383 posts shown.
I was sitting in a coffee shop yesterday, just watching the morning rush, and I started thinking about how much of our "self-made" identity is actually a massive lie. We live in this culture that is obsessed with the lone wolf. We love the narrative of the kid who came from nothing, worked harder than everyone else, stayed disciplined, and finally climbed the mountain through sheer force of will. We put these people on posters and call them icons of individual agency. But the more I get older, the more I realize that almost every major breakthrough in my life—and probably yours too—wasn't just the result of my own grinding. It was because someone else, often someone who wasn't even looking for credit, planted a seed or held a door open at exactly the right moment.
It’s that subtle, quiet influence of a mentor or a peer that we never really talk about in our biographies. We talk about the "big breaks," the massive contracts, or the sudden surges in visibility. We don't talk about the person who sat next to us in a locker room, or a coworker who gave us a piece of advice that sounded insignificant at the time, but ended up fundamentally shifting our entire approach to our craft. It’s like a ripple effect. One person's professional standard or personal composure rubs off on you, and suddenly, your ceiling has been raised, even if you don't realize who moved it.
I remember back when I was starting out in my first real corporate gig. I was incredibly green, arrogant, and frankly, a bit of a mess. I thought I knew everything because I’d read the books. There was this senior guy in my department—not a big shot, just a steady, reliable presence—who never raised his voice and never missed a deadline. He didn't give me formal training. He didn't "mentor" me in the traditional sense. But just by watching how he handled pressure and how he treated the junior staff, my entire perception of what "professionalism" meant shifted. He didn't even know he was teaching me. He was just being himself, and that quiet example became the blueprint for my own career. If I hadn't crossed paths with him, I might have burned out or blown my chances years ago.
It makes me wonder about the ethics of recognition. Why is it that we feel such a strong urge to claim 100% of our victories? Is it ego, or is it just a survival mechanism in a competitive world? If I go into a job interview and tell them I'm a "self-made" success, it sounds impressive. If I say, "Well, I'm actually the product of three different people who showed me how to behave and a mentor who helped me find my footing," I sound less like a winner and more like a student. We’ve become so conditioned to value the end result that we’ve lost respect for the lineage of skill and character that makes that result possible.
I think this applies to everything, not just careers. It’s in relationships, it's in how we handle our health, it's in how we develop our hobbies. We are all just a collection of the influences we've absorbed from the people we spent time with. Some people are lightning bolts—they change your life with one big gesture. But I think the most important people are often the ones who provide the steady, quiet foundation that allows you to eventually stand on your own. They provide the context that makes your success even possible.
It’s a bit humbling, isn't it? To realize that the "greatness" we see in the world is rarely a solo act, but rather a long, winding chain of influence where the most important links are often the ones nobody ever hears the name of. It makes me look at my own life and try to trace back the threads. Who are the people who shaped the way I think, even if I never told them? And more importantly, am I currently being that person for someone else without even realizing it?
Do you think we have a responsibility to acknowledge the people who quietly shaped us, or is it better to just let the work speak for itself?
Melissa Mendoza57 said:Personally, I’m not much for the big Hollywood blockbusters, but I absolutely love modern Romanian cinema; they have such incredible directors. I’ve watched things like "A Golden Age," "The Death of Mr. Lazarescu," and "4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days"—there are plenty more. Basically, if you aren't strictly focused on American movies, there is so much great stuff coming out of Iran, France, Italy, and beyond. It’s a shame most people won't even give a movie a chance unless it’s an American or English production (at least in my circle...). I always manage to find something that fits my taste.
Fair point... honestly, it bugs me when I can't understand what people are actually saying 😬... I see how even American movies get terrible translations sometimes, so I often just turn off the subtitles... but with something like a Romanian film, I don't have that option 🤷 so I end up wondering if they actually said what the text claims they said 😁
For instance, I’ll bring up *Elite Squad* as a non-American film that I loved... and what happens? A character says three full sentences, and the translation gives us maybe five words total... 👎 🤷
Richard Wilson4 said:So, which director actually blew you away?
trop de elita jebati👍
Honestly... I have to admit, I don't watch much foreign cinema... 🤷
I know that's a mistake on my part, but I usually only catch international films when they happen to air on local TV (NBC occasionally broadcasts some pretty decent non-American movies) or if someone gives me a solid recommendation. The issue is that I often can't even remember the title once the credits roll 😬, mostly because they don't grab your attention from every angle quite like Hollywood blockbusters do.
Sometimes I'll dive into an algorithm to find something from Japan, South Korea, or England... There are some great films out there, but there's plenty of absolute garbage too. 🤷
I have to somewhat agree with 😁 regarding the topic... though I honestly can't remember the last time an American film truly blew me away... 🤔
There are okay movies, good ones, and certainly watchable ones, but as for being left speechless? Well, I haven't felt that since 🤷
Someone did mention that our standards naturally rise as we get older, making us harder and harder to impress. I believe there is some truth to that 🤷
goldenranger5 said:It isn't about "women," it's about "mothers." Do you catch that subtle distinction?
To be even more precise: "biological mothers."
If I am a grandmother, an aunt, a sister, or a foster parent... I am still a woman, but will I receive preferential treatment during a custody hearing in those roles? Not a chance.
The issue isn't the gender of the people involved, but rather the role they occupy. The system recognizes us as women through a single lens—and it views us disproportionately through that one specific role, using it as a convenient excuse for everything else.
Then why aren't kids assigned to "fathers" instead of just "men"? Do you notice the difference there?
I personally know of a case where custody was granted to a mother who was unemployed and struggling with mental health issues... so tell me again how she is "more qualified" than the father, who is steadily employed, mentally sound, and fought to have the children. 🤷
boldwalker12 said:Oh, absolutely. We’ve got this endless flood of these "stars" who only made it into the spotlight because of sheer luck and their looks, yet everyone gives them all the credit—completely ignoring the disgusting, sexist mindset of a society where women basically have to choose between two roles: being a gold digger or a housewife. Anything else is just a struggle to survive. It's not guaranteed for her like it is for men. Her successes get swept under the rug. They’re always pushed to the sidelines.
It's not like someone like Ava Karabatić is inherently flawed; it’s because of all those insecure losers running the media who embarrass us daily with their garbage news. It’s easy to slip into thinking some random woman might actually be responsible for a crime when the culture is this toxic. For instance, look at how people reacted recently when some wannabe celebrity had a tragic accident—half the comments were basically "good riddance to that slut." These people don't even realize how pathetic they are, or that they’re the exact clientele fueling this kind of trashy content day in and day out.
And don't even get me started on the current trend among frustrated young guys—if a girl isn't handing herself over, she's automatically labeled a "gold digger." 😁
With all due respect... at my firm, there are plenty of women in high-level, responsible positions who earned everything through pure hard work, expertise, and dedication.
They could have taken the route of someone like Maya Morales 😵 but they didn't... they didn't choose to "break through" via 😵 physical appeal, but through intellect and effort... so I wouldn't simply take the argument about media influence and sexist mentalities at face value.
boldwalker12 said:I honestly don't see how awarding custody to mothers clashes with patriarchy. It's pretty clear that a woman's primary role—and ideally her *only* one—is motherhood. They brainwash us with those "declining birth rate" headlines just to remind us where a woman belongs, which by extension dictates where children belong. Also, it was only super recently that we started actually punishing those deadbeat dads who refuse to pay support. Generally speaking, the amounts most guys shell out for their kids are straight-up pathetic. And it's equally shameful how they treat kids from previous relationships, to the point where an ex-partner often ends up becoming an ex-parent too. Honestly, I’m genuinely shocked whenever I run into a good, dedicated father who doesn't patronize his kid or neglect them—someone who can actually change a diaper and deal with a kid screaming in the middle of the night instead of just being some decorative figure sitting in front of the TV acting like a big authority. It sounds ridiculous, but I automatically give those guys a gold star. And it's sad, because that shouldn't be a "plus"; it should be the bare minimum. There are way more irresponsible fathers than there are irresponsible mothers.
In a country that actively pushes the idea of women as housewives and mothers, talking about specific child support amounts is kind of a joke, considering most women don't even leave their husbands because they lack the financial means to do so. When women apply for jobs, they're still judged based on their plans for a private life, potential pregnancies, and so on. They’re still facing an insane amount of sexism. And all those ideas about "safe houses" or escaping? Those don't exist because those institutions are mostly useless; women could leave if they wanted to, but they can't. It's not true. They simply don't have the money. Plus, men still get hired for responsible positions most of the time; if an employer has to choose between a man and a woman with identical qualifications, they’re picking the guy every single time.
Forget child support and all that nonsense; we aren't in Sweden. Women here are lucky if they even get decent maternity leave and a chance to actually return to work.
Let's be clear... in my eyes, a man who fails to pay child support isn't a man at all; he's just a loser and a jerk... regardless of whether he was married to the mother or it was just a one-night stand.
Child support is the bare minimum you can do... though on the other hand, it is true that women are, by default, assigned the children.
A mother could be unemployed or struggling with addiction, yet she is still the one the child goes to. 🤷
Andrew Mendoza10 said:I’m just wondering about one thing—why on earth do these women marry men like this? It’s hard to wrap my head around the idea that they didn't get a clear picture of who he was during the dating phase. If I weren't living in the States—if I were looking at these posts from somewhere else—I’d honestly think women were treated worse here than in some fundamentalist countries. I truly don't know a single soul who views women as inferior beings.
Do you really think being "clueless and blind" is a trait exclusive to women? There are plenty of guys out there making the same mistakes by marrying toxic people, snakes, or absolute monsters...
boldwalker12 said:So, why would you even bother going there? 😁
Honestly, I’ve never even considered hanging out over at Politics because the crowd there is so predictable—especially when you dive into the "on the edge of politics" subforums. And Reddit? Forget about it. It’s almost impossible to have a decent, high-level conversation with that lot. In this country, aggressive chauvinism is basically a daily occurrence; it’s just gotten a little more subtle over the years. Most people are just venting their frustrations, so it’s way easier to lean on lazy stereotypes than to actually sit down and use your brain.
That sums it up... if you want a decent discussion, stay off Reddit (though you might catch a good thread once in a blue moon), and if you want to protect your mental health, steer clear of Politics Weekly. 😵
By any chance, does anyone have 😁 information on when this movie might hit theaters here in the US?
vividhound7 said:There isn’t any real difference between male and female pedophiles. Also, while most of them are men, I suspect plenty of women get away with it because boys often see it as a "win" rather than something they should report—but again, the majority are men. From what I've seen in the news, male pedophiles target boys just as often as girls. It seems to me like it's not always about gendered sexual motives; it's just an attraction to children in general. It's wild to think that back in Ancient Greece, boys were practically treated as a luxury for adult men—it was almost normalized for a man who took care of himself to indulge that way. Is there actually a link between pedophilia and homosexuality?
That's a good question... also, does the attraction stem primarily from the age of the child, regardless of gender, or is it specific to boys or girls?
Honestly, you guys are getting pretty tedious and exhausting, and frankly, you should all be banned 😁... you've gone completely off the rails and it's becoming a chore to read you... I’d much rather be reading about Elite Squad 2, assuming someone has actually taken the time to watch it somewhere 🤷
Carl Bennett4 said:I’m also counting down the days until 😍
Hopefully, it holds up at least somewhat close to the quality of the first one.
And honestly, I don't buy the argument that New Jerusalem is significantly better.
They're both solid films that essentially tell the same story, just through different lenses.
I completely agree 😁 though personally, I find Bad Boys to be slightly better, simply because of the perspective.
Honestly, there are tons of movies out there that show the whole "thing" from the same angle as Holy City. Meaning, through the eyes of people who are "on the other side of the law," or are closely tied to those people, or just live in that environment. In Holy City, we see all of those elements.
However, there are far, far fewer films like Bad Boys that show the police "side of the story" without any idealization, sugarcoating, or the whole "good guys vs. bad guys" cliché.
So... has anyone actually watched the sequel yet??? And naturally—when is it arriving here?
Quincy : Legion
Zachary Doyle4 said:I can't say if it was already mentioned earlier in the thread, but from my perspective as a psychologist, gender doesn't change the nature of pedophilia. To a predator, the victim is just a child, regardless of whether they are male or female. Most cases involve heterosexual men. About 64% are married with their own children. Around 47% were victims themselves during their youth. We're starting to see links between neurological imbalances and social disorders that lead to this. Some cases are actually treatable. Why there are more men than women involved remains an open question, though many assume it’s hormonal. Of course, none of that excuses the destruction of a young life, but understanding the pathology might help us eradicate the disease one day...
Is it truly possible to cure them?
I don't know much about the specifics, but I recall reading somewhere that they can't be cured—aside from chemical castration—and that these offenders almost always repeat their crimes...
Quincy :
Dennis Martin2 said:Quincy : Legion
You're still leaning on a flawed analogy.
Both photos of children and photos of weapons are uploaded specifically because people want to see them. Neither weapons nor children are being "produced" for the sake of being photographed.
Fine, one of you is a photographer, so that explains why you're struggling to grasp this, but what's your excuse?
Has it occurred to you that a child could be kidnapped solely for the purpose of exploitation and filmed just so that content can be distributed?
Or are you going to claim that all pedophilic content consists of children being photographed in secret?
If that isn't the case—and unfortunately, it isn't—😢 then what exactly are we even discussing here? 🤷
I am still stuck on your weapon analogy.
It seems I might actually need to grab some crayons and start drawing pictures for people to make them understand.🤷
Quincy :
Dennis Martin2 said:Quincy :
That's a pretty flawed analogy.
An observer looking at photos of firearms is simply driving the demand for those types of photos.
and so on.
You aren't having issues with photographing guns... nobody starts manufacturing more firearms just because some person online wants to look at pictures of them. But someone will abuse a child and take photos of it simply because some jerk on the internet wants to see those images...
That is the core of the issue. Images of almost everything else are captured after an event occurs that isn't driven by the demand for such images... but child pornography exists solely and exclusively because people want to consume it.
Guns aren't manufactured just so someone can photograph them and post them online.
People don't die in car accidents just so someone can take a picture of them.
Nazis didn't create the Holocaust just so they could take photos of it...
You still aren't getting it... I'm honestly done trying to explain this. Those who understand, understand. For everyone else, that's not my concern.
It’s unbelievable... yes, it is harmful, because by choosing to consume this content, they are creating the demand for it. And how is that content produced?
you really deserve an award for being this dense 😛
Watching gun shows doesn't drive weapon manufacturing.
Watching dashcam footage of car wrecks doesn't cause accidents.
Watching footage from concentration camps doesn't increase the number of camps... and so on.
Viewing pedophilic content directly contributes to the creation of such imagery... look, I've laid it all out for you, but you still refuse to understand. It isn't my problem. 🤷
Quincy :
Jamie Reyes6 said:You totally missed the point and botched the comparison. ☕
http://pedophileophobia.com/pedophilophobia.htm
You are stubbornly clinging to the failed argument that looking at images isn't wrong... while throwing out links that have absolutely nothing to do with what we are actually discussing.
Just so you know, admitting you're wrong won't cause you to 🤣 lose anything in this debate...
But fine... if you still want to insist 😉, that viewing such images isn't an issue, then go ahead.
I believe I've presented enough arguments for any reasonable person to understand.
👋
Jamie Reyes6 said:Total ad hominem attack. Honestly, we're done here. Nothing left to talk about. ☕
How else am I supposed to talk to you when you refuse to see what's right in front of you?🤷
Looking at photos of the Holocaust, fatal car accidents, or victims of war is NOT—and can never be—the same thing as looking at pedophilic imagery.
The Nazis didn't commit massacres just so someone could look at pictures of them.
People killed in wars aren't slaughtered just so people can view those images.
Perry didn't get turned into a pillar just so someone could photograph him and post it online, but a child is abused specifically so they can be photographed and have those images distributed.
If there weren't predators wanting to see those kinds of images, there wouldn't be such a massive demand from people taking those photos while simultaneously abusing or raping children.
Meanwhile, the number of people who want to see footage of traffic fatalities or war zones has absolutely no impact on the frequency of car crashes, wars, or camps.
If you still don't get the point, then we really have nothing left to say to one another.
Jamie Reyes6 said:Look, it’s clearly not clicking for you, but that’s exactly what’s happening—you’re just looking at a picture. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less. ☕
I don't even know where to start with this one. Just looking at the thread and honestly? My head hurts. It’s like watching people walk straight into a brick wall and then acting surprised when they get a concussion. Anyway, what was I saying? Right. The whole situation is just... a lot. If you ask me, most of the noise coming out of the news lately feels like someone took a bunch of random headlines, threw them in a blender, and hit "pulse" without checking if the lid was on. It's messy. It's chaotic. And frankly, it's kind of hilarious if you have that dark sense of humor. I remember back when I was living in Chicago—actually, scratch that, it was more like a suburb outside of Des Moines, but whatever—I saw something similar happen with a local election. Everyone was screaming about nothing, making mountains out of molehills, and by the time the dust settled, nobody actually remembered why they were mad in the first place. We're doing the exact same thing here. We're all just spinning our wheels in the mud while thinking we're winning a race. Anyway, enough of my rambling. I'll stop talking now. Or maybe I won't. We'll see.
Yeah, okay, so that’s got absolutely nothing to do with what we're actually talking about... but whatever. ☕
Yes... that suits you perfectly. 😉.
Don't you realize that posting an image like that just encourages people to create more? The person being targeted isn't a Nazi or some deadbeat criminal—it’s just pure stupidity to celebrate that kind of behavior on a public forum. 👎
If you haven't realized it by now, you probably never will.