I constantly see people posting in the Reddit help subs being confused as to why they have that help message listing suicide support lines and the answer of to why someone sent it usually is because OP said something someone disagreed with and they’re getting trolled.

I’ve had people do it to me because they don’t like my post or opinion.

But has it ever helped you, or does this reddit feature truly only exist to be abused by jerks?

I broke up with my ex a month ago

I am struggling he never shared his side or emotions about it

Today I got a "we be friends nothing more" text

I want to say yes

But i know its just my heart saying give it time and yous will try again

Does this ever actually happen or am I being naive and just say no now

What I mean is that if someone habitually watches the news on TV every evening, reads the newspaper in the morning, and scrolls through social media in between, they do this out of habit and then feel overwhelmed by negative news. One could also consciously choose to engage in other hobbies during that time and avoid watching the news in the evening.

I've had more and more connective thoughts forming that are trying together dreams, thoughts, and synchronicities faster and faster, and much of this shift I can connect to one deeply meaningful moment I couldn't put into words at the time.

I want to know what that looked like for you.

To be honest, I wasn't sure where to post this. I guess this is as close as I'm going to get to an appropriate sub.

I had recently come across two very similar videos today. One was of a coach berating his students on their GPAs and grades, arguing that most NFL players are broke after leaving the league and are completely unprepared for a career outside of football. Another was of Deion Sanders, head coach of the Colorado Buffaloes, making a similar speech after a teacher wrote a letter to the team's staff alleging poor behavior and grades for the students. For anyone wondering: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q02wXwwVp2g

In general, both confront the reality that some of the students of today are far less concerned with a career based upon an education or degree and more focused on attaining fame and wealthy through other means. Specifically, the minority of youths who play on sports teams imagine themselves going pro, leading them to disregard other responsibilities. Whilst writing this, I began to doubt whether or not I was exaggerating, since it is a small minority of kids who play sports to go into a pro league compared to those who do it for other reasons (exercise, friends, college applications, etc.). And certainly, there are plenty of kids going to college, getting degrees and moving into the work force (at varying rates of success, no doubt).

However, as I was considering what discussion could follow from this, I began to consider this could apply to other "careers" centered around media notoriety as well, such as those of a streamer, YouTuber, musician, model, or more generally an influencer. I was in high school 4 years ago and did witness plenty of people around me vying for that level of online notoriety and seeking to turn it into revenue. So I thought a little more.

In my opinion, the overall culture in America is emblematic of this. It is centered around a new wave 'get rich and have fun while doing it' scheme which basically translates to 'make a ton of money, become famous and never have to grow up' (as seen in the behavior of those who are engaged in sports, streaming, music, etc.). Truly, it has become detrimental to youth personalities, as the decrease of emphasis on education and KNOWLEDGE is critical to anyone's development, not just a PhD student or a bookworm. The apparent ease, especially for 'prospective' influencers, is helped by the fact that everyone has a phone and can post online, leading to a strange sense of self worth being connecting to being seen as much as possible, and translating that into unrealistic career goals.

And, I'm sorry to say, the way that Deion Sanders has chosen to run this team, the media stunts and the "culture change" do not necessarily send a message of seriousness or maturity. For anyone that doesn't know, Sanders is pretty loud and outspoken, sometimes getting straight to the point in his speech and blunt and other times presenting things in rose colored glasses. Either way, it amounts to a considerable media presence that doesn't set a good example for his team, especially considering the lessons he's trying to espouse. Hard to demand maturity from your players when you yourself consistently act like a fool. This can honestly be linked to any such celebrity or streamer or musician that tries to preach about behavior and attitudes. The youth may quip "you've done it, why can't someone else? You got famous from having less than stellar manners and a harsh personality, we should to!" I'm not suggesting that Sanders's student's grades fell due to him becoming coach. I'm simply positing that his demeanor, combined with the overall views of the youth on education relative to sports, music, and streaming, does not help in situations like this. Deion Sanders is his own worse enemy, and the cavalier way he communicates in the media truly makes it seem like its all show and no substance. The media hype surrounding him and Colorado relative to his teams record is perfect evidence for that.

For these college athletes, and for those aspiring to become a 'celebrity,' it is comparable to my generation (2003) all wanting to become Minecraft youtubers because thats who we watched and were entertained by, and then never growing out of it and realizing that the likelihood of becoming moderately successful is very low.

Unfortunately, the idolization of celebrity culture in the media, and the expansion of streaming culture and internet culture in general, has shifted the beliefs of young people and have driven them to idolize it as well, without any care for the consequences. This isn't to say being a pro football player is easy, quite the contrary. But it is to say the image of that life they have in their head is one of immense ease compared to a career linked to a college degree, which is what they SHOULD be in college for. They have absolutely no clue about the dedication or resolve which goes into actually making it into the NFL, all they see is Mahomes buying a huge mansion and thinking "I want that." They have no clue about the pitfalls of becoming a streamer and the absolutely abhorrent behaviors (not exhibited by all streamers, but by many) and content they must engage in to get attention (specifically related to attention seeking / provocative acts like street takeovers and the like). They have no clue about the difficulty, and almost sure improbability, of becoming a successful musician, but want the lifestyle anyways. And I think that's the best way to put it: young adults, and even teens at this point, want the lifestyle of those they idolize without ANY of the responsibility or skills / competence attached to it.

That isn't to say that sports is not formative in one's development, it absolutely is. Personal ability to work in a team, prioritize social cohesion and mental acuity benefit from consistent socialization. Competition motivates, instilling a belief that hard work pays off, practice matters, and a mindset of dedication is key. BUT, with everything that's going on in the world, I'm not sure these benefits aren't being overshadowed by the considerable effects of the current media cycle, which is centered around influencers and is saturated by media created by "self-made" individuals, who cast a specter of possibility for the youths. This leads to them disregarding their other faculties. I can't tell you how many stories I've heard from family friends who are teachers which involved kids simply not caring. Not because they found the stuff boring, but because they would incessantly talk about the latest trend or streamer or personality, and seemingly began emulating their behavior as a consequence.

Let me know what you guys think. Is it as bad as I argue, or is there something more at play? Are kids basically the same as they always have been, or have the usual motors of imagination in children become energized by media consumption? Its a complicated subject with multiple answers I'm sure, parenting being one, education being another, social hierarchies included. What I think is definitely true is that in this age of rapid media consumption, young adults have assumed an air of confidence and maturity simply by absorbing the mannerisms of individuals they see in media which is not appropriate for their age, and they've done this without assuming any of the requisite social or professional responsibilities / consequences linked to such behaviors.

A follow up question may consider how such media consumption affects the behaviors of individuals even engaged in getting a college degree and not 'distracted' by sports. In this case, I mainly focused on athletes since thats the media which kicked off this discussion in my brain. But it could absolutely apply to everything, some things, or maybe nothing.

If a company is cutting jobs, should immigration status play a part in who is laid off? Specifically, what are the arguments for cutting H-1B positions before those held by green card holders or citizens?

My initial thought was that this might address some complaints about H-1B hiring. But I want to hear the strongest arguments on both sides, including what the approach would mean for the people doing the work and for the roles the company still needs.

I'm asking about the policy and fairness of the idea, not assuming it's a rule a company can simply adopt. How would you weigh immigration status against the job itself and someone's contribution?

Money, fame or power (influence?), which is the truly powerful, and noble for a man?

Money buys freedom and options but if you have no one to spend it with you will be forever alone. Your circle also shrinks as you can no longer relate with people your own age. They view you as out of their league in my opinion. At times you are sitting in a sports car with no one to call.

Power can bring influence and open doors to other possibilities - potential job offers that can bring money. Power brings fear too. If you walk into a room its noticeable if a person is powerful compared to various forms of wealth. Intelligence can also be powerful too that attracts money as well.

Fame is the worst imo - no privacy life is broadcasted. A wealthy person I know once was asked this question and he said "money beats fame, because you can just slip the host 100$ to skip the line"

I am genuinely curious before this whole performative thing going in trend. Getting into book reading hobby or writing or expressing oneself through clothes was considered nice and a good thing devolping something.

But same thing now is considered performative.

For example I am a guy who is trying to get into reading and I write as well. But don't have much focus to read alot at one time. So, I would be called out a performative because I have books but I don't read alot or very often.

And it's not just this it was an example. It is alot of things and why is that now having a hobby or trying to get into something linked to specially asthetics old money or literature is considered performative or show off?

I'm 22 yo M and unemployed. Even though i'm in a very good college in my country, i'm unable to find an internship. Though i could get some interviews so far, i could pass even the first round in any.

The only job experience i had was as a cashier for a year, meanwhile virtually everyone i meet at uni, even people who fail pre calculus or can't even sum fractions, already have internships or hold some administrative job.

I fear i'm already fucked by not having any office job experience yet and that it will only get harder.

Within the last 5-6 years, this ideology has become mainstream in media, dating, etc. Where was the turning point? Was it a long time coming?

We can say that legal punishment consists in one person’s deliberately harming another on behalf of the state in a way that is intended to constitute a fittting response to some offense and to give expression to the state’s disapproval of that offense.

The current established idea in at least one developed country is that "we can not dispence with such practices."

But Is it so that an offender deserves punishment, of a basic desert kind. Here a kind without any further purposes but that to cause suffering or even death, should we talk about the death sentence.

Basic desert is void of deterring others or to rehabilitate.

Is it (really) so that the persons who want to cause suffering by this legal punishment have to prove without a reasonable doubt that the person does deserve to suffer?

There are thoughts about a precationary principle. For example, if science have yet to determine whether an act is safe or unsafe, harmful or not harmful, we should refrain from the action.

Tobacco was not fully determined to be harmful by science at one point in time, and that would be a time to use precations.

Another example is climate change. If we have yet to establish that these actions will have such an impact on the odds of wildfires (and with it death and/or injury or ruin), then we should refrain from those actions.

Is it also sensible to refrain from legal punishment, when it's not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that such legal punishment is something a person does deserve?

Furthermore when it's not established whether we live in a deterministic world or if we have free will or do not.

Whether the case is libertanianism, compatibilism or hard determinism.

To inflict harm on a person who isn't blameworthy nor responsible due to the "disappearing agent" effect of determinism and this lacking of free will may not be sensible.

Even in a world with free will, it's not at all obvious or clear "that these persons should suffer."

As the title says. Do you think you can meet "the one", and the only thing making it so difficult is the timing of your life. I can't help but wonder, what if it was 5 years later on. Once we've done all the work on ourselves that we would do in those 5 years. Or possibly all the self destruction. Or the nothing. Would it be the same

Consider a community garden with a long waiting list.

One resident has maintained a particular plot for twenty years. After they die, their family asks to keep the plot untouched.

They don't intend to grow anything there.

They simply want to preserve a place that meant a great deal to someone they loved.

Other residents are waiting for an opportunity to grow vegetables, including people who could genuinely benefit from the produce.

What should the community do?

One argument is that the garden exists to be used. Allowing an empty plot to remain unavailable indefinitely would be unfair to everyone waiting.

But there's another perspective.

Places can acquire meaning that goes beyond their immediate practical purpose. A garden plot might represent years of work, relationships, and memories.

Treating that meaning as irrelevant simply because it cannot be measured seems unnecessarily harsh.

Perhaps the family could keep the plot for one season.

But why one season rather than two?

And should the community apply the same rule to everyone, even when circumstances differ?

I think this illustrates a broader tension between efficiency and emotional value.

We want communities to use limited resources responsibly.

But we also want them to recognize that human needs extend beyond whatever can be measured.

Where would you draw the boundary?

Should sentimental attachment ever justify keeping a scarce resource unavailable to others?

And who should decide when that attachment has received enough consideration?

Today I was talking to my 10-year-old niece, and she kept questioning why I listen to certain artists. When I asked why she disliked them, she didn't really have an answer. She doesn't know much about them, but she's still so confident questioning my choices.

My cousins often make fun of me for listening to foreign artists, asking if I even understand their songs. So I started wondering if my niece is picking up the same attitude from them, even without fully understanding why.

When I asked her what her school teaches about people from other countries, she said everyone is equal. They also learn about different festivals, languages, and cultures.

It made me think about how children learn different things at school and at home. They might hear one perspective in class and see something completely different in everyday life.

I'm curious how much of our thinking comes from our own experiences and how much we pick up from the people around us while growing up.

People from 1700 or 1800 seems to have multiple degrees from multiple streams?? Why and how was that possible?? Is it same today ?? What I have noticed they used to masters or phd in art streams and also do stellar contributions to science. Just curious to hear different viewpoints.

I'm 31 and keep running into this question. People often say "don't quit, you've already put so much into it," but economists call that the sunk cost fallacy, meaning past investment shouldn't influence future decisions. On the other hand, constantly switching paths can mean never finishing anything.

How do you tell the difference between giving up too early and holding on too long? Has anyone made a big switch later in life and regretted it, or been glad they did?

From Teenagers/ Kids bullying their agemates, to Church, Fraternities, Hollywood, Home, in all social circles you can think of.

Im wondering why, why do humans take part and seek out committing despicable things to eachother?

When you turn on the news, now more than ever, theres a new abuse scandal uncovered. It doesnt even have to make it to the breaking news, everyone knows someone who has experienced abuse in some shape of form.

What sickens me the most is, that most of this abuse is directed towards children and in an atrocious way. Why dont abusers resort to verbal abuse, if they get a kick out of being sadistic, why must it be in a way that only husband and wife are meant to interact with eachother, if you know what i mean. Why do people seek out weak, non consensual beings, and why must it be done in that way? We hardly hear of a crime ring, seeking to beat up children/women. No its to grape them. If its just about power, there are many other ways to overpower someone, why do abusers resort to that way, and when will the cycle end?

There must come a time, where just like slavery, excual abuse must be so uncommon because its so harmful to society, and end

I've been thinking about the ethics of dating, trust, and emotional self-preservation, and I'd genuinely like to hear different perspectives.

The way I see it, romantic relationships involve a degree of risk. You can love someone, invest years in them, build a life together, and still have them leave you in a way that causes you significant emotional pain. You can't force someone to stay, and you can't guarantee that they'll treat you with the same consideration you give them. We're told that this is simply part of dating. You have to accept the risk if you want the reward.

If I'm expected to accept the possibility that someone will hurt me, even if I'm sincere, honest, and genuinely invested in them, why is it inherently wrong for me to protect myself by keeping my feelings detached and not being entirely honest about them?

This aint about cheating, financial exploitation, deliberately trying to ruin someone's life etc. I'm talking about a situation where someone wants companionship, affection, and the benefits of a relationship but doesn't want to become emotionally invested enough to be devastated if it ends. They might tell their partner they love them even when they don't, while privately ensuring they never become attached. That way you get companionship while reducing their own emotional vulnerability.

The obvious counterargument is that the other person is being deceived and might develop genuine feelings or make life decisions based on a false understanding of the relationship. I understand that argument. Their feelings matter, and they deserve to make informed decisions.

But I keep coming back to this question: Why tf is one person's emotional security considered a legitimate priority, while the other person's emotional security is treated as something they must risk in pursuit of love?

If both people are capable of hurting each other, why is it morally acceptable to enter a relationship knowing you might hurt someone unintentionally by leaving, but morally unacceptable to deliberately withhold or misrepresent your feelings to protect yourself from being hurt? Why prioritize honesty as a principle even when dishonesty might benefit the person practicing it?

I'm not necessarily arguing that deception is justified. I'm trying to understand the reasoning behind why it isn't, especially when the person doing it believes it would make their life happier and more emotionally secure.

Where is the ethical line between protecting yourself emotionally and being dishonest with someone else to protect yourself? And why?

edit: crazy how many downvotes you get for asking a question you truly are wrestling with on trueask reddit. But perhaps you guys think I am just evil asf so let me explain; I have had a string of traumatic relationships. I have a degree in Philosophy, so naturally I am trying to put myself into the shoes of people who have treated me with no tact whatsoever. Please understand this is simply a hypothetical moral / ethical debate I wanted to encourage around honesty or 'wearing your heart on your sleeve' with other human beings.

If this discussion makes you uncomfortable I understand. I hope none of you have the experiences I have had with other people in romantic relationships..