This might come across as a strange question to some, but I’ve noticed that the world functions in an odd manner where people who are voluntarily evil or demeaning of others are usually perceived as achievers, life of the party or the vibe makers. They’d like to flaunt their prowess over people to gain a sense of gratification for their ego. Even if they’re the most incompetent people in terms of real value in any field whatsoever.

On the contrary, no matter how good you behave and wish well on others, be morally aligned; they either take you for granted or do things that harm your reputation either way and paint you in the most derogatory way possible. In terms of common sense, this is a misalignment.

It has nothing to do with strength, command or the resourcefulness of a person, but sadly highlights the sadistic nature of most or almost all humans.

What baffles me most is that the evil ones are glorified, followed and rewarded regardless, while the one who’s genuine is sidelined and isolated. In terms of group dynamics, hierarchy and even interpersonal relationships.

What are your thoughts about this?

Or perhaps, to put it less dramatically, what if most of the media we consume today is simply lost 20 years from now? So much of it exists exclusively on streaming platforms and digital formats, with very little being physically preserved. What happens when those platforms disappear or get lost like how almost all Silent era films were lost or a Library of Alexandria 2.0 situation Or If we were to experience another solar flare/CME close to power level as the Carrington Event of 1859

Like just imagine Youtube being closed down abruptly when it’s the biggest media source for almost everything

ive been reading about structuralism, the idea that things mean something mostly because of how they relate to other things, not on their own. the classic example is language. nothing about the sound of the word “tree” connects it to an actual tree, so a word only works because its different from other words in the same system. lévi strauss then argued that cultures work in a similar way, with pairs of opposites (like raw and cooked) helping people organise how they see the world.

what i find interesting is how easily this shows up in small things. a one letter reply like “k” feels cold only because “okay!!” exists, and “cheap” only means something next to “expensive”.

but i also have doubts, and i think the usual criticisms are fair. some people say it flattens a lot of human variety into neat patterns and assumes the same structures apply everywhere. others say it puts too much weight on language, when plenty of what shapes our behaviour isnt linguistic, and that it hasnt
produced much practical use outside theory.

for what its worth, my own tentative view is that the “meaning comes from contrasts” idea is a handy way of noticing things, even if it cant explain everything about how people think and behave. i cant tell yet whether that makes it a real theory or just a useful habit of looking.

so id love to hear from people who know the field better, or who just notice this kind of thing. where do you see this idea in daily life, whether its texting, branding, or anything else?

I'm 34F, and my partner is 39M. We met online during COVID, six years ago. We were both fresh graduates at the time.

I was going through probably the roughest phase of my life. My relationship with my parents had deteriorated, I was almost homeless, living in dorms with help from people who knew my circumstances. I was juggling two or three jobs simultaneously just to get by. During that time, I met him. He became someone I could talk to, someone who listened and provided emotional support when I really had nobody else. We connected quickly and committed to each other within a few weeks. It was our first relationship and we both have been only this relationship.

We met in person for the first time after about 2.5 years of long distance.

Over these six years, we've achieved quite a lot together. We're both in a white collar job now and have progressed professionally. We've each been promoted three times and bought our first cars. I've also helped him financially, including paying for his car, which he is gradually paying me back for.

These achievements might seem ordinary to some people, but they mean a lot to me considering where I started. We've both worked hard, although I feel I've carried a considerably larger share of the burden in helping him become stable.

Things became more complicated when we started spending time together physically. I realized that being in a long-distance relationship and actually sharing space with someone are very different things.

He's a nice person in many ways, but he can be controlling. Initially, even small things like where something should be placed in the kitchen or how certain things should be done became issues. I had to explain that I'm an adult and don't appreciate being treated like a child.

We've had several arguments and even considered breaking up multiple times, but things eventually settled. We both have some anger issues and have been working on ourselves. I can honestly say I've worked very hard on improving my behavior, and I can see that he has made some improvements too.

However, one persistent problem is that he seems to lack insight into his own anger and mistakes. He gets angry with me in ways that I don't see him behaving with his friends or family. When I try to address something that affects me, directly or indirectly, I cannot simply stay quiet. But these discussions often turn into arguments.

Another thing that bothers me is that he frequently says he loves me more than I love him. I'm a more practical person and tend to express love differently. I also feel that he doesn't fully recognize or appreciate how much I've contributed to our relationship and how much I've worked on myself.

In his defense, he says that being with me has motivated him to push himself harder professionally, and that he might otherwise have chosen an easier career path. I acknowledge that, too. I don't want to dismiss what he has contributed to my life.

My career is extremely important to me. Given my circumstances, I don't feel I have the luxury of abandoning this path or starting over. I cannot afford to lose the independence and stability I've worked so hard to build.

We still live somewhat separate lives and meet in person only every few months. Our relationship is also not public. I have my reasons for not involving my parents, given our history, and he prefers not to involve his family either. We never really planned marriage, but we did imagine staying together and building a life.

Today, he suggested that perhaps we'd be better off as friends with benefits because that would cause him less emotional damage.

We're very emotionally attached, so hearing that made me question everything.

Part of me wonders whether we should keep working on this relationship. Six years is a long time, and we've been through so much together. But another part of me feels that I cannot keep losing pieces of my individuality just to make a relationship work.

I don't want to be in a relationship where I constantly have to defend my independence, explain my feelings, or convince someone to recognize their own behavior.

I'm not particularly interested in finding another relationship if this one ends. I'm not looking to replace him. I could see myself focusing on my career, personal growth, traveling, and simply living peacefully on my own.

Everytime we are in person the arguement gets hot esp when I am on his place. When he comes to my side things are easy. I feel at somepoint when we move together we will have more and more arguments as I dont see this getting any better. Is it time to let go as things are not going to get any better.

As in, we can have differences of opinion, of what is right and wrong and the best path forward.

But not differences of fact and alternative realities that are totally opposite from what is happening.

Like I believe X is wrong, or should be legal or illegal. I like A or than B. I think we should do Z to solve problem P.

But what I see happening instead is: No that never happened, that's fake news, both sides did it, he never said that.

Political debates are essentially they're trying to convince you with total confidence that actual reality is fake abd biased and unfair against their political parties and their leaders.

This is something the Russians have really centered in their strategy.

They say You have your facts, and we have ours.

In reality, Russia invaded Ukraine and is mass murdering and mass torturing people right now and Ukrainians are trapped in Hell fighting for their lives.

But the Russians, and the political movements they've merged with here in our democracies, insist Ukraine and Zelenky are to blame and are Nazis and the aggressor.

This would be like someone breaking into your home and shooting at you and your family, then blaming you and demanding you give up your home to them as a peace tribute.

In the same way in the US, we should disagreements about what is right and what is fair and what we should do.

But there is no debating that the President very openly sent his brainwashed cultists to beat and torture people at the Capitol with the goal of breaking into the Chambers of Congress and physically preventing them from certifying an election.

The Leader of this Party is openly attempting and the entire political party has defended this - and their media machine has somehow brainwashed their millions into denying and defending an attack on them.

The idea that this political party is their team and they must defend it at all costs.

Even when they're openly breaking the laws to protect Epstein at all costs.

I notice every criticism or even discussion of reality is attacked by these people who take it personally, like any criticism of the Party is an attack on them and their "team."

It's not about my side vs your side. We're on the same side. We live in the sane communities and we're all endangered every single day this Russian asset has this enormous power.

When I say this party is openly attempting coups against us, it's because I care about all of us.

I feel like we can't even havw fact based discussions of reality because reality itself is now considered "political".

To my mind isn't even political.

I haven't said like we ban x or have a wealth tax or anything actually.

Basic objective reality is not political expression.

To my mind, the supporters of this party live in a totally opposite reality from us.

What is actually happening day to day and what they consume in their alternative media, Joe Rogan podcasts etc, is completely opposite and contradictory.

Is anyone else noticing this same pattern?

The President daily threatens to invade Canada and rule over it as a God and has factually imposed harsh economic sanctions - and his entire Parry has blocked in Congress any attempts to stop the war and threats to rape Canada.

It's so extreme and deadly. The followers of thus political party say it's a joke, it's fake news, it's not real.

But that's not anything debate.

We say it's right or wrong, but whether it's actually real is not debatable. It's impacting all our lives. The safety security of Canada and all democracies on earth are in grave danger because our most powerful ally is turning their weapons against us while bending the knee to Russia and Putin.

The US under the control of this Party with Elon Musk acting as over arching controller pouring trillions into shaping the party to his whims and creating these alternative reality machines - it is real, and it's affecting all of us.

You can't just accuse of being insane and abd ranting and both sides do it - and treat that as a political disagreement.

Facts and reality don't bend to anyone's whims.

What happened on Jan. 6 is fact. There's thousands of witnesses, many testified under oath. So how does Joe Rogan blaming antifahs and the FBI alter the fact that this political party is openly running anti American coup plays against us.

The fact that all the voters of this party say it's fake as a collective and deny it and blame scapegoats for their own party's coups is not at all a valid argument or debatable.

Honest discussion: Do you hate The Human Race for it’s treatment of Good People and them throughout History always putting those that are in Charge being the worst Humans Possible despite them knowing the consequences! Everyone states on how It’s an always psychopaths that constantly get to The Top yet everyone knows that they’re just Human Beings through and through literally Humanity knows that it doesn’t have to be this! Yet our behavior is just disgusting and pathetic often times Humans are just viewed as terrible beings that only rewards Evilness but do you automatically hate Humanity for it’s treatment of Good People and then always putting those that are The Worst in charge despite them knowing the consequences!

Okay, so before I start, I am by no means a conspiracy theorist just a normal, average, blue collar girl. Like the rest of the world, yesterday we expired a Microsoft outage where people were unable to access their emails, send emails, receive emails or teams. Naturally, the only people upset by this were head of management that deemed this out outage ‘inconvenient.’

Due to this, my workplace cancelled all meetings and sent everyone home early - happy Fri-yay everyone! As I was leaving the office, I noticed how happy everyone was. People smiling, laughing, asking to head out to the neatest pub or restaurant for weekend drinks.

On my way home, I had a sudden epiphany. What if the Internet shut down for good? What IF the system collapsed tomorrow? No email, no teams, nothing. We all had to go back to pen and paper, normal life - I’m talking back 90s style. Would we all be less stressed? Would we be free ? Who even came up with the 5 day working week and this ‘hustle bustle’ crap culture that only serves the rich? I don’t know… maybe I’m spiralling but honestly, the Microsoft outage was the best day of my life. I went home, cooked dinner, went to the gym, caught up with friends - it made me seriously wonder how, as humanity, we have strayed this far… can anyone else confirm I’m not going crazy?

I’m not sure if Reddit is the right place to do this, but I honestly don’t know how else to put myself out there so here goes!
I’m 19F ( since apparently that’s part of the reddit introduction package lol) and I’m looking for remote work opportunities that don’t require a degree or previous professional experience. I’m multilingual, a quick learner and have flexible timetable. I’m open to different fields, whether it’s writing, research, translation, administrative assistance, customer support or something entirely new that I could learn. I’m genuinely motivated to start working, gain experience and become financially independent. If you’re hiring, need an extra pair of hands, or know of any opportunities, I'd really appreciate any help, guidance or connections.
Thank you for reading:)

Jensen Huang is not the only one. (Andy Byron, Matt Hancock..)

Every time I see affairs of a CEO or a minister or an actor or a podcaster exposed, I keep thinking why in the world did they not think about the repurcussions? These people are exceptionally good at predicting business risks, political risks, technological disruption, yet outstandingly poor at anticipating the consequences of their own personal decisions.

Why don’t they get advice (they pretty much get every piece of advice, support and help from every doctor and therapist and banker and others for even when they should fart!) in such instances?

These so called “future” predictors, why don’t they look at an obvious bite in the backside when these come out?

Are they really futurists and path creators or just dumb ass**es?

I’ve been reading about Costa Rica.

They abolished their army in 1948 after a civil war. The popular explanation is that it redirected the money to schools, but the point I like to make is that the popular version of events is an over simplification. Panama later abolished its own army without the same payoff. The more convincing explanation is a political one, meaning the politicians wanted to avoid the threat of military autocracy.

That makes me wonder whether the real cost of an army is less about the budget or foreign threats, and more about the risk that it becomes the answer to every political question.

Are there other cases where limiting or removing the military changed a country’s trajectory, or cases where a strong army protected a democracy instead of threatening it?

I made a video on the Costa Rica story, if you would like to watch it: https://youtu.be/_sB5kFf4hcY?si=4TgUm90g6SO17LRN

All over the internet, and even in real life, all I hear and see is multiple men who excuse cheating as if it’s nothing. Saw a post about JfK and his affair partners and everybody was saying “didn’t know he had such good taste” “I don’t blame him” and when someone said JFK was a pos for cheating all the men downvoted them and bullied them in the comments.

This is just one post and example of multiple I see daily. This Jensen Huang situation has resorted in multiple posts and tiktoks, and on every single one at least half of the comments or posts (epsecially on sipstea and nvidiastock) is men basically saying “all I’m seeing is this man can fuck” “didn’t know huang had game like that” “could you blame the guy?” “I think I’d be honeypotted too” or basically that nobody really cares that he sleeps around, just that he’s giving confidential tech/intel. there was even one post on blindrankings ranking his affair partners and his wife.

Tiktok, Instagram, Reddit, college boys in real life, they all lust and sexualize other women even when dating or talk shit about the woman their with and make excuses and say cheating or wanting to is entirely okay. I don’t get how people can actually be that fucking evil and selfish.

What changed your perspective on it? Did noticing its value change how you approach that part of daily life?

It’s one of the most predictable patterns in pop culture, business, and politics, yet it still blows my mind every time it happens.

​A guy starts out with nothing. His wife is right there with him through the broke years, raising the kids, holding down the fort, and supporting his ambitions before anyone knew his name. Then, the moment he hits peak wealth, power, or fame—boom. He’s either caught in a massive cheating scandal or divorces his wife of 20+ years to marry someone half his age.

​We see it everywhere across the globe:

​Tech & Business: Jeff Bezos leaving MacKenzie Scott after 25 years for Lauren Sánchez; Bill Gates splitting from Melinda after affair allegations; Elon Musk; Rupert Murdoch on marriage number five.

​Politics: Boris Johnson, Silvio Berlusconi, François Hollande—all caught up in scandals or leaving longtime partners for much younger women while in office.

​Entertainment: Arnold Schwarzenegger, Mel Gibson, Johnny Depp, Aamir Khan, Al Pacino—the list goes on and on.

​Is it really just a cliché midlife crisis, or does extreme power and money actually rewire how these men view relationships?

​Part of me thinks it’s an ego thing—a long-term wife remembers who you were before the fame and treats you like a normal human, whereas a younger partner gives you fresh validation without the history. Or maybe men who are ruthless enough to reach the top just apply that same "always upgrade to the newest model" mindset to their marriages.

​What do you guys think drives this? Is it purely opportunity and entitlement, or is there something deeper going on psychologically?

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?

This might sound like a weird and unrelated observation, but hear me out.

In today's world, we take so many things for granted. Our everyday routines and things we barely pay attention to were once absolute dreams for people throughout history. Having running water in our homes, electricity, washing machines, refrigerators full of food, wifi, and the ability to communicate instantly with anyone, anywhere in the world. Things that were once luxuries even for the wealthiest are now accessible to the average person.

All these advancements should in theory, have made our lives easier and given us more time and opportunities to enjoy life, pursue creativity, appreciate art, and develop deeper human connections. Yet somehow, it feels like the opposite has happened...

The more technologically advanced society becomes, the colder, more detached, and less emotionally connected people seem to become. It's a pattern I can't unsee. It feels as though we've stopped seeing other people as individuals and started treating them as numbers, options, or temporary additions to our lives. People seem less willing to appreciate what they have because they're constantly convinced that something or someone better might be waiting around the corner.

Everything feels increasingly superficial and performative. People seem more concerned with looking like they're having fun than actually enjoying themselves. Even the way we interact with one another sometimes feels stiff and unnatural, as though genuine human interaction has become something we have to consciously perform.

I know people in the past had countless problems, and I'm not trying to romanticize their lives. But I can't help thinking about how, despite all their hardships, people often had a stronger sense of community and belonging. In smaller towns and villages, people depended on one another. They shared their hardships and happiness, and even an ordinary evening spent with loved ones could be enough to make life feel meaningful.

They created extraordinary architecture, cultures, music, literature, and art, often emerging from deeply rooted communities, traditions, and human experiences. Life moved at a different pace, and people seemed to have more room to simply exist and experience things.

Even the way people approached love seems different to me. Not because people in the past were inherently better or more capable of loving, but because relationships were often approached with a different mentality. Once people found someone they loved, they could dedicate their lives to building something with that person and cherish them as someone irreplaceable. Nowadays, it sometimes feels as though people approach relationships with an endless shopping mentality, always wondering whether there's someone better out there rather than appreciating the person in front of them.

I can't help feeling that we've been losing something since the Industrial Revolution. It's almost as though technological progress has been a blessing and a curse simultaneously. It has improved our lives in countless ways, yet here we are, seemingly struggling with loneliness, emotional disconnection, superficiality, and a growing inability to appreciate things deeply...

I know capitalism, consumerism, and social media play enormous roles in this, but I wonder whether technological advancement itself also contributes to it. Has making everything so accessible, convenient, and replaceable fundamentally changed our relationship with the world and with one another? Have we become so accustomed to having everything that we've lost the ability to appreciate things in the same way?

And this brings me to art, particularly the increasing normalization of AI-generated art. I've genuinely come across people asking why it matters if AI makes art. AI can undoubtedly be useful in many fields, including creative ones, but I find something deeply unsettling about the idea of replacing human artistic expression with machine generated content.

To me, art is fundamentally a form of human expression. I read because I love entering other people's minds, experiencing their perspectives, and understanding fragments of their lives through their words. There's something almost magical about knowing that another human being experienced something, felt something, and translated those emotions into something that can reach someone else, even decades or centuries later. I don't want to read endless machine generated ideas that imitate human experiences without actually having lived them. It feels like we're missing the entire point.

I constantly find myself going back to older music, films, television shows, and literature because I can still feel fragments of that magic in them. Of course, contemporary artists are still producing incredible work, but I sometimes struggle to find that same emotional and artistic richness in today's mainstream culture.

And it's not just about art. I feel like this change extends to almost every aspect of our lives, including our relationships, our communities, and the way we experience ordinary moments.

Recently, I met a person whose parents managed to leave North Korea because they had Chinese blood lines. Even though their legal status there was probably different from that of regular North Korean, hearing this firsthand was still a massive shock to me On top of that, I also recently found out that some of my own ancestors left Ukraine to Russia in the 1920s–30s. Because it happened a century ago during chaotic times, I don't know their exact motives anymore. And that makes me think of situations like this for a long time

Do people with authority have less fear of being wrong than people without? Is being less afraid of being wrong the barrier that holds a lot of people back