Guys, I don't know what's wrong with me. Everything bores me to all hell. I'll be watching a YouTube video and get bored 5 minutes in and frantically try to find something else to watch, but I end up scrolling for like 30 minutes because nothing looks interesting. Then, in desperation, I just click on one semi-interesting video title, hoping to enjoy it, but the same thing happens where I get bored after 5 minutes.

It's the same when I watch streams.

It's the same when I watch a show on Netflix.

It's the same when I play games.

It's the same when I'm talking with someone.

It's the same when I'm working.

It's the same when I'm drawing.

It's the same when I'm studying.

It's the same when I'm at a concert.

Like, whatever I do, 2 things always happen:

1. I get bored really, really fast.

2. Along with the boredom comes this weird, creeping anxiety.

The anxiety makes me desperate to find something to kill the boredom but nothing really satiates it, so I end up just feeling really uncomfortable throughout the day. The only thing I've been able to find that mitigates this is napping because I'm not conscious when I'm asleep.

Is anyone else going through this?

I am so tired of people always telling teenagers that actually have a passion for something and wants to make a change in the world that they can't like they're always telling them"that's not happening" or " AI will take ur job "ect ect these adult expect the worst and think negative but that doesn't mean we have to , sure there's a lot of horrible things happening in the world and we can't so much about or at least some of us can't but wouldn't it be better if we tried to think differently and a little more positivity

I know that we're not meant to stay and do nothing and I think that passion, hope and love can do a lot

In relation to other posts I've made about my reluctance to continue maturing/adulting, I want to share another idea I've often thought about.

What is the point of human society? I mean, for the past hundreds of thousands of years, we've been the only species on this blue and green dot that have structure, while pretty much all other organisms have unlimited freedom from expectations (not counting the ones we domesticated and all that shit). Yeah, all other animals have to focus on surviving, but they don't have to think about ANYTHING if they don't want to. They can do anything about having to:

• Pay for anything (traveling, food, etc.)
• Wait for anyone or anything
• Get approval
• Consider societal norms (biggest example coming to my mind is mannerisms; you can't tell me you aren't annoyed by other people calling out small "bad" manners that we all do every day without thinking so deeply about it)
• Worry about rules/laws, because it doesn't apply to them.
• And so on.

If I were to wake up tomorrow and was informed that society had been completely abolished, you couldn't imagine how thrilled I'd be. First thing I'd do? I'd just go. Nothing packed, no specific destination in mind, just away from everything and out into the wild. To be free of all shackles and traverse the plains, woods, seas, and mountains with nothing holding me back would be the greatest achievement ever. At least for me.

Would I miss some of the good things that came out of organized civilization (prepared food, the internet, social interaction, entertainment, etc.)? Sure, for a while, maybe. But I'd be too busy enjoying this new level of practically unlimited freedom to care that much. Hell, we can make our own entertainment, wherever and whenever we want, with absolutely no pressure from deadlines or agreements that often take away creative freedom. With not one single person or entity to be the boss of me, there's no limit to the possibilities of what I can do.

This is most definitely my autism talking, but sometimes, I feel like almost every law and regulation under the sun is an insult to human potential in terms of adventure. You have to admit that one of the biggest reasons that travelling around the world is so difficult, especially today, is because they have all these rules that prohibit you from going to specific places without specific permission. Is it really fair that we have to pay for tickets just to go to places that other animals can just walk, swim, or fly to for free? In my brutally honest opinion, I don't really think so.

And if you REALLY dig through your thoughts, every single rule that we're expected to follow was just made the fuck up. One day, it was okay to just take whatever you wanted, and the next, some scribbles said "nah that's illegal now." So, should everything become legal (in the sense of all law just ceasing to exist completely), I would be able to rest my mind knowing that I'd never have to answer for anything, whether or not I was aware of doing something that was against the rules. I'm not saying I would do anything super dramatic like off anyone (even though nothing would be preventing me in this hypothetical "society-less" world), because, even with all of this in mind, I still have some moral agency. On that note, I would still avoid doing any harm to certain people in my life, mostly family, my closest friends, and even potential romantic interests (or could I technically call them "mates"? Probably). As for strangers or people that would pose a threat to me and others? That would be a different story.

Well, it looks like I'm rambling again. I could add more, but this feels like a good place to pause. Who knows if I decide to add more to it, but right now, I will just take a breather from getting all of this out of my system. I can't stop you from interpreting this however you like, and I'd probably take it with a grain of salt if I was the reader instead of the writer, but I don't think you need to take this too seriously, as it's mainly a rant and the product of feelings I have about the world based on my experiences. Still, I am open to feedback, as always, and I hope that we can all learn something from this about ourselves, myself included.

That's all for now. Peace.

People love to complain about the wealth gap - the top 1% own too much, the system is rigged, something needs to change. But maybe the complaint is aimed at the wrong target. Wealth gaps don't appear from nowhere; they're the downstream result of what a culture has already decided counts as fair.

Before you can fix the gap, you have to reckon with the fact that most cultures aren't actually optimizing for equality - they're optimizing for whatever their particular version of "fair" is, and equality is often not it. Here's how a few different cultures answer the question.

Note: the examples below are extremely simplified descriptions of fairness in each culture. They may not even be the most up-to-date, but the goal is to paint a broad picture and showcase the varieties.

USA - Fairness means an open competition, not an equal outcome. If the process wasn't rigged, a massive gap between winners and losers isn't unfair - it's just the result. What triggers outrage isn't the gap itself, it's evidence the game was fixed.

Canada - Same competitive instinct as the US, but with a floor bolted underneath it. Compete freely, get rich or don't, but nobody should fall below a basic threshold. The gap is tolerated as long as the bottom is protected.

Thailand - Your wealth reflects your karma. Merit accumulated across lifetimes. Inequality isn't an injustice to be corrected, it's a cosmic ledger being read. Hierarchy is fine as long as the powerful act with benevolence and the less powerful respond with loyalty.

Japan - Fairness as equal effort within the group, not equal outcome: harmony (wa) and visible sincere effort (ganbaru) matter more than individual reward. Obligations of fairness are owed most strongly within one's in-group (company, family) - echoing Thailand's reciprocal patron-client structure, but organized around institutional loyalty rather than karma. Standing out disrupts group cohesion and is discouraged.

Melanesia / Pacific Northwest Coast - The inverse of Western instinct: fairness means giving your wealth away. Status comes from generosity, not accumulation. Hoarding, not inequality, is the violation.

Southern Africa (Ubuntu) - Fairness isn't about what one person deserves. it's about the health of the relationship between people. Restoring harmony matters more than extracting a proportional punishment or reward.

China - Fairness as a state-guided bargain: modern legitimacy rests less on classical Confucian role-duty and more on the reform-era trade-off of accepting inequality in exchange for rising living standards, delivered under the Party's guidance ("socialism with Chinese characteristics"). Deference to central authority is exchanged for continued material improvement - echoing the older benevolence-for-loyalty structure, just with the state now in the paternalistic role.

Nordic (Jantelagen) - Standing out is the crime. Claiming you're better than anyone else - even if it's true - is the violation, not the gap between you.

South Asia (Dharmic tradition) - Fairness is doing your designated role well, not having equal access to any role. A farmer being a good farmer is the fair outcome - not the chance to become something else.

Islamic tradition (zakat) - Wealth was never fully yours to begin with - it's held in trust. A fixed share owed back isn't charity, it's closing a debt you always had.

Hunter-gatherer societies (!Kung/San) - Equality here isn't passive, it's aggressively policed. Bragging or hoarding gets mocked out of you. Fairness is a norm defended daily, not a natural resting state.

So the reality is that there is no universal definition of fairness. Nobody actually agrees on what fairness is. So when people complain about "the" wealth gap as if there's one shared standard being violated, they're usually smuggling in their own culture's definition and assuming it's universal. Maybe the real conversation isn't "how do we close the gap" - it's whose definition of fair are we even using? Maybe the question we should be asking is “which culture's definition of fair should we study and adopt?”

The authorities know dark psychology. And methods to deceive and manipulate us. Controlling our environment and information. To influence our decisions and actions. They have knowledge of Psychological Operations. They have knowledge of our cognitive biases. They also use hypnosis, or other methods, to alter our minds. They have the knowledge and resources. And also propaganda, when you repeat a lie enough, people will be more likely to believe it.

I am not an expert in dark psychology. But I have studied neuroscience, psychology, and cognitive biases. And I have interacted with the authorities, to understand that they are deceptive and manipulative.

Therefore I encourage you to learn methods to control people. And use it to defend yourself from the authorities.

Growing up, I used the internet as a third space and found many of my favorite hobbies here. I made online friends, used the internet as a second, more fun, school. I hated talking to people I didn't know irl, and used the internet as a replacement for the missing social interaction. But recently, it feels like I'm mourning the internet I used to know.

I'm Gen Z, but I was on the internet when I was still single digit aged, so I've been online long enough to have watched it change. I feel crotchety seeing people using emojis instead of emoticons on reddit. The "downvote the fourth comment" tradition is disappearing. It feels bad going on niche hobby forums and seeing the last popular post being from 8 years ago. I especially hate reading someone's post and having to question whether I'm feeding AI my emotions, or actually giving my energy to another human being (at least when people used to make up stories, there was a person behind the screen farming karma). "Surfing the web" felt like actual exploration, not a funnel. It felt kind of risky, but it was exciting to find the odd gem.

Everywhere I turn, it feels like the things that made the internet special are disappearing, and there isn't a good alternative. There is nothing in real life that can connect people from around the world, from all walks of life, as well as the internet does.

On the other hand, the internet becoming so much less exploratory, and more bombarding, has actually helped me close my laptop and engage with the real world more. I've started to teach myself how to fish, I've spent more time learning to paint, and (although it's been an ongoing process) I've been building a community outside of my phone. I have grown a lot since 2020, partly because the internet has lost its magic.

I'm not really trying to find a solution, I was just wondering about other people's experiences. Maybe there are other angles or things I might be missing about this dynamic. Im just feeling bittersweet.

Just posting this here because im curious on everyone's opinions surrounding this topic. I believe in Sequential Open Individualism, which is a branch of Open Individualism and we believe every living this is the same consciousness but the one conciousness lives every life one at a time and doesn't follow the rules of time per say.

Like, it could be anything in life. Basically, taking actions which isolate yourself from something, and you end up regretting it later. And, this could be anything. A friendship, relationship, game, show, etc. And, it's more tragic if the bond you had seems irreversibly damaged. Humanity probably does this more than we think, due to not thinking rationally and acting on emotion.

What comes up, must come down, I'm only around 15, so I wasn't alive for the 2008-everything catastrophe, and we recovered from that, . From what I understand,

- the current housing crisis has been on the horizon for a while now, and due to NIMBY-ism, and the fact that after 2008 we stopped building houses,

Do you think this will be fixed soon enough?

There are less Millennials and Gen Z than there is Boomers and Gen X, Boomers and X-ers will die,

Putting an end to NIMBY-ism might occur aswell, and a dramatic increase of building more houses.

And, find a way for more people to move willingly to small towns and rural-ish areas

- the cost of living crisis is because inflation dramatically increased during 2020-2021, and though now the rates are going down, wages haven't increased a lick, well, they have, but not enough, but how exactly will that happen? Outside of, people force themselves into jobs that are in demand, nursing or trades, so they become oversaturated (if such a thing is even possible for the former) making other fields more desperate to have people, and increasing pay as incentive, and then, vise versa and eventually, it will even out?? And a minimum wage increase?

- Preservation and increasing stuff like Jones act, and trying to cut down outsourcing (not saying it's bad, but a reduction might be well to prevent countries from the cycle of -outsourcing based economy because low cost of labour- country becomes richer- cost of labour increases- outsourcing shifts country- country screwed over.

- the Ai issue...

Do you guys think the bubble will pop? Is it a bubble?

Aren't those companies operating at a loss, and reliant on investors, and

Ai company - buys Nvidia stocks- Nvidia buys AI stocks,

"Obvious problem is obvious"

But isn't that how the internet started out?

And, if data centers are prevented from being created, and AI canabalizing itself, or with enough negative PR, we'd start sabotaging those AIs, and stuffs, and putting out money where our mouth is, and refuse to buy from companies that use AI?

Or is all that a speed bump instead of a car crash?

Tldr; estimates for the job market and economy in the 2030s and asking for opinions on various issues, ie. Ai, cost of living, housing crisis, etc?

Why do some people choose to live under oppressive states, work under oppressive institutions, or have their rules applied based on their religion or culture without feeling a problem?

Why do some people choose to be under authority when they can be free? Can you explain the biological, evolutionary, or sociological reasons for this? For example, let's take an oppressive country in the Middle East.

Could this situation be explained by the fact that imperialist countries support the nationalist and religious segments of the countries they exploit? Or is this a purely biological condition, independent of politics?

There have been many occasions where someone will ask a question online and the top comment is something along the lines of, "Just Google it bro."

I personally dislike that kind of thinking, mainly because it attacks people who are of two categories:

1) The people that genuinely tried and didn't find an answer, or perhaps do not have the particular skills and just use what's comfortable.

2) The people who know they can easily Google it, but still want to hear the opinions of other people.

I'll be entirely honest and say that I am of the latter category and my honest desire is to ask people what they think, or what the answer is. I know a lot of people like me who desire to hear the voices of others because they lack the same social opportunities in real life.

I myself am a very lonely person, and quite anti-social, so I make up for that by interacting on the platform I know how to speak on.

I want that feeling of connection. Like asking a friend a silly question. When people simply reduce that desire for connection to a matter of, "Just Google it bro", it isolates the person more.

Of course, I say all this knowing full well that some people just ask stupid questions for the sake of trolling, but I believe in giving the benefit of the doubt.

Yeah. That's it. Would love to hear your guy's opinions.

There is context in China that does not apply here, and I don't normally quote the leaders of State Capitalist countries, but the comment still struck me given the critical housing shortage and the number of homeless in our streets. here in the US Some areas have large percentage of homes (up to 30% and more) owned by investors or investment firms. And in many areas, even people working two or more jobs can't afford the rent and have no chance of buying a home.

While a great deal of wealth is generated through investment homes, and while on one hand that is great, that wealth comes at the expense of those who cannot afford homes, which includes much the two newest adult generations.

What would happen if the percentage of investment homes in any area were limit as a percentage of the total homes?

I've always thought that it was better to have friends who you can relate to and friends who have the same interests or similar interests as you. There would be too many argument and disagreements if you have friends or people in your life who are completely different from you. What do you think? I would love to hear everyone's opinions and prospectives about this. How many of you have friends from different walks of life? How has it worked out for you? Are you still friends with that person?

People who succeed almost never say they succeeded because they were lucky enough to be born healthy, into a good family, with a good education, the right friends, the right opportunities, and so on.

If you listen to them, they're all survivors who overcame adversity through extraordinary courage and determination.

Let me say this as clearly as I can : that's a lie.

And I say that from experience. I'm in a privileged position myself. I could easily tell you that I worked hard to get where I am, that I had to overcome countless obstacles, and so on. That's not entirely false. I did work hard, and I did face real hardships (for example, I lost my mother when I was fourteen).

But telling the story that way leaves out a crucial fact : those hardships are nothing compared to what many people with far less support have to endure.

More importantly, the reason I was able to overcome those difficulties is that I had the privilege of growing up in an environment that wasn't perfect, but was stable enough to give me the confidence and emotional energy to keep moving forward. When life works that way, opportunities encourage you to keep going, and hard work no longer feels like a burden.

I worked hard, but at no point did it ever feel unbearable, because my efforts were rewarded, and every new opportunity motivated me to work even harder.

Yes, I lost my mother, but I was also lucky enough to have an incredible father who cared deeply about my education and my well-being. Not to mention my friends, my girlfriends, and all the people who helped me become a happy and fulfilled person.

Don't believe narratives that insult you without ever saying so outright. Narratives that imply that if they succeeded and you didn't, it's because you're somehow worth less.

Stop idolizing celebrities as if they were living gods. Most of them are nothing more than arrogant rich kids who are completely blind to the suffering of ordinary people.

They don't deserve your admiration, and you're worth more than that.

I've never really had female friends growing up. Until I was around 15, I barely talked to girls, so all of this is pretty new to me.

Recently, I met a couple of people online who genuinely helped me during one of the worst phases of my life. The thing is, I slowly realized they're struggling too.

One of them told me she doesn't share her problems with anyone. She writes everything in a diary because she doesn't want sympathy or to cry in front of people. Another also seems to be dealing with a lot but doesn't really open up.

Now I'm confused.

I genuinely want to help them the way they helped me, but I don't know if that's even the right thing to do. I don't want to force anyone to open up, make them uncomfortable, or act like I can "fix" their problems.

Maybe I'm just overthinking because I don't have much experience with friendships like this.

Has anyone else ever felt this way?

This is something that came on my mind.

As our societies are going in a direction where social mobility is ending (a simple way to approach this is think of a publicly known story of rags to riches in the last 10-20 years, you won't find any. Go back 40-50 years, most success stories were rags to riches).

In the 21st century, people who succeed will have come from well to do families with decent education and money background and also strong networks.

Look at how shamelessly people say now to get a job anywhere after school, you need to network. Resumes don't matter.

This is the end of meritocracy because people who are coming from poor families do not have networks to begin with. This "referral" system we have is a corrupt system that heavily favors the offsprings of well to do people.

This is when I thought maybe we should now think of a "lottery system".

Yes, every job that is out there will be hired through a lottery system. Every promotion also has to be done through a lottery system. This is how it would work.

You meet the minimum qualifications for a job, you get to buy a lottery ticket to that job. Same for promotions.

From the employer side, the winning number has to be among the bought tickets.

You have no idea the amount of pros of this system. Let me list them. First, fake jobs by nature can not be posted as the winners have to be provided a real job. Second, this system will be fairer i.e., nepotism can't work here.

Now, I am thinking of a couple of opposing argument. Some might say what if employers choose the winning number of the person they want to hire? Well, we can figure out a system that cannot be easily rigged. The government will have to step in into this process for sure. I do not think this will be a massive issue. The second argument against this is well, there maybe mediocre people for the jobs and not the most "qualified".

Really? Do you see "qualified" people around you right now? Many public and private sector workers, are frankly mediocre people. I mean public sector is a good example of this. Think of incomplete construction projects around you, think of the weird apps public sector builds for your to install and they barely work (parking apps in the cities are the most notorious example of this). Same in the private sector. If you produce results and do a good work, guess what? You will either be fired or career will stagnate whereas your colleague who does a poor job gets promoted as they are not competition to people above them.

I think the current system of hiring "qualified" people is only in theory. In practice, people who have a strong nepotism advantage and people who do not pose competition to the hiring managers and C-suite people are getting all the roles and promotions.

A random lottery system has a better way of making things fairer, the results would be pretty much the same, and most importantly, if someone does not get hired or promoted, they can simply buy another ticket and wait for their turn. There won't be hard feelings people have right now.

I welcome all perspectives on this idea. Thanks.

I've been thinking about how many moments in life quietly disappear.

You notice someone who seems genuinely interesting. Maybe you'd become friends. Maybe nothing would've happened. Maybe it would've changed nothing at all.

But because neither person says anything, the moment ends.

I'm curious:

Do you think most people avoid these moments because of fear, social norms, uncertainty, or something else?

And have you ever had one of these moments that you still remember years later?

The media is not free to report the truth. People are not free to discuss the truth. But nobody is worried. As long as they are materially taken care of. Have a home, family, food etc. Governments manufacture crises like wars and pandemics, to divert the public attention. And increase the the size of the government. The government uses the media to control the narrative.

Yes, people don't care for freedom or truth. They are happy to be told what to do, and what to believe. People prioritize security, and stability, over freedom and truth.

I came from a poor town in the outskirts of Ukraine. When the war begun in 2014, my mom and I immediately flew to Canada, just days before the airport bombing, where I was raised there ever since. Covid didn’t affect me, I actually liked the lockdown. My parents got back together just months before the lockdown, and my stepdad was able to work from home, so my days involved playing video games all day, riding the bike around my neighbourhood, and online school. Now, I live in a villa in a resort community due to my mom’s relationship with a land developer. This life was handed to me by my mom, by God, by fate. I didn’t have to work for it at all. I have a great chance at building my life. But because I barely worked for anything, I have become lazy and unmotivated. I guess even luck has a downside.

I've felt that I've "grown up old".

My father was 40 when I was born. When I started seeing his patterns and following them, he was between 45 and 50. I grew up with an old mentality.

I never applied gel to my hair until after my 30s! My appearance was never a concern. I felt a "Why?" towards people who think about appearance.

Growing up in a Buddhist country (SL) didn't help either, as it focuses on "the inside".

Now, I do care. I can never catch-up and stop feeling as if doing something weird/bad.

BECAUSE I don't want my son to "grow up old".

This post isn't factual but more of a discussion post.Please contribute because this theme really really worries me.

It's about how common lust is becoming a thing in a modern world and the fact that people of a really young age nowadays start thinking about love/relationships early on.

While before for people before age of 16 it was almost always only about making friends,connections and genuine friendships,I(as a young person myself) noticed that children quite younger than me already talk about relationships,intimacy and stuff like that.

Do you think that in the future lust might actually become such a popular thing that it would be everywhere in our faces? And how do you think it will affect humanity as a whole?

Sorry for my English,its not my first language and i hope i expressed myself well,but i really want to hear peoples opinion on this!

​

I've been thinking about this for a long time, and I want people to challenge my view.

My current belief is that society often rewards wealth, status, and connections more than competence, ethics, or the ability to solve difficult problems. I think this creates long-term problems because the people with the most influence are not always the people with the best ideas.

Here are a few experiences that shaped my opinion.

1. Short-term political solutions vs long-term solutions

I live in the capital city of my country. I once discussed traffic congestion with someone who is a deputy mayor.

I spent almost two months collecting statistics. My conclusion was that the city needs better infrastructure: more roads where needed, stricter driver's license requirements, mandatory parking for new developments (including visitor parking), and better long-term planning.

His response surprised me.

He said that he believed my ideas would probably work better in the long run, but they would take years to implement. Restricting cars, on the other hand, could be done much faster.

This made me wonder whether governments sometimes knowingly choose less effective solutions simply because they produce faster political results.

Am I misunderstanding how governments have to operate?

1. Wealth vs competence

I started my business six years ago with about $2,200.

Today it earns around $12,000 per month.

A friend started with approximately $450,000 from his family and now earns more than I do.

I don't think he's unintelligent. My question is different.

People around me automatically assume that he is much more competent simply because he has more money, more businesses, luxury cars, and a wealthier background.

Should wealth really be treated as strong evidence of competence?

Or are people confusing success with ability?

1. Status changes how people judge behavior

I've noticed that people often criticize successful or powerful individuals in private but defend the exact same behavior once those people are present.

I've seen this both in business and in everyday life.

It makes me think that status changes people's moral standards.

My current view

I believe society frequently evaluates people based on:

- wealth,

- status,

- influence,

- expensive possessions,

- and connections,

instead of:

- competence,

- reasoning,

- ethics,

- and the ability to solve real problems.

If that is true, then it seems likely that many important positions end up being occupied by people who are not necessarily the most capable.

Change My View

I'm not looking for people to agree with me.

I genuinely want to know where my reasoning is wrong.

- Am I confusing correlation with causation?

- Are wealth and competence actually much more closely connected than I think?

- Is it unrealistic to expect society to reward competence more than status?

- Are there examples where my conclusion clearly fails?

If you think I'm wrong, I'd really like to understand why.

People say that any job that can be done on a computer can be done halfways across the world, and eventually will be. What will happen to western economies once that happens?

Pour poser le contexte à chaque fois que je rencontre le père de mon copain on est au restaurant, toujours. Et j’appréhende toujours ce moment car il juge mes goût en permanence et ne supporte pas que je ne mange pas les choses qu’il aime ou même simplement si j’aime ajouter un ingrédient dans mes plats. Ce n’est pas souvent car il habite loin du coup je ne peux pas éviter cette sortie mais sa m’insupporte. Un jour je lui ai clairement dit que sa me dérangeais que chacun avait des goût différent et il a recommencer dès le lendemain. Si vous voulez un exemple (BP « donc tu n’aime pas les fruit de mer? » moi : « non » BP « pourquoi » moi : « je n’aime pas c’est tout » BP « bah pourquoi.. »