My question is: How can I be a good person without getting walked all over? People have taken advantage of my kindness and naivety way too many times.
The last time it happened was just a few months ago.
I was living in a small rental apartment. There was this older janitor in the building (he had some special needs). He was a great guy, seriously, he always helped me out, wasn't making much money, and lived in this run-down little shack. Anyway, I suddenly had a death in the family and ended up moving into a much bigger place. Since the old place was furnished, I told my former landlord he could give my stuff (TV, fridge, bed) to the janitor.
A few days ago, I called my old landlord because a coworker needed a place to crash for a couple of nights. Not only did he charge her an insane amount ( $333 for just 3 days, when I used to pay $200 plus utilities), but he actually sold all my stuff and didn't give a single thing to the janitor...
There have been plenty of other times where I've been used and ripped off.
What I want to know is, how do you carry yourself in life so things like this don't happen? I'm the type of person who would give someone the shirt off my back to help them through a hard time, but I almost always end up getting played.
Sent from my Huawei P30 using Reddit
Being a good person doesn't mean you have to be naive. If you stop being naive, you won't be exploited.
It seems we have reached that point where one person decides, "I’m done with you," without ever actually saying it out loud. I honestly find myself at a loss for words, though I cannot help but feel a certain sadness when a friendship simply dissolves. It is particularly jarring when there is no final conversation or closure—just those cold, distant looks that signal the end. Naturally, the mind begins to wander toward the question of blame. Most of us tend to look inward and convince ourselves that we did nothing wrong, shifting the entire burden onto the other person. But is that truly how it works? I suspect not. Rarely is it solely one person's fault; more often than not, both parties share the responsibility, and sometimes, if we are being honest with ourselves, we are the ones who inadvertently pushed our friends away. But that is just the nature of life, isn't it? Nothing lasts forever, and unfortunately, friendships are no exception. We simply move forward, perhaps a bit more seasoned by the experience, hoping to be a little "wiser" when we meet new people down the road. In my own life, I haven't quite experienced those silent, icy stares, but I have certainly felt the sting of a friendship coming to an end.
In the first half of the movie, Emma Roberts was really the only familiar face I spotted, though she exited the story pretty quickly. I have to say, I actually found the lead actress who remained quite charming. Overall, the film was an enjoyable way to pass the time, and I'll leave it at that.
Carl Rivera43 said:There’s also that dark humor, you know? The kind that actually feels a bit closer to how life really works.
Actually, I don't think dark humor is depressing at all. If anything, it does the opposite by poking fun at those heavy, bleak situations we all face. It acts as a sort of natural release valve for depression and darkness, serving as a gentle reminder that these rough patches are just an inevitable part of the human experience that we eventually have to learn to accept.
I suppose one can learn to be funny to some extent, though in most cases, it seems to be something you’re simply born with. To my mind, a true sense of humor usually springs from a certain level of life optimism. I've often observed that pessimists or those struggling with depression tend to lack a sense of humor, or at least possess much less of it. Optimists have this way of looking at life's hurdles through a brighter lens, which allows them to find the comedy in both their own mishaps and the situations of others. I honestly can't wrap my head around how one would actually "study" humor, but if I were to offer any advice, it would be to just embrace the philosophy of "always look on the bright side of life" and let the laughter come to you naturally.
silentridge3 said:That isn't quite right. Modern realistic films aren't limited to just being "dramas"; they also encompass:
- comedies - political thrillers - legal dramas - crime procedurals - "family movies" - war movies - erotic dramas ...
Even action flicks—provided there isn't a supernatural element involved—and those so-called "romantic comedies" (which aren't actually funny, yet don't qualify as pure dramas either) fall under the umbrella of what we consider modern and realistic today.
The issue is that someone actually has to write a script for all these genres. You can't just let a video game play itself out and present it as a movie.
That’s why it feels like watchable comedies hardly exist anymore. Do they even exist at all?
In a way, you've actually validated my point; you confirmed it in your second sentence by adding even more genres that can be classified as "realistic" films. So, I suppose I am at least partially correct.😁 However, if you take a moment to analyze the genres you listed, you'll see they can function within a realistic framework, but they can just as easily lean into "fantasy." When a film is labeled a drama, there is very little chance of it containing fantastical elements. The same goes for political films. Personally, I don't mind a touch of fantasy; for instance, I find > to be one of the finest comedies ever made, even though we all know it relies on a "fantastic" premise. But if you look closely, even the films categorized as "realistic" are essentially "fantastic" because they depict fictional events. The only true guarantee that a film is genuinely "realistic" is if it is based on an actual historical event.
I’ve always felt that movies categorized as "realistic" don't actually require a specific label to signal their grounded nature. To my mind, simply seeing the genre listed as drama provides all the context one needs to understand what to expect.
Naomi is a solid actress, though I wouldn't say she’s anything out of the ordinary when it comes to her range. That said, she is undeniably striking and carries herself with a certain sex appeal that seems to hold up remarkably well over the years.😁 In my opinion, the absolute peak of her career was her performance in Mulholland Drive.
Steve McQueen was truly one of the most charismatic actors to ever grace the screen. It strikes me as quite peculiar that people who claim to be cinephiles, or at least believe they possess a decent grasp of film history, often fail to recall his brilliant performances in such iconic classics as Butterfly, The Magnificent Seven, The Great Escape, Bullitt, Tower of Hell, and Gambler from Cincinnati. Personally, I have always found his work in Sam Peckinpah's Champion of the Born and Escape to be his absolute finest.
Kyle Gonzalez said:Oh, sure, and then you get that whole thing where they switch between red and blue text depending on what kind of role they're playing in the thread. The boss is the boss. 😁Even if he goes through all that effort to pretend he isn't.
I have to disagree with you there. She didn't use any special colors; she was typing in the exact same way the rest of us were. She was just another participant in the discussion, plain and simple. Nobody was treating her like some untouchable authority figure; she’s a woman with her own perspectives, and she has every right to voice them.
Kyle Gonzalez said:I’ve gotta jump in here. I honestly don't understand how anyone could possibly objectively moderate a thread when they’re actively participating in it themselves. It’s just impossible, isn't it?
Azzura was quite an active participant in that discussion regarding the modern family. From what I could gather, the color of her posts remained consistent throughout, which suggests she wasn't addressing the other participants as a moderator, but rather engaging with them as a regular member of the conversation. As far as I can tell, she wasn't actually performing any moderation duties unless she was deleting specific posts—something I wouldn't be able to see from my end. If she did remove anything, I suspect there was a very valid reason behind it.
silentsurfer2 said:Movies don't necessarily function by following a rigid formula where you absolutely need a lead male and female role paired with supporting male and female roles.
I haven't actually sat down to watch Monster's Ball yet, but looking at The Silence of the Lambs, we have a clear leading woman, while both of the men serve in supporting capacities. There isn't really a primary male lead in that film, nor is there a significant supporting female role.
What you mentioned is spot on. Kramer vs. Kramer serves as a perfect example; Meryl Streep delivers the most vital performance, yet her role isn't quite large enough to be categorized as the singular lead—and as I recall, she actually took home an Oscar for a supporting role for that specific film. As for Halle Berry in Monster's Ball, I would argue that alongside Billy Bob, she carries the weight of the film; it's hard to imagine a role being any more central than that.
Peter Finch serves as a prime example of an actor who secured an Oscar for his leading role in the film Network. Some might argue whether that was truly the central performance of the movie, though. It is quite fascinating that alongside Peter, two other actors actually earned Leading Nominations for their work in that same film, specifically William Holden. Then we have Ned Beatty and Robert Duvall in the mix; while Beatty received a nomination for a supporting role, Duvall managed to pick up a few awards for his supporting work. To my eye, Duvall’s screen time doesn't seem any less significant than the roles played by Finch or Holden.
Maria Robinson2 said:Yes, it's relevant. Anyone who has read Hesse knows how easy it is to become a lone wolf. The thing is, though—well, if anyone actually cares about being depressed—people don't bond through bad intentions; they connect through good ones, I guess.
Even Harry Haller eventually came to that realization, though it took him quite a bit longer to get there than most of us would like. Just a soul that was perhaps a little too sensitive for its own good.😁
The very first thing that popped into my mind when I saw this thread's title was the Steppenwolf by Herman Hesse. It struck me that perhaps Hesse’s wolf is the only truly "authentic" lone wolf out there—that quintessential individual standing firm against the hypocrisy of society. Even though the novel was written nearly ninety years ago, I can't help but feel its themes remain just as relevant today.
Justin Garcia7 said:When people hear the term "lone wolf," they usually think of social outcasts—people who struggle to make friends, feel disconnected, or just can't navigate a crowd. They picture the emotionally wounded or the extreme introverts.
But that’s not what I’m talking about here. I’m referring to people who actually have plenty of friends, love going out, and are totally approachable and outgoing. They aren't oddballs; they just happen to prefer their own company most of the time because they genuinely enjoy being alone.
I’ve met a few people like this, and they all describe themselves as old souls. They aren't particularly interested in worldly pursuits and tend to view themselves as spiritual people.
This ties back to the concept of introversion versus extroversion. There’s a common misconception that personality is defined by these labels, but I read somewhere that it’s really about where you draw your energy—from being around others or from being by yourself. For instance, a colleague of mine is incredibly talkative and social; she makes friends effortlessly and screams "extrovert" to anyone watching. Yet, she describes herself as a lone wolf who finds her greatest peace in solitude. On the flip side, I know so many people who can't stand being alone. They feel bored without distraction, constantly inviting people over, and often admit they feel empty when they aren't in someone's company.
I’m one of them myself. Instead of heading out tonight, I’d much rather meditate, dive into a book, contemplate, observe, build my inner world, or work on writing.😁 I find that being alone is the only way I can truly "center" myself, returning to that point of calm and balance before I head back out to face the world again.
To be clear, I know plenty of people with actual social struggles or emotional baggage who call themselves "old souls" or "spiritual" simply because they don't know how to connect with others or lack a support system. This post isn't about them. It's about emotionally mature, well-adjusted individuals who have everything they need, yet choose solitude as their primary source of energy.
I’d argue that these true lone wolves are more deeply connected to their authentic selves. What do you all think?
In my view, both types are essentially lone wolves, though they arrive at that solitude through very different paths. For one person, being alone is a choice made out of genuine enjoyment, whereas for another, it might be a circumstance they endure simply because they have no other option.
brightpilot74 said:Hey everyone, since this is the only appropriate thread for this kind of thing, I’m reaching out because I could really use some help. I don't have anyone in my life. I haven't spoken to my parents for as long as I can remember, and I don't have any friends. I just finished high school, and honestly, I was just counting down the days until I didn't have to look at my classmates anymore. A few days ago, I had a massive blowout with my best friend—the one person I could actually talk to about what was weighing on me. She was always there whenever things got rough. The reason we fought is that lately, she’s been treating me like we were never even close, almost like I’m nothing to her. To be blunt, I didn't deserve that. I’ve always treated her better than anyone else; she never lacked anything from me, and I always went out of my way for her. Then, out of nowhere, she just snapped, and everything we had vanished. I tried to sit her down and talk through it, but she just shut me out coldly. Since then, I’ve hit a breaking point, quite literally. She was the only person I truly cared about and could open up to, and now she’s destroyed that. I haven't slept, eaten, or even drank anything in three days. I don't have one specific "problem" to solve, but I needed to share this somewhere because if I stay in this headspace, it’s going to destroy me.
Your mistake was letting this girl become the sole person you care about and the only one you could talk to. That isn't how it should work. Everyone needs a support system beyond just one individual; you shouldn't put the entire weight of your emotional life onto a single friend. If you think about it, you might have actually been a burden to her because you relied on her so exclusively. Try to broaden your horizons and seek out new interests; there are plenty of interesting people out there waiting to be met. Perhaps she might even come back around once she sees that you aren't solely dependent on her for your well-being.
For Djetic - if you have truly known God, then you are never truly alone; if you still feel this sense of isolation, perhaps you haven't come to know Him fully yet.