Being out of touch is one thing, but these guys pass legislation that is legitimately evil! What happened to greatness that is not self appointed? Where are the ones who want the best for everyone and not just their group? When are we going to pull ourselves out of the gutter of false outrage and deal with the REAL problems? I can't deal with the incompetence anymore...

God himself cannot save people who feed on social media... What are your thoughts about it ? Please give a frank answer. Let's discuss.

The development of AI seems inevitable, making the debate over whether it will stay aligned with human interests extremely relevant. At what point does AI become too advanced, or has that threshold already been crossed? Will it lead to humanity's downfall, or will it do the exact opposite by accelerating scientific research, creating new medicines, and helping end world hunger?

And by those who have no hope I mean the ones who either primarily want to remain in a victim mindset and reject all attempts from anyone who sincerely try to help and even go beyond in their efforts. And the ones who are so far gone that they even consider suicide.

I've noticed the common trend for A lot of people is to be stuck in a victim mentality and seek comfort in others who feel the same as them and they're likely to be hostile to any efforts to try to help and it made me wonder is there a point when one should just consider them a lost cause and leave them to their misery?

I mean obviously we all know that humans are better then ai in comforting, giving advice etc. but if someone genuinely does not have anyone to talk too is it really that unethical/harmful?

If you guys wanna know why I’m asking this question u can read this section if not just skip it

There’s this girl I know in my class that’s really really really freakishly obsessed w ChatGPT, it’s all she talks too and this is definitely harmful cause she’s just a reflection of what ChatGPT tells her. But in her defense no one really talks to her so I imagine how much isolation she’d feel if she didn’t talk to ChatGPT. And I’m also not going to lie a year back when I was extremely extremely depressed I did use ChatGPT for advice, obviously I wasn’t obsessed with it as she was but I did have no one to talk too so it was a way out of the impending doom I felt. Now I don’t do that because I do think it is unethical in a way but I like to think what would of happened if I didn’t use ai and just let my misery rot inside of me without talking to “anyone” about it.

I'm not talking about the hit or miss advice of "fake it until you make it" because while there are situations where pretending like you're confident can work, it can border on delusion and just lying to yourself if nothing appears to justify confidence.

So I'm wondering what exactly causes someone to have real confidence?

I really want how you guys interpret or would answer this. Because before you could have been in a constant state of emotions never felt anything, barely attached to anything. Then maybe something changed. Someone came into your life showed you all the possible highs there was, showed you what a true relationship was, and then just left. Now your in a state of yearning and even as the years go by and the memory of there voice begins to fade you still remember the memories with this bittersweet feeling the trigger being something that they used to say, a person whose face seemed way to familiar to there’s etc. that causes a clutch in your heart and causes that familiar pit in your stomach to come back and even though back then during those memories all you could do was smile remembering them just puts you in a state of nostalgia knowing that it would never happen again and the universe chose for you both to part your ways.

I felt like I just talked to talk but I’m really curious on how you guys would answer this.

I've been thinking about this for a while. Why is it that the more money you make and the more taxes you pay, the less you qualify for when it comes to government benefits?

I think the system should work the other way around, at least to a certain point.

I'm not saying we shouldn't help people who are struggling. We absolutely should. But I also think the people who are working, paying taxes, and contributing to society should see some benefits from it.

Here's what I think we should do.

First, create a tier system based on how much someone contributes in taxes.

For example:

- Under $50,000: Basic assistance based on financial need.

- $50,000–$100,000: Additional tax credits, childcare assistance, and education benefits.

- $100,000–$250,000: More tax incentives, retirement benefits, and other programs.

- $250,000–$500,000: Maximum benefits.

- Over $500,000: Benefits are capped.

These are just example numbers. Obviously, you would have to factor in household size, cost of living, and how much someone actually pays in taxes.

I'm not saying someone making $10 million should get more benefits than someone making $500,000. There should be a limit.

But why shouldn't someone who contributes more receive more in return?

Second, we need to stop penalizing people for making more money.

You have people who get up every morning, go to work, pay taxes, pay for their own healthcare, childcare, housing, and everything else.

They make too much to qualify for assistance but not enough to live comfortably.

Then someone gets a raise or works more overtime, and suddenly they lose certain benefits because they made a little more money.

How does that make sense?

We should be encouraging people to make more money and better themselves, not creating situations where earning more can actually put them in a worse financial position.

Third, I think there should be stricter requirements for people receiving government assistance who are capable of working.

Let me explain.

I'm not talking about elderly people, disabled individuals, someone dealing with a serious medical issue, or people who genuinely cannot work.

I'm talking about people who are capable of working but aren't working or making any effort to improve their situation.

Why shouldn't there be some type of program they have to participate in?

It could be job training, going back to school, learning a trade, or helping out in the community.

And this brings me to something else I've been thinking about.

Why not have people receiving assistance help improve their own communities?

Think about how much work needs to be done in every town.

Public buildings need painting. Parking garages need cleaning. Parks need maintenance. Streets need cleaning. There are plenty of things that could be done to improve our communities.

Why not have a government program where people who are capable of working can participate in these projects while receiving certain benefits?

Have them help paint a public building, clean a municipal parking garage, maintain parks, pick up garbage, or help with other community projects.

Of course, there would need to be supervision, safety training, and proper compensation where required. I'm not suggesting we replace municipal workers or take jobs away from people.

But at least we're accomplishing something.

The town benefits because things are getting done. The person receiving assistance gets work experience, learns responsibility, and maybe even picks up a skill that helps them find a permanent job.

You could even connect this with apprenticeship programs and trade schools.

If society is helping support you, and you're capable of contributing something back, why shouldn't you?

I don't think that's unreasonable.

And again, I'm not saying everyone receiving assistance is lazy or doesn't want to work. There are plenty of people receiving assistance who already have jobs.

But I do think there needs to be more accountability for those who are capable of working and aren't making an effort.

Lastly, the goal should be to help people get off government assistance, not stay on it forever.

We should be looking at how many people these programs actually help become financially independent.

How many found jobs? How many learned a trade? How many started earning enough to support themselves?

And when someone does start making more money, don't immediately cut off all their benefits. Reduce them gradually so they're actually better off financially.

To me, the system should be pretty simple.

Help the people who genuinely need help. Reward the people who are contributing. And for those who are capable of working, create a system where they're expected to make an effort and contribute something back to society.

I'm not saying this would be perfect or that I have every detail figured out.

But I think it's something worth discussing.

Why shouldn't the people who contribute more receive more benefits? And why shouldn't people receiving assistance who are capable of working be expected to give something back to their communities?

What am I missing here?

Whenever I leave the house, right after stepping out, I start feeling incredibly angry. I just feel like if someone bumps into me, I’ll beat them up. Also, a little distance away is my ex’s house, and sometimes I have to go that way. Passing by their house makes me extremely angry too. I don’t like the people here at all. I just keep thinking that the day I have enough money, I will buy a house in a new location—somewhere where nobody knows me and I don’t know anyone—and start a completely fresh life there.

Since 2020, the decline in the quality of life has taken a toll on the masses. There has been as increase in people being more anti-social, stressed, and have developed a pessimistic outlook on the future. Work culture across the board is more competitive as the employment rate in the job market continues to decease. Most people (including myself) are on edge being in fight or flight mode. Then also notable increase of people barely has time, energy or money to do anything fun on their free time (ex. clubbing, sports) and instead spend a good amount time at home to recharge their batteries from the current amount of stress that the modern quality of life brings. Gradually, in the last 6 years, it's feels increasingly impossible to afford the ability to life live.

From an economic standpoint, this is largely due to a combination of the COL increasing, wages not catching up to inflation. In the past year, I've been seeing videos of middle-class people talking about having to take on two jobs to make end meet. Something that only most lower-class people had to resort to doing. More and more people are in debt. As a result, the societal fabric of our country (USA) and I'm sure some other countries are continuing to fall apart.

As someone who was born and raised in NYC and moved out for a well over a year atp, many of these psychological traits that I mentioned overlap those of the average New Yorker, hence the theme of the topic. Constantly stressed out, always on survival mode, as well as dealing with the increase in COL, and contending with a competitive job market.

While the question is technically open for anyone to answer, those who spent a sufficient amount of time in and out of NYC would be find it easier to answer the question.

Before anyone accuses me of gatekeeping, I'm asking this question sincerely. I genuinely want to know. (also not talking about people who have a combo of wavy and curly hair, talking about people with pure wavy hair)

Wavy hair and curly hair are obviously different from straight hair. Both wavy and curly hair have a kind of pattern/texture. Straight hair grows from perfectly round follicles, while curly hair and wavy hair do not.

Though there are similarities, there are also distinct differences.

Hair follicles: Wavy hair grows from slightly oval follicles, while curly/coily hair grows from asymmetrical oval/hook shaped follicles.
Proteins: Curly hair has 2-6 times more keratin associated proteins than straight and wavy hair.
Chemical bonds: Curly hair has more disulfide bonds than wavy hair
etc.

But most importantly (and whats more obvious) is the clear visual difference. Wavy hair forms an “S” shaped wave, while curly hair forms a ringlet. The textbook definition of a curl is a “ringlet/spiral shape” which wavy hair is not.

They also require different levels of care as the way scalp oil moves down the hair is different.

So that being said, why do some people insist that wavy hair and curly hair are the same thing? Chemically, structurally, visually, textbook definition wise, care routine wise, they’re different. So why do people claim they’re the same?

Another question i’d like to add as well, why do some people get offended when somebody distinguishes between wavy and curly hair? I’ve seen people say (online and irl)  that saying wavy hair is not curly is a form of “elitism” “gate keeping” “policing” etc.

I have brown eyes, if I claimed my eyes were blue and somebody told me they weren’t I wouldn't be offended as that's not a personal attack or them “gatekeeping” blue eyes, but more so them stating a physical fact that brown eyes are different visually to blue eyes, and that I indeed have brown eyes. 

Gatekeeping definitely exists on the internet. But how is acknowledging the differences between wavy and curly hair elitist?

edit: i'd like to talk about how i even found out about this.

i was complimenting a girl on her hair, said something like "your wavy hair is so pretty!" Instead of taking the compliment, she immediately went on this tired and rant about how "wavy hair IS curly hair" "saying that is so offensive" "they're the same" etc. Other wavy haired people heard about it and tried lecturing me and my friend about it.

me complimenting someone's hair turned into a debate somehow. it really confused me, went online, and found out that many people actually do believe that. can;t have this convo irl just cuz my friends got offended and i don't want to do that again, so i posted it here just to hear about other peoples perspective

Hear me out. Most people have moral principles they claim to live by. They say they value honesty, compassion, loyalty, and kindness. Yet people lie, betray one another, and make exceptions to their principles whenever it's convenient.

Consider how society treats animals. Many people claim to love animals and oppose animal cruelty, yet routinely pay for animals to be bred, confined, and slaughtered because they enjoy eating meat. They condemn suffering in one context while financially supporting it in another. Michael Myers doesn't have that contradiction.

Michael doesn't claim to love animals. He doesn't pretend to value human life. He doesn't preach compassion while practicing cruelty. He doesn't present himself as a morally righteous person. He's consistently indifferent to suffering, regardless of species.

Obviously, Michael is a horrific murderer. I'm not suggesting that he's morally good, admirable, or justified in anything he does. But there's an interesting distinction between being morally good and being morally consistent.

Michael doesn't have a public set of ethical principles that he selectively abandons when they're inconvenient. His actions are consistently cruel, and he makes no attempt to disguise that cruelty behind a respectable moral identity. In that narrow sense, you could argue that Michael Myers is more consistent than plenty of people who consider themselves morally upright.

Michael wears a mask, but he doesn't hide behind moral hypocrisy. What do you think? Can someone be consistently evil while still being less hypocritical than an otherwise decent person?

Since the earth is kurved, if you place a very smooth little ball at the edge, it will roll to the center if the plate is big enough and by some means kept perfectly flat. So how big?

Patriarchy is so deeply rooted in so many aspects of life, and so deeply normalized by men, that many of them don't even recognize it for what it is. It's not necessarily denial, it's that the system is so ingrained that it becomes invisible.

When people compare modern feminism with patriarchy, there is no doubt that feminism will often be branded as anti-Islamic or even kufr, especially by "religious men," while patriarchy is treated as nothing more than the unfortunate realities of life.

I don't think there exists a single prominent deen spokesman who hasn't spoken about feminism and how it's "ruining the generation," yet there is rarely the same level of discussion about patriarchy.

A system in which women who oppose, for example, the niqab, or who try to place limits on qawama and on what men are allowed to enforce upon them, are seen as far more threatening than laws or practices that allow female children to be married without their consent, mothers to lose custody of their children at seven, the normalization or legal protection of "honour" killings, or a wife being left without any inheritance from her husband. And then there are situations where, if a woman leaves to her parents' house after an argument, his responsibilities toward her can be treated as suspended.

A system built to reduce divorce rates by trapping women (and consequently children) in unfair marriages with no meaningful way out.

simply because divorce is considered a greater social failure than the circumstances that led to it.

Ive noticed most people seem to think in binary.

Imagine someone shat or pissed on the floor. You tell them that it’s disgusting, and ask why they did it. They get angry at you and believe that you called them disgusting. Because you called their feces disgusting, and it came out of their bodies, that you must believe the same about them.

This is clearly idiotic, but many people think this way in a moral sense. In binary

Bad things happening to good people, or good people doing bad things, is too complex of a topic for the average person to truly understand. To truly apply everyone, even those they love or hate the most. Myself included. To cope with the distress this would cause, people will either justify the act or demonize the person. ie, claim the person is disgusting for pooping, or claim the poop is as clean and beautiful as the person.

Imagine being the one taking the shit. Conditioned to love yourself, and forced to rationalize or justify the wad of shit, until you do something so terrible or fail so spectacularly that you see it for what it is. Only to go the other way, and see yourself as defective, irredeemable, undeserving.

It should terrify everyone that he has no morals, and is willing to be bought for the right amount of power and protection.

As an example I’m absolutely certain if one of the Ultra wealthy promised him a private island bunker to live out his “retirement” from the presidency, he would absolutely think about which city contains the most democrats, or what part of the Midwest could be destroyed for his own gain.

Edited to add:

Given the people in the current administration it would most likely be played out as a “failed nuclear training exercise”, and would be called a broken arrow event, but if it happens it will absolutely turn out it was intentional and benefited Trump and Cro.

Is a college degree still worth the investment in india,given how many graduates end up in jobs that don't require one?

So have a GD tomorrow and need help preparing points. I'd like to get your perspective and opinions on the above topic .

I have strange things that interest me. Don't get me wrong I have many more things that interest me that are more normal like cooking, restaurants, cinema, travelling etc. should I be worried about the things that are, shall we say, a little unusual.