Fate

Is it, like, totally crazy to look at life as this constant battle against fate? You know, like we're just playing out some script that's already been written? No matter how hard you grind, things don't always go your way, but there’s always that feeling like... I don't know, "if this hadn't happened, then *that* wouldn't have happened," right? So I end up spiraling into this whole apocalyptic thought process where I'm wondering what I'm even fighting for. But then again, maybe fate is just us sitting on the couch, waiting for life to happen to us? Like, just idling?
What do you guys think about all this? Do you actually feel that invisible force pulling your strings through life—guiding you toward some ultimate goal that makes zero sense while it's happening, but somehow works out in the end?!

People love using "fate" as a convenient excuse to stay unengaged. They use it to justify things they can't wrap their heads around, or just to make dealing with life's highs and lows a little easier.

Sure, some things are just weird coincidences or outcomes with insanely low odds. But even if everything really is predestined, I guess that’s still no excuse to just sit there like a passive observer in your own life, right?

Rebecca Morris2 said:Is it, like, totally crazy to look at life as this constant battle against fate? You know, like we're just playing out some script that's already been written? No matter how hard you grind, things don't always go your way, but there’s always that feeling like... I don't know, "if this hadn't happened, then *that* wouldn't have happened," right? So I end up spiraling into this whole apocalyptic thought process where I'm wondering what I'm even fighting for. But then again, maybe fate is just us sitting on the couch, waiting for life to happen to us? Like, just idling?
What do you guys think about all this? Do you actually feel that invisible force pulling your strings through life—guiding you toward some ultimate goal that makes zero sense while it's happening, but somehow works out in the end?!

Yeah, I definitely feel it. And I let my gut lead the way. That doesn't mean I'm just sitting on my couch waiting for a meteor to hit me in the face, though. I play these weird, complicated little games with life that most people wouldn't understand if I tried to explain them... 😬

Everything is set in stone, unless we decide to change our own Destiny...

And honestly, you need (and only have) that invisible force to make that happen... 👍

Ronald Rogers27

Rebecca Morris2 said:Is it, like, totally crazy to look at life as this constant battle against fate? You know, like we're just playing out some script that's already been written? No matter how hard you grind, things don't always go your way, but there’s always that feeling like... I don't know, "if this hadn't happened, then *that* wouldn't have happened," right? So I end up spiraling into this whole apocalyptic thought process where I'm wondering what I'm even fighting for. But then again, maybe fate is just us sitting on the couch, waiting for life to happen to us? Like, just idling?
What do you guys think about all this? Do you actually feel that invisible force pulling your strings through life—guiding you toward some ultimate goal that makes zero sense while it's happening, but somehow works out in the end?!

I mean, I think it would be, because if we truly believe everything is already set in stone, then any effort we make feels pretty much pointless, doesn't it? But please, just "listen" to this passage:

To shake a heart decisively, fate doesn't need to always swing with violent force or strike with crushing blows; its wild, creative energy is actually fueled by letting destruction bloom from seemingly tiny, fleeting causes. We clumsily call that first subtle touch of a breeze "fate," and we wonder why such a small thing can swell into a force so massive. But just like a sickness doesn't start the moment you feel its symptoms, human destiny doesn't only begin when it finally manifests as an event we can see. Fate has been steering things from deep within, through our very spirit and blood, long before it ever touches the soul from the outside. Realizing this is a form of defense, though most of the time, it's a futile one.
( Stefan Zweig )

On the other hand, Albert Camus would probably tell us: The human heart has this awkward tendency to label only the things that destroy it as "fate." But happiness, too, is inexplicable in its own way, simply because it is inevitable. So, I find myself agreeing with that sentiment as well.

Rebecca Morris2 said:Is it, like, totally crazy to look at life as this constant battle against fate? You know, like we're just playing out some script that's already been written? No matter how hard you grind, things don't always go your way, but there’s always that feeling like... I don't know, "if this hadn't happened, then *that* wouldn't have happened," right? So I end up spiraling into this whole apocalyptic thought process where I'm wondering what I'm even fighting for. But then again, maybe fate is just us sitting on the couch, waiting for life to happen to us? Like, just idling?
What do you guys think about all this? Do you actually feel that invisible force pulling your strings through life—guiding you toward some ultimate goal that makes zero sense while it's happening, but somehow works out in the end?!

Exactly.

Ronald Rogers27 said:Yeah, I definitely feel it. And I let my gut lead the way. That doesn't mean I'm just sitting on my couch waiting for a meteor to hit me in the face, though. I play these weird, complicated little games with life that most people wouldn't understand if I tried to explain them... 😬

Everything is set in stone, unless we decide to change our own Destiny...

And honestly, you need (and only have) that invisible force to make that happen... 👍

Ronald Rogers27

I'm not sure I'd use the word "change," though, because that implies we actually know what's coming and that we have the power to alter a specific outcome—when really, all we can do is guess. Or maybe it's more accurate to say that we're actually out here creating our own destiny as we go.

"Fate is just a friendlier way of saying coincidence."☕

Rebecca Morris2 said:Is it, like, totally crazy to look at life as this constant battle against fate? You know, like we're just playing out some script that's already been written? No matter how hard you grind, things don't always go your way, but there’s always that feeling like... I don't know, "if this hadn't happened, then *that* wouldn't have happened," right? So I end up spiraling into this whole apocalyptic thought process where I'm wondering what I'm even fighting for. But then again, maybe fate is just us sitting on the couch, waiting for life to happen to us? Like, just idling?
What do you guys think about all this? Do you actually feel that invisible force pulling your strings through life—guiding you toward some ultimate goal that makes zero sense while it's happening, but somehow works out in the end?!

I guess coincidence is just when something goes sideways by accident, whereas fate is the whole messy reality of it being unchangeable and eternal. To me, the first one is a win, and the second one... well, it's a loss. 😍

Quentin Tarantino

vividbear4 said:People love using "fate" as a convenient excuse to stay unengaged. They use it to justify things they can't wrap their heads around, or just to make dealing with life's highs and lows a little easier.

Sure, some things are just weird coincidences or outcomes with insanely low odds. But even if everything really is predestined, I guess that’s still no excuse to just sit there like a passive observer in your own life, right?

Quentin Tarantino

Ronald Rogers27 said:Yeah, I definitely feel it. And I let my gut lead the way. That doesn't mean I'm just sitting on my couch waiting for a meteor to hit me in the face, though. I play these weird, complicated little games with life that most people wouldn't understand if I tried to explain them... 😬

Everything is set in stone, unless we decide to change our own Destiny...

And honestly, you need (and only have) that invisible force to make that happen... 👍

Ronald Rogers27

Yeah, exactly... but I don't know, I just see this invisible force as something totally overwhelming. Like, if something is actually gonna happen, it’s just gonna happen, regardless of how much we wish it wouldn't. You could spend your whole life being super careful, you know? Like, avoiding all that junk food, staying away from carcinogens, doing everything by the book... and then one day you're just walking down a street in Chicago or something, and some random guy just comes out of nowhere and takes you out. It's heavy. You could have spent your entire existence fighting every single battle just to have it all wiped out in a second. Maybe it sounds a bit bleak, and I'm not saying we should just roll over and let life happen to us, but from that perspective... man, it kind of feels like it's all for nothing. Just an uphill battle against something way bigger than us.

I honestly feel like Nobody isn't even touching upon that other invisible force we all carry—that internal spark that gives us the actual strength to change things, which is already so incredibly influential and creative just by virtue of being a part of who we are, because it flows directly from within ourselves... and it has this capacity to build entirely new constellations of relationships and be truly life-giving and effective.

Then there’s the idea that fate can be viewed as a kind of lineage, a category, or simply a mode of being. It’s a specific way of existing. In that sense, every single living thing in this shared world has its own destiny, its own particular mode of existence. For us humans, that destiny is largely shaped by the choices we make, which in turn define the people around us, all within this massive, tightly woven web of a world we inhabit together...

That internal drive is nothing more than pure persistence—call it willpower if you want.

Is it fueled by fear of failure, the hope for a payoff, or just a raw obsession with something? Whether it’s collecting coasters, lurking on some hyper-niche forum, or killing yourself at the gym to jump further, run faster, or lift heavier while playing pretend as Tarzan from Appalachia... it doesn't matter.
All of that is just a reflection of the impressions life leaves on you. If I’d been into Star Trek instead of Conan as a kid, there’s a good chance I would’ve gravitated toward science over fantasy. To put it bluntly—though I'm oversimplifying here—I probably would've headed to an art school instead of a tech institute.

How does it all play out? Why does one person lean toward Conan while another goes for Spock? Since we're on the topic, it mostly comes down to your environment and what was shoved in front of you growing up. Did you spend your time building model planes and ships, or were you obsessed with action figures—warriors, princesses, witches, monsters—building imaginary castles and haunted ruins in your head...

Besides a bit of parental influence and them bleeding their own interests onto their kids, what else tips the scale between Conan and Spock? Maybe a psychiatrist could give me a straight answer, but honestly, I don't think there's any grand mysticism or cosmic purpose behind it.

Sure, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe destiny exists, or spirits, or reincarnation, or whatever. But since there’s zero hard evidence proving fate exists, I’m leaning toward the idea that it’s all just chance. A chain reaction of micro-events and a natural predisposition toward certain things. Is interest in something predestined? I don't know. It's like wondering why one kid is genetically built to sprint while another is naturally better at math. Heredity? Some forgotten gene from the early days in Africa, or just a random spark from an ancestor who happened to be good at numbers? It's no more mystical than wondering why someone ends up with curly hair when both parents have straight hair.

I think if people feel they need the concept of "fate," it's because they can't stomach the idea that everything they see—including themselves—is just the result of a random initial impulse followed by a mess of coincidental causes and adaptations. To avoid that discomfort, they invent some massive hidden plan. They sit around hoping Peter Pan, King Arthur, Captain Picard, or Neo will show up to reveal the terrifying possibility that none of this actually means anything. Or maybe it does, and I just don't know... but again, no proof...

@steelridge58
@wiredmaker18
hey, thanks for sharing your thoughts, I really respect that!

steelridge58 said:I mean, I think it would be, because if we truly believe everything is already set in stone, then any effort we make feels pretty much pointless, doesn't it? But please, just "listen" to this passage:

To shake a heart decisively, fate doesn't need to always swing with violent force or strike with crushing blows; its wild, creative energy is actually fueled by letting destruction bloom from seemingly tiny, fleeting causes. We clumsily call that first subtle touch of a breeze "fate," and we wonder why such a small thing can swell into a force so massive. But just like a sickness doesn't start the moment you feel its symptoms, human destiny doesn't only begin when it finally manifests as an event we can see. Fate has been steering things from deep within, through our very spirit and blood, long before it ever touches the soul from the outside. Realizing this is a form of defense, though most of the time, it's a futile one.
( Stefan Zweig )

On the other hand, Albert Camus would probably tell us: The human heart has this awkward tendency to label only the things that destroy it as "fate." But happiness, too, is inexplicable in its own way, simply because it is inevitable. So, I find myself agreeing with that sentiment as well.

Exactly.

I'm not sure I'd use the word "change," though, because that implies we actually know what's coming and that we have the power to alter a specific outcome—when really, all we can do is guess. Or maybe it's more accurate to say that we're actually out here creating our own destiny as we go.

Man, that's deep. In just one tiny sentence, he manages to hit on a few different things:

1) Happiness is basically just a quick breather between two bouts of suffering.
2) That whole Markovian law—believe it or not—where people say stuff like, "If anything can go wrong, it will," or even worse, "Of all the things that could go wrong, the one that causes the most damage always does."
Why is it like that? One of the big reasons behind that Markovian idea is just how humans work—we have this massive bias where we obsess over every single bad thing that happens to us, while we just take all the good stuff for granted, like it’s just supposed to be there.

Look, I don't want to sound like a total jerk here, but everything I laid out in my last post isn't necessarily some kind of disaster or a curse. Honestly? It’s the opposite. There’s actually a certain level of romance in the way people struggle to find meaning—often in pretty moving ways—within their own heads, trying to make sense of their lives and everyone else's too...

Jonathan Rogers4 said:Man, that's deep. In just one tiny sentence, he manages to hit on a few different things:

1) Happiness is basically just a quick breather between two bouts of suffering.
2) That whole Markovian law—believe it or not—where people say stuff like, "If anything can go wrong, it will," or even worse, "Of all the things that could go wrong, the one that causes the most damage always does."
Why is it like that? One of the big reasons behind that Markovian idea is just how humans work—we have this massive bias where we obsess over every single bad thing that happens to us, while we just take all the good stuff for granted, like it’s just supposed to be there.

Oh, man, you hit the nail right on the head! And if you look at what Camus was getting at, he also pointed out how, regardless of the era we live in, happiness is always within reach—though it often leads people to stop looking toward the heavens for answers—whereas misfortune feels much more likely, which usually sends people scrambling to pray for divine intervention; it really makes you wonder if a person can actually steer their own life toward meaningful goals by relying solely on themselves without ever looking upward for help.

And honestly, I take Murphy's Law personally! There have been so many times in my life where I've had to force myself to laugh through the chaos just to get the one thing I actually needed most—a little bit of genuine laughter.

wiredmaker18 said:That internal drive is nothing more than pure persistence—call it willpower if you want.

Is it fueled by fear of failure, the hope for a payoff, or just a raw obsession with something? Whether it’s collecting coasters, lurking on some hyper-niche forum, or killing yourself at the gym to jump further, run faster, or lift heavier while playing pretend as Tarzan from Appalachia... it doesn't matter.
All of that is just a reflection of the impressions life leaves on you. If I’d been into Star Trek instead of Conan as a kid, there’s a good chance I would’ve gravitated toward science over fantasy. To put it bluntly—though I'm oversimplifying here—I probably would've headed to an art school instead of a tech institute.

How does it all play out? Why does one person lean toward Conan while another goes for Spock? Since we're on the topic, it mostly comes down to your environment and what was shoved in front of you growing up. Did you spend your time building model planes and ships, or were you obsessed with action figures—warriors, princesses, witches, monsters—building imaginary castles and haunted ruins in your head...

Besides a bit of parental influence and them bleeding their own interests onto their kids, what else tips the scale between Conan and Spock? Maybe a psychiatrist could give me a straight answer, but honestly, I don't think there's any grand mysticism or cosmic purpose behind it.

Sure, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe destiny exists, or spirits, or reincarnation, or whatever. But since there’s zero hard evidence proving fate exists, I’m leaning toward the idea that it’s all just chance. A chain reaction of micro-events and a natural predisposition toward certain things. Is interest in something predestined? I don't know. It's like wondering why one kid is genetically built to sprint while another is naturally better at math. Heredity? Some forgotten gene from the early days in Africa, or just a random spark from an ancestor who happened to be good at numbers? It's no more mystical than wondering why someone ends up with curly hair when both parents have straight hair.

I think if people feel they need the concept of "fate," it's because they can't stomach the idea that everything they see—including themselves—is just the result of a random initial impulse followed by a mess of coincidental causes and adaptations. To avoid that discomfort, they invent some massive hidden plan. They sit around hoping Peter Pan, King Arthur, Captain Picard, or Neo will show up to reveal the terrifying possibility that none of this actually means anything. Or maybe it does, and I just don't know... but again, no proof...

I guess you could also say it’s the power of love... if you want to look at it that way.

🙂

Sure, you could argue that, but love isn't the only thing driving people, even if it’s one of the better reasons. You could spin it any way you want—claiming every destructive act is just a desperate cry for help (aka love) or a reaction to its absence.
To me, reducing everything to that feels a bit too simplistic. People are driven by all sorts of things. It ranges from pure selfishness—which, fine, you could call self-love—to hatred and rage, which might be a plea for affection, or maybe they just aren't. Even if we tried to pin every human action to some core need for love, whether through giving it or rebelling against its lack, I don't think that covers the whole spectrum. And even if it did, the consequences of those "cries for love" range from incredibly noble to absolutely horrific.
I get how compassion and empathy drove someone like Mahatma Gandhi or Mother Teresa. But at the same time, I can see how a total void of love could drive someone like Hitler, Mussolini, Frank, Hirohito, or Stalin just as strongly, if not more so...
That doesn't mean it's okay to murder 55 million people just because a handful of dictators felt unloved during their childhood in a few different countries.
We don't even have to go that far back. Look at extreme nationalism. Some claim it's just "love for the country," arguing you can build a love for humanity on top of it, but history has shown us time and again that it usually works the exact opposite way.

Sometimes it's just an adrenaline rush in a high-stakes situation, triggering those raw, primal instincts deep inside us.
I'm not saying this to prove everyone is a selfish jerk. Some people are, some aren't. I just don't buy that love, or the lack of it, is the sole engine behind everything humans do.

wiredmaker18 said:Sure, you could argue that, but love isn't the only thing driving people, even if it’s one of the better reasons. You could spin it any way you want—claiming every destructive act is just a desperate cry for help (aka love) or a reaction to its absence.
To me, reducing everything to that feels a bit too simplistic. People are driven by all sorts of things. It ranges from pure selfishness—which, fine, you could call self-love—to hatred and rage, which might be a plea for affection, or maybe they just aren't. Even if we tried to pin every human action to some core need for love, whether through giving it or rebelling against its lack, I don't think that covers the whole spectrum. And even if it did, the consequences of those "cries for love" range from incredibly noble to absolutely horrific.
I get how compassion and empathy drove someone like Mahatma Gandhi or Mother Teresa. But at the same time, I can see how a total void of love could drive someone like Hitler, Mussolini, Frank, Hirohito, or Stalin just as strongly, if not more so...
That doesn't mean it's okay to murder 55 million people just because a handful of dictators felt unloved during their childhood in a few different countries.
We don't even have to go that far back. Look at extreme nationalism. Some claim it's just "love for the country," arguing you can build a love for humanity on top of it, but history has shown us time and again that it usually works the exact opposite way.

Sometimes it's just an adrenaline rush in a high-stakes situation, triggering those raw, primal instincts deep inside us.
I'm not saying this to prove everyone is a selfish jerk. Some people are, some aren't. I just don't buy that love, or the lack of it, is the sole engine behind everything humans do.

Well, I personally chose to focus on that most beautiful form because it's what I know best, and I found myself really connecting with that sentiment from that Nobody quote—I just saw myself reflected in those words...

And I actually agree with this part:

wiredmaker18 said:Sure, you could argue that, but love isn't the only thing driving people, even if it’s one of the better reasons. You could spin it any way you want—claiming every destructive act is just a desperate cry for help (aka love) or a reaction to its absence.
To me, reducing everything to that feels a bit too simplistic. People are driven by all sorts of things. It ranges from pure selfishness—which, fine, you could call self-love—to hatred and rage, which might be a plea for affection, or maybe they just aren't. Even if we tried to pin every human action to some core need for love, whether through giving it or rebelling against its lack, I don't think that covers the whole spectrum. And even if it did, the consequences of those "cries for love" range from incredibly noble to absolutely horrific.
I get how compassion and empathy drove someone like Mahatma Gandhi or Mother Teresa. But at the same time, I can see how a total void of love could drive someone like Hitler, Mussolini, Frank, Hirohito, or Stalin just as strongly, if not more so...
That doesn't mean it's okay to murder 55 million people just because a handful of dictators felt unloved during their childhood in a few different countries.
We don't even have to go that far back. Look at extreme nationalism. Some claim it's just "love for the country," arguing you can build a love for humanity on top of it, but history has shown us time and again that it usually works the exact opposite way.

Sometimes it's just an adrenaline rush in a high-stakes situation, triggering those raw, primal instincts deep inside us.
I'm not saying this to prove everyone is a selfish jerk. Some people are, some aren't. I just don't buy that love, or the lack of it, is the sole engine behind everything humans do.

I recently heard a really insightful point about how even refusing to communicate is, in its own way, a call... for communication. It’s just something you have to be able to sense.

wiredmaker18 said:Sure, you could argue that, but love isn't the only thing driving people, even if it’s one of the better reasons. You could spin it any way you want—claiming every destructive act is just a desperate cry for help (aka love) or a reaction to its absence.
To me, reducing everything to that feels a bit too simplistic. People are driven by all sorts of things. It ranges from pure selfishness—which, fine, you could call self-love—to hatred and rage, which might be a plea for affection, or maybe they just aren't. Even if we tried to pin every human action to some core need for love, whether through giving it or rebelling against its lack, I don't think that covers the whole spectrum. And even if it did, the consequences of those "cries for love" range from incredibly noble to absolutely horrific.
I get how compassion and empathy drove someone like Mahatma Gandhi or Mother Teresa. But at the same time, I can see how a total void of love could drive someone like Hitler, Mussolini, Frank, Hirohito, or Stalin just as strongly, if not more so...
That doesn't mean it's okay to murder 55 million people just because a handful of dictators felt unloved during their childhood in a few different countries.
We don't even have to go that far back. Look at extreme nationalism. Some claim it's just "love for the country," arguing you can build a love for humanity on top of it, but history has shown us time and again that it usually works the exact opposite way.

Sometimes it's just an adrenaline rush in a high-stakes situation, triggering those raw, primal instincts deep inside us.
I'm not saying this to prove everyone is a selfish jerk. Some people are, some aren't. I just don't buy that love, or the lack of it, is the sole engine behind everything humans do.

Yeah, people are motivated by absolutely anything! But I don't think it's a good idea to try and boil everything down to a single cause either; we shouldn't want to, and honestly, we can't... We're here to talk, to spark new ideas, to exchange thoughts, and to learn... and even if we just barely scratch the surface of something, that's enough.

If you want a constructive conversation, you need openness and at least some level of emotional restraint, because sliding into a shouting match is way too easy.
The real trick in any debate is facing an opinion that’s the complete opposite of yours and staying chill—maybe even asking, "Okay, I don't see it that way, but walk me through it." If the other person doesn't start yelling or getting aggressive and instead sticks to calm arguments, you can end up with a talk where nobody changes their mind, but everyone stays civil and respectful.

But I'll leave that to the experts.

That's what psychologists and psychiatrists are for. The real question is, who treats them when they finally snap?🤷😁

Sometimes, when life is hitting you from every angle, it’s hard to find the patience to just sit there and take someone's outbursts, especially when you know they're just masking frustration, sadness, or rage. A cry for help?
Here's another extreme, but spot-on example. Serial killers. There's no such thing as Hannibal Lecter or Michael Myers. They're just people with broken psyches, usually victims of childhood abuse. But no matter how much empathy you have for them or how well you understand their impulses, those types have to be removed from society because their behavior is antisocial, illegal, and plain dangerous.
Should we throw them into cages, feed them nothing but bread and water, and keep them shackled until they die? No. Does the government actually have the will or the budget to provide lifelong psychological care for everyone? No.

Look, I’m not trying to be aggressive here, but I really feel the need to circle back to an earlier point...

wiredmaker18 said:Sure, you could argue that, but love isn't the only thing driving people, even if it’s one of the better reasons. You could spin it any way you want—claiming every destructive act is just a desperate cry for help (aka love) or a reaction to its absence.
To me, reducing everything to that feels a bit too simplistic. People are driven by all sorts of things. It ranges from pure selfishness—which, fine, you could call self-love—to hatred and rage, which might be a plea for affection, or maybe they just aren't. Even if we tried to pin every human action to some core need for love, whether through giving it or rebelling against its lack, I don't think that covers the whole spectrum. And even if it did, the consequences of those "cries for love" range from incredibly noble to absolutely horrific.
I get how compassion and empathy drove someone like Mahatma Gandhi or Mother Teresa. But at the same time, I can see how a total void of love could drive someone like Hitler, Mussolini, Frank, Hirohito, or Stalin just as strongly, if not more so...
That doesn't mean it's okay to murder 55 million people just because a handful of dictators felt unloved during their childhood in a few different countries.
We don't even have to go that far back. Look at extreme nationalism. Some claim it's just "love for the country," arguing you can build a love for humanity on top of it, but history has shown us time and again that it usually works the exact opposite way.

Sometimes it's just an adrenaline rush in a high-stakes situation, triggering those raw, primal instincts deep inside us.
I'm not saying this to prove everyone is a selfish jerk. Some people are, some aren't. I just don't buy that love, or the lack of it, is the sole engine behind everything humans do.

Sure, maybe, but I just don't think being unloved or dealing with your own deep-seated frustrations allows you to take it out on everyone else; it doesn't give anyone a pass or an amnesty from the responsibility of the wrongs they commit against others, nor does it lessen the weight of those injustices, regardless of whatever messy life story led the perpetrator there. You can try to understand it, analyze it, or break down the psychology behind it... but you can't use it as a justification. In fact, I actually think it's a much bigger act of love toward those victims to refuse to excuse the perpetrator based on their upbringing or hardships, and instead insist that they face the reality of their actions and own up to them.

wiredmaker18 said:Sure, you could argue that, but love isn't the only thing driving people, even if it’s one of the better reasons. You could spin it any way you want—claiming every destructive act is just a desperate cry for help (aka love) or a reaction to its absence.
To me, reducing everything to that feels a bit too simplistic. People are driven by all sorts of things. It ranges from pure selfishness—which, fine, you could call self-love—to hatred and rage, which might be a plea for affection, or maybe they just aren't. Even if we tried to pin every human action to some core need for love, whether through giving it or rebelling against its lack, I don't think that covers the whole spectrum. And even if it did, the consequences of those "cries for love" range from incredibly noble to absolutely horrific.
I get how compassion and empathy drove someone like Mahatma Gandhi or Mother Teresa. But at the same time, I can see how a total void of love could drive someone like Hitler, Mussolini, Frank, Hirohito, or Stalin just as strongly, if not more so...
That doesn't mean it's okay to murder 55 million people just because a handful of dictators felt unloved during their childhood in a few different countries.
We don't even have to go that far back. Look at extreme nationalism. Some claim it's just "love for the country," arguing you can build a love for humanity on top of it, but history has shown us time and again that it usually works the exact opposite way.

Sometimes it's just an adrenaline rush in a high-stakes situation, triggering those raw, primal instincts deep inside us.
I'm not saying this to prove everyone is a selfish jerk. Some people are, some aren't. I just don't buy that love, or the lack of it, is the sole engine behind everything humans do.

It's not millions, it's just one individual at a time... but it reminds me of what someone else pointed out in a different thread: "How can a single person organize a military coup in a foreign nation, seize control of that entire government, establish a brutal junta, wipe out all active and potential opposition, and implement a reign of terror... etcetera..." And if you ask me, we see these exact same patterns of violence and terror happening within our own borders and everywhere else too.

wiredmaker18 said:Sure, you could argue that, but love isn't the only thing driving people, even if it’s one of the better reasons. You could spin it any way you want—claiming every destructive act is just a desperate cry for help (aka love) or a reaction to its absence.
To me, reducing everything to that feels a bit too simplistic. People are driven by all sorts of things. It ranges from pure selfishness—which, fine, you could call self-love—to hatred and rage, which might be a plea for affection, or maybe they just aren't. Even if we tried to pin every human action to some core need for love, whether through giving it or rebelling against its lack, I don't think that covers the whole spectrum. And even if it did, the consequences of those "cries for love" range from incredibly noble to absolutely horrific.
I get how compassion and empathy drove someone like Mahatma Gandhi or Mother Teresa. But at the same time, I can see how a total void of love could drive someone like Hitler, Mussolini, Frank, Hirohito, or Stalin just as strongly, if not more so...
That doesn't mean it's okay to murder 55 million people just because a handful of dictators felt unloved during their childhood in a few different countries.
We don't even have to go that far back. Look at extreme nationalism. Some claim it's just "love for the country," arguing you can build a love for humanity on top of it, but history has shown us time and again that it usually works the exact opposite way.

Sometimes it's just an adrenaline rush in a high-stakes situation, triggering those raw, primal instincts deep inside us.
I'm not saying this to prove everyone is a selfish jerk. Some people are, some aren't. I just don't buy that love, or the lack of it, is the sole engine behind everything humans do.

That specific kind of "love" practically starves without enemies. It brings to mind that Nietzschean idea: "Enemies, there are no enemies." And when you run out of them, you just have to start manufacturing them.

Just dropping this here real quick because I need to catch some sleep, and honestly, I’m feeling a bit under the weather... not the kind of thing you want in your system.
Look, obviously you can't just take your frustrations out on other people, whether that's a slap in the face or ten years in a Gulag, but certain individuals—serial killers, for instance—just need to be removed from society to stop the bleeding. Even if someone is completely detached from reality, unfit for trial, or can't wrap their head around why what they're doing is wrong, we have to prevent them from hurting anyone, including themselves. It's on the government to allocate the funds to figure out how to help these people while also studying them to understand the human psyche. Maybe then we can actually prevent another kid from turning into a sociopath. Sure, society and upbringing play a part, but it's all connected...

wiredmaker18 said:If you want a constructive conversation, you need openness and at least some level of emotional restraint, because sliding into a shouting match is way too easy.
The real trick in any debate is facing an opinion that’s the complete opposite of yours and staying chill—maybe even asking, "Okay, I don't see it that way, but walk me through it." If the other person doesn't start yelling or getting aggressive and instead sticks to calm arguments, you can end up with a talk where nobody changes their mind, but everyone stays civil and respectful.

But I'll leave that to the experts.

That's what psychologists and psychiatrists are for. The real question is, who treats them when they finally snap?🤷😁

Sometimes, when life is hitting you from every angle, it’s hard to find the patience to just sit there and take someone's outbursts, especially when you know they're just masking frustration, sadness, or rage. A cry for help?
Here's another extreme, but spot-on example. Serial killers. There's no such thing as Hannibal Lecter or Michael Myers. They're just people with broken psyches, usually victims of childhood abuse. But no matter how much empathy you have for them or how well you understand their impulses, those types have to be removed from society because their behavior is antisocial, illegal, and plain dangerous.
Should we throw them into cages, feed them nothing but bread and water, and keep them shackled until they die? No. Does the government actually have the will or the budget to provide lifelong psychological care for everyone? No.

That would be awesome, but let’s be real—it’s a total rarity. Every time someone brings up how toxic and intolerant conversations have become, I can't help but think about this one "model" for debate that we desperately need to bring into our halls of government and every major institution. It's actually inspired by Native American tribal traditions, specifically how groups like a Council of Elders would handle heavy discussions. The idea is beautiful, honestly. You all sit in a circle—if possible—with some symbolic object right in the middle, like a staff or a peace pipe. If someone feels they truly have something worth saying, something that actually matters to the group, they don't just shout over everyone. They have to physically get up, walk to the center, pick up the object, and then they begin. Simple, right? But man, imagine if our politicians actually had to do that instead of just screaming at each other. Look, I’m just gonna lay it all out there. I know I can ramble. I know I get way too deep into the weeds sometimes. It’s a problem, okay? I’m a work in progress. But honestly, I feel like I have to say this stuff. If I don't get it out, I'll probably explode. It’s weird, man. You spend so much time thinking you have everything figured out. You build this little mental map of how life is supposed to go. Then, boom. Reality hits you like a freight train. Everything changes. Your plans? Gone. Your assumptions? Total garbage. And you're just left standing there, staring at the wreckage, wondering where you went wrong. I used to think I was smarter than I actually am. Big mistake. Huge. I thought I could predict the moves people were going to make. I thought I could see around corners. Spoiler alert: I couldn't. I was just being arrogant. And now? Now I’m just trying to figure out how to be a decent human being in a world that feels increasingly chaotic. It's exhausting. Trying to stay positive when everything feels like it's falling apart. Trying to find meaning in the mess. Sometimes I feel like I'm shouting into a void, hoping someone—anyone—is actually listening. But then I realize maybe the point isn't even about being heard. Maybe the point is just about speaking your truth, even if your voice shakes. Even if you sound like a complete idiot. Especially if you sound like a complete idiot.Look, there’s one golden rule here: as long as someone is holding the floor, nobody—and I mean absolutely nobody—is allowed to cut them off with those annoying little interruptions. You wait until they're totally finished with their monologue, then they set the object back down, and finally, it's the next person's turn to step up. This whole setup basically relies on everyone having at least a shred of decency. It assumes people aren't going to abuse the position just to drone on forever (though, let's be real, we all know how often people try to stretch their time out as long as possible). 😁...and honestly? It’s a total game-changer. We're talking massive wins here.

One guy starts talking, and suddenly everyone just shuts up and listens.
Look, this whole thing really highlights how much weight an object can carry. It’s not exactly easy to just stand up and grab something like that when everyone’s eyes are glued to you, right? You’ve gotta be 100% certain that what you actually have to say is worth the spotlight. Now that I'm thinking about it, it kind of reminds me of just stepping up to a podium at a town hall meeting. But I guess there’s a huge difference here. In a circle, everyone is on equal footing, which feels different. The object itself acts as a signal that the speaker is the one with the floor, but more importantly, holding onto it actually keeps you grounded. It settles those nerves and stops you from doing that awkward, frantic hand-waving thing we all do when we get nervous.
The whole discussion just goes totally silent. Everyone’s just locked in, super focused, and zero distractions.

wiredmaker18 said:If you want a constructive conversation, you need openness and at least some level of emotional restraint, because sliding into a shouting match is way too easy.
The real trick in any debate is facing an opinion that’s the complete opposite of yours and staying chill—maybe even asking, "Okay, I don't see it that way, but walk me through it." If the other person doesn't start yelling or getting aggressive and instead sticks to calm arguments, you can end up with a talk where nobody changes their mind, but everyone stays civil and respectful.

But I'll leave that to the experts.

That's what psychologists and psychiatrists are for. The real question is, who treats them when they finally snap?🤷😁

Sometimes, when life is hitting you from every angle, it’s hard to find the patience to just sit there and take someone's outbursts, especially when you know they're just masking frustration, sadness, or rage. A cry for help?
Here's another extreme, but spot-on example. Serial killers. There's no such thing as Hannibal Lecter or Michael Myers. They're just people with broken psyches, usually victims of childhood abuse. But no matter how much empathy you have for them or how well you understand their impulses, those types have to be removed from society because their behavior is antisocial, illegal, and plain dangerous.
Should we throw them into cages, feed them nothing but bread and water, and keep them shackled until they die? No. Does the government actually have the will or the budget to provide lifelong psychological care for everyone? No.

It’s honestly wild how messed up things are lately. It feels like we’re living in a world where actual criminals are walking out of prison faster than they can even get through the front doors. Meanwhile, you’ve got totally innocent people stuck behind bars for ages just because of some tiny, insignificant bank transfer or a minor financial hiccup. And then—get this—you look at actual war criminals and they barely serve a few years before being back on the streets. The math just doesn't add up, man. It's broken.
Look, this is exactly what happens when you build a system that prioritizes being "nice" over actually being fair. Don't get me wrong—nobody needs to be tortured or anything, but we really need to stop patting people on the head just because they were absolute jerks. We should be giving out love, sure, but let’s be real: that usually isn't about handing out therapy sessions or throwing taxpayer money at these failing projects that barely get any results. If we want to actually shake things up, maybe the government should focus on something more direct. Like, instead of a handout, why not try to reconnect these people with their parents or the folks who actually caused them all that childhood trauma? Or even set up some controlled encounters with their victims? That might actually trigger something inside them. Real change comes from facing the mess you made, not from a participation trophy.