I've noticed that sometimes it's easier for me to express my feelings, vent, and share personal struggles with complete strangers on the internet than with my own family, friends, or loved ones.

I wonder why that is. Maybe it's because strangers don't know us personally, so we feel less judged? Or maybe it's easier to be vulnerable with someone who isn't involved in our everyday lives.

Sometimes I feel more comfortable expressing my deepest thoughts to people I've never met than to people who have known me for years.

Does anyone else feel this way? Why do you think it's easier to open up to strangers than to the people closest to us?

I’ve always been a lone wolf somewhat. Much more now in my 30th year.

I have a small group of friends but I spend the majority of my time alone chasing my dream which is music. But in my solitude am I missing out on life?

The majority of my time is spent chasing my dreams alone and I tell myself that’s more important than any socialising. Being alone has genuinely made me know myself and become a much more confident person.

However I have often felt in this life that I am no one’s first person to call. I’ve always been the backup who everyone likes but rarely the go to. At least up to this point in life I had one best friend and we were inseparable, a very deep friendship. Soul tied if you will. But we drifted and since then connections feel more shallow. I am someone who needs deep connection and I’ve struggled to find it since.

Maybe the solitude has just become less painful? I always have to be the one to message people to make plans and they rarely come to me. So maybe just loving myself felt like enough? Maybe I’m just spending more time alone because the connections I crave with people are no longer fulfilling like that friendship I had? They feel empty.

I consider myself a very real and honest person and I think most people just want to be around fun in this life, I get it. I just wonder if there are people like me out there that I should still me making an effort to connect with instead of just chasing my music dream and feeling my life will work out after that. I am just putting life on hold till that becomes a reality somewhat perhaps.

I’m conflicted as I enjoy the process and love chasing the dream, but at the same point I am not having much human connection along the way. It’s just increasingly hard to find the right human connection these days, and here lies my issue with pushing to find it.

Howw?

Isn't it moral to give back to everyone? Most to all people have worked towards something before being disabled from physical limitations like disabilities and mental problems.

Isn't it thoughtless to not give to everyone? Only to those who directly benefits you? That would be more selfish than giving to give stuff, only those those who benefit you. So morality isn't really there unless you give back to all of humanity. Not just those like you or who give something to you. Thats mututal benefit, symbiotic, not morality. Its still selfish and thoughtless.

Why will no one reawaken to see their true selves and reveal it for others despite the mob with pitchforks> I have been immoral, but I strive and change my behavior around more moral stances with what I just said in mind.

I'm curious to hear your perspectives on whose teachings are higher and more profound, and what makes you think so.

I think a new party is needed. Take the best from both camps, sprinkle in Facts and common sense. Live buy our own 10 commandments!

1. Everyone is treated equally and punished equally.

2. There are 2 sexes X/Y it’s just science

3. Term limits for all of government. 2 years max.

4. Corporate gauging is forbidden. A 37% max profit instituted and the remaining money goes to public in form of dividends and to lower all cost.

5. Teachers get 150k a year and we allocate more to every state to reduce class sizes. Get rid of the teachers union and use those allocations toward more teachers!

6. The police are our friends! Our first line of defense against nefarious actors! We need them and we need to increase inner city presence across the country.

7. Professors, politicians, and any profession delegated to teach our children, family members, or anyone must be US born. Love our country 1st

8. Privatize incarcerations. Build more jails and keep the mentally ill, insane, repeat offenders where they belong!

9. Zero tolerance for rape, killing, and child trafficking! Automatic life in prison.

10. More mental health programs and out reach.

If we just did these things our country would be better off in many ways.

I’m genuinely curious what people think here, because the overlap always stands out to me. I’m curious how people categorize it when you look at the shared background. A lot of the moves in pro wrestling are real MMA moves, and the history connects in interesting ways. Gene LeBell—a judo legend and MMA pioneer—started out as a pro wrestler. The first guy to beat MMA legend Royce Gracie was a pro wrestler, Kazushi Sakuraba. Plus, plenty of MMA fighters switched over, like UFC Superfight Champion and Hall of Famer Dan Severn, UFC Hall of Famer Ken Shamrock, Ronda Rousey, former UFC fighter Matt Riddle, and former Bellator fighter Valerie Loureda (Lola Vice). With all that in mind, do you think pro wrestling is the closest thing to scripted MMA, or would be it to something else?

Why are humans the only animals on planet that require clothes and shoes? Animals can walk and live in forest, desert, jungles without shoes or clothing to keep warm. Yet humans wouldn’t survive long. So are humans native to planet earth? Or did we come from somewhere else?

Imagine yourself living outside in the winter. You wouldn’t survive without jacket.

Imagine yourself in the hot desert. You couldn’t survive without shelter and protection.

You can’t walk on stones or forest with a bare feet without hurting your foot.

Every single other animal on our planet has been designed for planet Earth, the birds, the little animals, the big animals… Except for humans.

It really makes you realize maybe we’re not indigenous to planet earth?

1. You've experienced it yourself

2. You admit you don't know

Is everything else just dogma?

So does everyone in the world believe they’re “a good person”? Or do you think some people are doing the wrong thing and they just don’t give a shit. Idk. I personally find it hard to believe that people are out here trying to do wrong just for the sake of it. Personally when i do something i know isn’t right like disrespecting someone or telling a lie. Anything i feel isn’t the right thing to do. I always find some reason to justify it. Come up with excuses on why the thing i did “wasn’t that bad”. But other than that i try to do the right thing most of the time. Is this a universal struggle? Is everyone right in their own eyes? It just makes you realize that sin might just be a product of believing a lie and acting on it. and in our heads the lie is “good enough” or for the “greater good” which is why we act on it and hopefully realize it was wrong. Am i insane or just too high or does this whole thing make sense.

Sometimes I have the feeling that if no one sees me—my true self, my thoughts, my creative work, or if I don’t leave any memories with anyone — then it’s as if I don’t exist, even when I’m alone doing things I love. Because of OCD, I often fall into periods of isolation; there’s this pervasive sense that you are all alone in life and that no one truly knows you — and it’s so disheartening.
I don’t always have the energy to express myself or socialize, but if I don’t do it, nothing makes sense.

There is a version of yourself that exists entirely in your imagination. It is the person you believe you are: your intentions, your values, your principles, your explanations for why you do the things you do.
But there is another version of you that exists in your actions. This version doesn't care about your explanations. It is revealed through your habits, your reactions, your decisions when nobody is watching and the things you repeatedly tolerate.
The uncomfortable part of self-awareness is discovering that these two people don't always agree.
You might consider yourself patient until someone tests your patience. You might consider yourself loyal until loyalty becomes inconvenient. You might believe you are emotionally independent until someone you care about threatens to leave.

Perhaps it is about discovering where your perception of yourself differs from reality.
A question worth sitting with: If someone observed your life without hearing a single explanation from you, what would they conclude about the person you are?

I’ve been thinking about this quite a bit recently, particularly about my first love.
He was my first experience of what I’d describe as really intense, passionate, almost all-consuming love. We had actually been broken up for several years, and I’d been in another relationship a couple of years since we separated, he sadly passed away three years ago.
Even after all these years, I sometimes find myself comparing other relationships to what I felt with him.
I’m currently in a long-term relationship, and I do love my partner very much. However, if I’m being completely honest, I’ve never quite experienced that same intensity again. There’s love and a genuine connection, but that same fire, passion and almost overwhelming feeling I remember having when I first fell in love just isn’t there in the same way.
It got me wondering: is that because your first love is such a unique experience? Is it because everything is new, you’re experiencing those feelings for the first time and everything feels so intense? Or does love naturally change as you get older and experience more relationships?
I also wonder whether it’s partly down to the experiences you have as you get older. When I was younger, I think I viewed relationships very differently. I almost imagined being in love as your whole world revolving around each other. But as I’ve got older and experienced dating and long-term relationships, I’ve realised there’s so much more to life than just having a partner. I still love deeply, but I don’t necessarily feel that same need for a relationship to be my entire world.
Sometimes I wonder whether we’re subconsciously chasing that initial feeling, hoping someone will make us feel the way our first love did. It’s almost like chasing the first high. You remember how incredible that initial experience felt, and you keep hoping to experience it again, but perhaps nothing ever quite replicates it because you can never experience it for the first time twice.
I’d really love to hear other people’s experiences. Have you ever fallen in love again with that same intensity, passion and fire as your first love? Or have you found that love changes as you get older, and perhaps that’s not necessarily a bad thing?

to have a rough life first then a happy one

or

to have a happy life first then a rough one

I was reading Osho and came across this passage, and I found his perspective quite interesting, especially the way he connects the fall of Rome, the rise of Christianity, and the present situation in America.

I'd like to hear what others make of his observations. What stands out to you when you read this? I'm particularly curious about the different perspectives people might have on what he's trying to convey.

Here's the passage:

Your question is that Rome, its civilization, its great culture, suddenly fell and disappeared, leaving only beautiful ruins. It happened at a time when Christianity was at its peak and Rome had become the citadel of Christianity. Yes, Christianity is responsible for Rome's fall. You will have to understand a few things.

Roman people were pagans, they had never been religious. They had never been interested in airy- fairy things, they were not esoteric at all; very earthbound, very earthly people, solid. Christianity condemned them, condemned their paganism, condemned their life of "eat, drink and be merry."

That was their whole religion in three words - the simplest religion in the world. You cannot make a more condensed catechism than this: Eat, drink, be merry. That is the whole Roman philosophy.

Christianity condemned them, condemned them so much that they stopped being pagans and started becoming religious. They dropped their old way of living joyously, luxuriously. They dropped being warriors, they dropped being imperialists; they dropped expanding, they started shrinking.

When they became Christians they started believing, "Blessed are the poor." And they wanted to get through the doors of heaven, so they started becoming poor. First psychologically you start shrinking, and then outwardly you start shrinking.

There was a time when all roads led to Rome, Rome was the world capital. Now Rome does not matter at all: whether it exists at all or not will not make any difference. Who bothers about Rome now? This is what Christianity has done to the Roman empire, culture, civilization, just with the condemnation of their material life, the condemnation of Zorba - and the Roman people were just Zorbas.

The trouble is that just by condemning the Zorba you cannot transform people into Buddhas. If you condemn them as being Zorbas then you simply destroy them. You are not a help, you are simply poisoning them. The Zorba has to be made into the foundation for the Buddha. Don't condemn the foundation; otherwise the whole edifice will become impossible. Christians committed the crime, and Rome suffered.

The same is the situation of America today. It is at the peak of its wealth, scientific knowledge, technological expertise - and it is getting caught in the hands of the Christians. Christians have never been so powerful in America as they are today.

Americans should learn a lesson from Rome; otherwise history will be repeated and the law of mediocrity will go on functioning; but I don't think Americans are going to listen.

Just a blank guess— This is who you are to judge 👀

(Ps, kimko means different)

Your displeasure shows, I didn't mean to show disrespect, but as I've told you, I'm not well-endorsed in the workings of social linkages. Hate me as you would, like all those who've spoken to me to know right from wrong, to be with who values you, yet when you've not got a roster full, make do with what you've got. A rule this was I learned by heart. Death sounds pleasuring. I don't know of the workings of this world. Truly, I apologize if my treacherous tongue had told you anything. I had tried to cut it off. I really did. If only I could commit every time a friendship falls apart, mind darting to the past. Oh God, my heart can't take a repetition. Killing me, knife twisted, a sinister smile. I wouldn't blame you, for I was in the wrong. I don't know what my mistake is, but I am always in the wrong, my treacherous tongue. If only I had the courage, I would have be mute. But once again, I was born a writer. Cut off my hand. But I do not have the courage. Can't stop talking. "I exaggerate," you say. I apologize. I wish I were dead a dozen a day. Try to tie a knot round my neck, but alas, I know not to knot. But I also have lacked the courage. Speak to me, not speak behind my back. I've not endured death, but appeasing it sounds. Speak to me. I'm a writer, but I exaggerate. I apologize so you turn away. Your heart desires nothing from me, just like the rest. Wish I weren't born so I wouldn't have to go through the pain of death as I'm not brave. Every whisper leaves me paranoid, breath stuck in the throat. I wish my soul left me. I truly do. What happened to me that day was my fault, and what happened years after was mine too. Not his, all mine. I am to blame. My assault, I initiated, they all say. I asked for it. I am at fault. Slept with a knife. I feared for my life. I am to blame after all. No one tends to understand at first that all hate me, but in weeks another name is to be added to the endless one of eight haters. Kill me at once. I do not wish life. This is a curse, karma. But what have I done to deserve this? For I am sorry for being born as well, for I know matter of fact I am not to enter Eden as I'm impure. Am I to blame? Are they blamed? No, punishment abided by God unfair. Take me to a place of worship and I shall tell him so, burning him. Oh dear Kimko, a belief, a strength he was, but he never heard the gruesome cries of mine. Scars littered as if stars on my light body. Oh God, what have you done? For I have realized I'm not to blame, justice I deserved that your crude, cruel self denied.

Apparently, everything you know is wrong. You’ve been lied to. You’re doing XYZ wrong. A research paper says you should wash your face with poop. Stop doing XYZ. Everything you knew about XYZ is a lie.

Every other scroll on insta reels and theres a new revelation, a new universal rule, a new expert explaining how the world actually works. And with such authority and confidence that it makes me want to throw my phone at their faces.

It’s fucking annoying. And honestly, people are dumb.

Sometimes I literally feel like doing epistemological gymnastics in the comments, or just putting out my most cancellable, unpopular or polarising opinions. Like when I think something or someone is ugly. Or when I think a belief someone is selling is limiting, arbitrary or just plain bullshit.

I mean, literally: HOW THE FUCK DO YOU KNOW?

How do you know your moral framework is correct? How do you know your interpretation of a tradition is the truth? How do you know that the thing you read in a study applies universally? How do you know the belief you inherited is anything more than a belief you inherited?

What even are truth, correct, real and good?

We take a story, repeat it enough times, give it a fancy explanation, attach a moral judgement or a scientific-sounding headline, and suddenly it becomes a fact everyone is expected to accept
And assume by default.

There are things we cannot recognise or know. And we cannot know what we cannot know. We can try to get closer to understanding certain things, but can we ever know anything completely, without leaving room for the possibility that we might be wrong?

Maybe that’s simply the condition of being human.

We build models and make guesses to understand what we can of what we cannot fully know. We use these models to make the experience of life easier, more navigable, perhaps even possible. That is called knowledge. We use it as a pair glasses we choose to see the world through, because we have observed experience enough/ someone told us they have observed it enough to think this XYZ model helps make the experience easier and better,

Thats literally all everything is.
A story,
a guess.
And people move around thinking and acting like what they “know” is the absolute truth.

And once you notice that distinction, you start seeing it everywhere.

Its annoying af.

Having said that, this is just my opinion, I dont even agree with some of my own opinions from yesterday lol so you dont have to agree with me, im one of the people on the internet after all.

So you think for yourself.

I just wanted to rant.

Thank you for coming to my ted talk.

So tell me guys,how comes you'll meet one of the greatest, funniest,most intelligent person but then life keeps showing them shege.

Honestly,I don't think some people deserve some things they go through..esp because they're beautiful inside out.🫶

I just don't get it,what's the point of being a good person then the world hitting you with all the bad things?😭

I'm sure everyone has probably heard of this scenario countless times already and I'm not here to convince anyone which button is the right button to press, but more of an investigation into how this scenario, if it were to truly happen, will play out realistically.

There's different variations of this scenario, but for this discussion, I'm going to go with the 10,000 random people version.

The scenario:

You are one of 10,000 people selected at random from the general population. Each sits alone in a room with two buttons, red and blue. Nobody can communicate with anyone, and nobody can see what anyone else presses. The rules are: If more than half press red, everyone who pressed blue dies. If more than half press blue, nobody dies.

The question: which button do you press?

The first thing we need to do is understand the payoff matrix.

You press Red and it's a Blue majority, you live

You press Red and it's a Red majority, you live

You press blue and it's a Blue majority, you live

You press blue and it's a Red majority, you die

Pressing red is the only button that will guarantee your survival no matter what happens, while Blue is a conditional button, there is a risk of death if the conditions are not met.

A lot of online discussion regarding which button to press really comes down to two main points. Red pressers sees that red will guarantee their own survival, thus it's the only rational choice for them to make, while Blue pressers sees that pressing blue allows them to save others that had pressed blue.

Blue pressers wants other to press blue as well as it is the only morally correct choice (which is true), and hate that red pressers are being selfish. While red pressers either fails to see why people would even risk death to press blue in the first place because if simply nobody just pressed blue in the first place, nobody's life is at risk, while some do understand but their own survival still takes priority.

Now I want to get into what if this red or blue button scenario were to truly happen and 10,000 random people were selected in a global population and put into this isolated room with the two buttons and these conditions, what would realistically happen.

First we have to understand a fundamental distinction on what this scenario is asking. When it is an online poll, it is asking if you would publicly endorse being a moral and self-sacrificing individual, but when it is happening to you in real life with real death as the stakes, then what it is fundamentally asking you is if you would truly risk death for unseen, unknown, unverified strangers.

What people say in a safe, comfortable setting is a different thing from what they do when death is real. Online, you can believe you will be the good person. But in that actual room, the mental calculation collapses to one line: press red and I live, press blue and I could die.

Clicking blue in an online poll costs nothing, so the poll counts people who would say blue, not people who would bet their life on it. Comments add social reward for the answer that looks generous, though red collects upvotes too. Seeing blue ahead in one poll, or red leading by only a bit in another, creates an illusion that blue only needs a push, and that illusion gets rallied around “just get everyone to press blue”. That rallying is exactly the coordination the real scenario forbid. In the actual real life scenario, you cannot coordinate, you cannot try to convince others to press blue, you just have to hope they do. Typing in the comments and arguing with others as to how they should just press blue is doing the thing that the actual real life version actively prevents them from doing.

A stated intention is a calm self predicting a frightened self. People are poor at imagining how they will behave under strong visceral states such as fear, pain or hunger. Psychologists call this the empathy gap between "cold" and "hot" states. In the comment section you are calm, comfortable and unthreatened, and you project that calm onto your future self. The real self at the button is neither calm nor comfortable.

Hypotheticals are processed abstractly, while real stakes are processed concretely. At a distance, people think in terms of values and what kind of person they want to be "I would never let others die". Up close, attention shifts to feasibility and consequences: my finger, this button, my death. The question stops being "what is right?" and becomes "what happens to me?"

Certainty beats probability. People overweight outcomes that are certain relative to outcomes that are merely likely, a pattern known as the certainty effect. Red offers guaranteed survival. Blue offers survival only if thousands of strangers you cannot see do the same thing. Even at favorable odds the guarantee wins, and at unfavorable odds it wins easily.

Nobody wants to be the one who trusted and lost. Blue requires trusting people you cannot see, hear or verify. There is no reputation at stake, no chance to build trust, and no way to adjust after you see what others do. Being exploited, and dying for it, feels worse than having been cautious, so people avoid the role of the trusting loser.

Your vote is almost never the decisive one. The cost of blue is personal and near-certain if red wins. The benefit is shared, and your single press changes the outcome only in the unlikely event that the split lands almost exactly on the line. Intuitively, people feel that one vote among 10,000 changes nothing, while the risk to themselves is vivid.

Fear narrows thinking. Under acute threat, attention narrows and people tend to fall back on fast, self-protective responses instead of slow deliberation. A panicking person is not running a moral argument, instead, they are reaching for the button that guarantees their survival.

Heroism is definitely real, but it is vivid. People do sometimes risk their lives for strangers, but usually for someone they can see or hear, right in front of them. Firefighters run into a burning building with people in there, people jump onto the train tracks to rescue someone that's fallen on the tracks because that person is right in front of them visually. Here the people you would be protecting are invisible and unverifiable. The impulse that moves people toward the vivid victim has nothing to attach to.

Not everyone that says they will press blue online and meant it would panic if they were in this real scenario, they might be able to stay calm and rational, and I call these people 'The Calculators.'

Most calculators would convert to red too, and they do it without panic. They start by wanting to save others, then ask whether enough other people will risk it as well. To estimate that, they think about what the rest of the room is likely to do, realizing that people would panic when facing real death and switch to red and also realize the rest of the room that stayed calm like them is running the same calculation, and that each person knows the others are thinking about them too. "I know that they know that I know that they know..." The loop has no floor of trust to land on, so it settles on the most likely reading, which is that the others are backing out as well. Everyone has the same reasons to doubt everyone else, especially since there is no communication between anyone else. The conclusion is that blue probably will not reach a majority and red is the safe move, so they switch calmly, even if they hate it.

What the calculators are weighing makes the switch easy. Blue offers a very low chance of success, and failure means their own death. Red offers guaranteed survival. Very few people, even well-intentioned ones, will choose a very high chance of dying over a certain path to living.

The poll and the room ask different questions as mentioned earlier. The poll asks whether, in public and at zero personal cost, you will endorse the option that looks generous. The actual room in real life asks whether, alone and with death as a possible result, you will press the button that can kill you to protect strangers you cannot see. Many people answer the first question and feel they have answered the second.

The shift this creates runs only one way. People who already choose red online when the choice has no consequences have no new reason to switch to blue once the choice can kill them. Higher stakes only make the safe option stronger. The only people who might change are those who chose blue when it was free, and higher stakes give them reasons to drop it. There really isn't anyone that would actively choose the self-preservation button when there's no danger to themselves but suddenly becomes willing to risk death for unseen strangers just because the risk is now real.

The red or blue button scenario is very abstract, and abstraction makes blue feel cheap. So put the same rules in a place where everyone knows what fear does.

A thousand people are inside a large building that is on fire. Each has a private exit directly in front of them, so nobody can see who leaves and nobody can organize. Anyone can leave at any moment, and leaving costs the person who leaves nothing.

Everyone inside has been told two things ahead of time:

First, the building itself can only take so many exits. Every door that opens weakens it, and the 501st person to leave pushes it past its limit. The collapse does not happen at that moment, but once the limit is passed it cannot be stopped, and the building will come down by about the 20th minute, killing everyone still inside.

Second, an announcement has told them that a fire truck will arrive at the 21st minute and save everyone, as long as the building is still standing. If 500 or fewer people leave, the building holds, the truck arrives, and everyone lives, whoever left. If more than 500 leave, the truck arrives one minute too late.

That timing means nobody gets to wait it out. Everyone has 20 minutes, and by the end of them everyone must have chosen: out the door, or still inside when the building comes down or the truck arrives.

If you were to map the conditions from the button scenario to this fire building scenario.

The exit is red: guaranteed survival.

Staying is blue: it works only if enough strangers do the same.

A collapse is a red majority, and the people it kills are the ones who stayed.

The fire truck arriving is a blue majority.

Now ask the question the button makes hard to ask: how many people just leave? You do not need a study to answer it. Nearly everyone leaves. The exit is right there, the fire is real, and staying means sitting in the heat for 20 minutes on the hope that at least 499 people you cannot see are doing the same, and that the building won't collapse.

A reasonable estimate is that about 990 of the 1,000 walk out. A few stay because they trust the announcement and hope enough others do too. A few stay because they want to be someone who tried to save everyone: they know it probably will not work, but they would rather die having made the attempt than live having walked away from it. And a few never took in the danger. That is a pure judgment number, not a measurement.

The building needs 500 stayers and gets about ten, which is fifty times too few.

The fire also shows the earlier points at work: the calm self that says “I would stay” is not the self standing in smoke. 20 minutes of thinking does not rescue blue, because it gives the calculators time to work out that the others are leaving too. And staying is not one decision but a decision renewed every minute, so a person who starts as a stayer has to keep choosing it as the smoke thickens.

Nobody inside this building thinks the people who run are doing anything wrong. They took the open door, and the rule is what turned staying into a gamble. The fire lets you see it without any of the arithmetic: when the door is open and nothing stops you from walking through it, you leave.

Now I know that this fire building analogy is not a perfect one-to-one comparison, but the goal of it is that it has the same structure as the red or blue button scenario, it just makes it very explicit as to what the two options mean when it's real life and death stakes involved. It becomes very clear that choosing the option where you have to depend on other unseen, unknown strangers to also bet their life as well when a guaranteed path of survival is in front of them is a losing bet.

All in all, once you get down to it, if this red or button scenario where to truly happen, red will almost certainly win by a landslide because of all the reasons discussed earlier.

Now keep in mind I didn't mention the ethical or moral side of things because it really doesn't change the underlying psychology of what happens under terminal stress, choosing blue is the moral option, but given what we know about human psychology, most would switch to red regardless.

Knowing what is moral and doing it when your life is on the line are two different skills, and the second is much rarer than people admit.

It hurts so much to make exception for someone, say goodbye to all your morals and be faced with reality of the fact that they will never change for the better. it hurts the most when you break your own rules for someone and lower your guard, only to end up neglected, sad on your birthday and ignored when you are sick. it feel like a betrayal.