kind of half-baked reporting does massive damage, especially to the people living in those horrific conditions.
There’s simply no place closer to the reality of Palestine than Palestine itself. You just don't see this kind of thing happening anywhere else in the world. We have Palestine, we have Guantanamo Bay, and we have Iraq—these are the places where these things are unfolding right now, not on my street. There aren't many other countries where people face such extreme restrictions on their movement (unless you count a prison), and that's not even touching upon the horrors occurring there.
And honestly, looking at the comments above... they're laughable. I can't believe I'm seeing stuff like this on a forum in this century. 👍
BTW
Some Israeli soldiers "feel like Nazis"
Tristan Troudart, a psychiatrist and director of the Psychiatric hospital rehabilitation department at Kfar Shaul in Jerusalem, recently told an interview with a Spanish newspaper that there is a total shortage of medication and medical supplies in the occupied territories, and that Israeli pilots constantly break the sound barrier specifically to distress Palestinians. Troudart is also a member of the Israeli non-governmental Association Physicians for Human Rights (PHR), which was founded back in 1988 by feminist psychologist Ruchama Marton. PHR works closely with both Arab and Israeli doctors and psychiatrists. Over time, the Association has uncovered instances where certain Israeli doctors participated in the torture of Palestinian prisoners, which is a direct violation of the Hippocratic Oath.
Troudart explained that many Israeli soldiers are facing horrific situations and massive moral dilemmas. He reports that many suffer from severe depression and say they "feel like Nazis," which, according to Troudart, is especially traumatic for Israelis. Consequently, because of the "separation wall," it isn't just the Palestinians who are suffering—Israeli soldiers and their families are too, reporting increasing domestic violence, absenteeism, and "severe depressions that lead to deep moral and existential crises." (Source: El País, Spain)
Like I mentioned before, I’m not a pessimist. Things are tough, sure, but nothing is impossible. (And look, there isn't anything inherently wrong with Israelis as a people—you find all sorts of individuals there, and the current leadership is certainly a mixed bag. There are plenty of Jews who want to see the occupation of Palestine ended, people who support Palestinians in every way possible or cooperate with them, and those who refuse to serve in an Israeli military that, in many instances, feels uncomfortably similar to Nazi forces... In fact, some Israeli soldiers have even stated they feel like Nazis because of their service. There was actually an article in Chile about this http://share-international.net /hrv/publikacije/si_novo.htm#prioriteti (check the bottom of the section); they suffer from PTSD due to these actions, and their families suffer alongside them.)
The truth is powerful, and in the end, it usually wins out. Information is reaching the public more than ever now—though, as I’ve said, we’ve been a bit slow to catch up on this front.
Palestinians don't need mere pity from others; what they need is for people to be informed. When people aren't aware of a crisis, they don't take action. Bush won't be in power forever, nor will the USA continue to send mountains of weapons to Israel while giving Palestine nothing but crumbs and shielding Israel with vetoes at the UN indefinitely. The world won't just watch this happen forever—though, granted, one might be skeptical given how passively the world has watched for so many years, not that I'm saying otherwise.
We live in a world governed by the principle that everything comes back around—what goes around comes around, or as the old saying goes, "you reap what you sow." It’s a good thing, really. Everything will eventually balance itself out.
Instead of actually attempting to describe the reality of the situation—assuming one can even grasp it at this point—they just feed people half-truths and misinformation. In my view, she and everyone else writing like that are essentially just fueling the fires of the conflict currently unfolding there.
Fortunately, this kind of behavior is becoming increasingly rare on the global stage.
A few years back, two professors from an American university published a book about how news coverage regarding that region is constantly misrepresented. I can't recall the exact title right now—my memory is failing me there. Essentially, the reporting follows two distorted patterns. One is this: whenever Israelis strike Palestinians, causing massive casualties and destroying countless homes, it’s framed as a "retaliation" or a "response" to some Palestinian suicide attack, conveniently leaving out the decades of occupation and everything else.
I forgot to mention that Palestinians lack even basic rights within the Israeli environment. For instance, while Palestinian embassies or consulates might be located in Israel, they aren't actually allowed in—they can't get to work or even reach hospitals. And if they need to travel abroad, they have to spend two days just trying to exit Israel and Palestine, enduring humiliating processes along the way, only to eventually fly to their destination from a foreign airport.
In my signature, you'll find a link to a blog by a woman from Gaza who writes quite a bit about all of this (From Gaza with Love), and here is this specific article: Palestine: Turning freedom of movement into a farce
There's plenty more to it; journalists like Ivana Rimac and others cover these issues occasionally too.
I was scrolling through The New York Times today when an article by Ivanka Rimac caught my eye—it covers an interview an Arab TV station conducted with two young Palestinians, children of a woman who carried out a suicide attack.
Now, sure, that’s a headline that grabs attention, and I get why they want those clicks, but just like so many times before, this kind of reporting pulls facts out of context. It misleads anyone who isn't deeply familiar with the situation, and honestly, news outlets shouldn't be presenting stories this way.
This piece fits right into that media narrative that paints Palestinians solely as terrorists. While global media has started to shift its perspective lately, the US—much like in so many other areas—is still lagging behind. For a long time, the world reported on these conflicts using models like, "Israelis retaliate following a Palestinian suicide bomber," which is incredibly one-sided and flat-out wrong. It completely ignores the broader reality: that Israel has occupied Palestinian territories, and these people have been living in what feels like a concentration camp for decades—denied the ability to go to work, see a doctor, or even attend school. But you don't hear much about that, do you?
Coming back to this specific article: the writer focuses on how "shocking" the interview is, claiming these kids are being taught to harbor hatred and that they actually boast about their mother killing five Israelis.
What really bothers me is that Ivanka Rimac didn't include any of the surrounding details that would have provided a complete picture.
For instance, she failed to mention that - over 60% of Palestinian schoolchildren in the occupied territories suffer from PTSD (!!) - which obviously has massive consequences, though I wonder if most readers even know what PTSD entails. It's the same story with everything else: - there is absolutely zero mention of the horrific, camp-like conditions within the occupied Palestinian territories. - there's no mention of how Israeli authorities block humanitarian organizations from delivering aid and medicine, creating massive hurdles where groups are forced to pay exorbitant fees to Israelis just to get basic relief through. There are even instances where Israeli soldiers at checkpoints prevent pregnant women from reaching doctors for checkups.
-And she doesn't even touch upon the fact that when the USA provided humanitarian aid to Palestinians, it was a mere fraction—maybe 15 to 20 times less—than the aid sent to Israel, specifically in the form of weaponry (!!). I could go on with examples like this until tomorrow.
Neither Ivanka nor any other American news outlet seems to write about the numerous joint humanitarian and social initiatives involving both Palestinians and Israelis. Both sides actually have strong grassroots movements working to bridge these divides and move past political bickering.
None of that makes it into the article; instead, we get a totally skewed view of a single event. It's like if a newspaper reported that Americans killed 1,000 Mexicans, focusing only on a detail like how Nick P. killed Slavoljub R. on his own doorstep, without providing any context whatsoever. Naturally, someone uninformed would look at that and conclude there's a genocide happening in America. That's exactly what's happening here.
I truly wonder what the point of journalism is anymore, and if reporters even realize their role in society. Their job should be to build understanding, not to fuel division and misunderstanding through biased writing.
Gerald Parker3 said:I’ve come to realize that people losing their grip don't really have an ego—or rather, it's so incredibly small that once the pressure hits, it just snaps. Honestly, having a robust, well-preserved ego is pretty much what keeps you sane.
Right, sure, and I'm just a saint myself—let's just say Douglas Long2 has one of the smallest egos in the room. 😬
But seriously—if I actually sat down and tried to find 😬 , the core truth in what you're saying, I think you're hitting on something real regarding people facing chronic struggles or debilitating illnesses.
Absolutely. I’d also like to take a moment to warn any readers who might be tempted by drug experimentation: please, don't go down that road. And don't fall for what I consider foolish tales about "spiritual awakenings" triggered by marijuana or LSD. Those experiences are fake—nothing more than heightened illusions. Anything truly worthwhile is achieved through one's own hard work and a genuine investment of energy, rather than by introducing chemical compounds into your system. It's all incredibly damaging—and while marijuana is arguably the least harmful of the bunch since it's "natural," it still carries risks—but ultimately, these substances can cause permanent brain damage.
If there’s a genetic predisposition, schizophrenia F20 might surface—but it doesn't have to—though drug use can certainly trigger it.
Having kept up with more recent scientific research and theories, I’m inclined to suggest that external influences play a much larger role than genetic predispositions. There seems to be a massive amount of misunderstanding regarding genetic causality. This can actually be quite damaging—it's vital for a person to realize they aren't merely a puppet of their DNA, nor is their fate sealed by their genes; rather, they maintain agency over their own lives. Too often, people try to shift the responsibility for everything onto their genetics.
I’ll be honest—I don't know much about the clinical definition of psychosis, though I have a bit of a grasp on schizophrenia. It seems to me that everything really depends on the individual case. Besides, isn't it true that a person ought to act as their own therapist to some extent? After all, nobody knows you better than yourself.
I find stormylynx23's extreme take a bit strange—the idea that self-reflection only works for those who aren't severely ill, but fails for everyone else. But if we suggest that questioning one's own mind isn't a form of self-therapy, then what would we call it? That seems like a stretch to me.
As for the financial aspect, it's the truth, and it's something I've touched on here before. It is frankly shameful that mental health services aren't made accessible to everyone who needs them; instead, they remain a luxury reserved mostly for the wealthy.
Look, I'm not saying this is meant to be some deep revelation or anything—don't get me wrong—but maybe some of you remember me mentioning my ex-girlfriend's grandmother and her supposed schizophrenia 😬. Well, I finally asked her about it today, and she insists she doesn't have schizophrenia at all 😁, claiming she's never even stepped foot in a psychiatrist's office . Anyway, the woman is as stubborn as they come. She swears she’s never seen a doctor, never taken any meds, and has been "perfectly fine" her whole life. Sure, she's had her share of outbursts—like when she kicked her own mother out of the house during an argument years ago—and she once went after a Mexican neighbor with a heavy kitchen utensil while he was moving in (she's always had a bit of a grudge against Mexicans, much like 😬)—but overall, she lived a pretty standard life, even spending time in Germany and stuff. She even had this wild delusion that Gotovina showed up at her place to fix her AC while he was on the run. So, yeah, nothing major to report.
briskgull27 said:Honestly, I'm just worried about family honor.
Who's worrying about that?? 😲 Fine, no need to tell me if you're trying to protect that precious family honor 😬 But seriously, aren't people educated enough by now?? http://www.mysmiley.net/imgs/smile/a...animal0026.gif
I’m honestly not sure what my actual prescription is anymore. Back when I was at State University, I had something like a -3.0 in both eyes—maybe a little more—but after a follow-up exam, it turned out one eye was suddenly 0.5 weaker than the other. I actually asked him if it was even possible for my vision to drop like that.
And the doctor? Well, he was just his usual "communicative" self—and by that, I mean he was incredibly dismissive and wouldn't answer a single thing I said. It wasn't until I pressed him with a second question that he finally gave me this condescending little head shake, basically acting like my concern was impossible or just... well, nonsense.
Since then, I went to another specialist for a second opinion, though I can't quite recall the exact numbers 😁—it was somewhere around -2.75 for both eyes, I think.