Phi for All

AKA 24/7 Reality TV shows. Binge-watching all 21,650 seasons of Man vs Beast. You will LONG for death.

Don't you already have a thread where you're complaining about your reputation? And why are you complaining when you put that label on yourself? Did anyone else call you a troll?

Yes.

Why look at it this way, "forcing yourself into somebody's life"? This is what I'm talking about, you always reach for the dark colors when you paint what your life is like. Humans are one of the most cooperative and communicative species on the planet. We respond to each other mostly favorably as long as you're friendly and helpful. Do you see now how you keep rejecting every suggestion, setting them up as unproductive or undesirable? Nobody mentioned "forcing yourself", so why do you see it that way? I think you know it will be hard for you, so you pretend it's impossible, or in this case, you pretend it's something you shouldn't do. Again, you're making it impossible for anyone to help you. "Don't bother suggesting smart places for me to meet people, I've determined there are NO SUCH PLACES ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD!" "Nothing I've done so far seems to work" is the phrase most used just before one screams, "Eureka!" Do you think it would make them smile if you invited them out for an evening of social awkwardness and bad jokes? Try getting out of your head and into someone else's head. Ask open-ended questions that require more than a yes-or-no answer ("What kind of movies do you like?" instead of "Do you like movies?"). And once you ask a question, LISTEN for the answer rather than start thinking about what you'll say next. Listen, you know yourself, and having a friend means you have to be willing to get to know others. You can't do that if you're focused on you. Show some interest in a person, be nice, be helpful, be willing to invest in them. They'll recognize a friend, trust me. We're hardwired for this sort of stuff, as long as we don't second-guess ourselves out of the relationships.

I have no control over what others feel, and I'll have no interest once I'm dead. If it makes them feel better, they can put my ashes in a paper bag and toss them in a dumpster, and save some money and hassle over the funeral arrangements. It would make me feel better now knowing no money would be spent on overpriced interment.

Obviously not, if you're questioning it. If you've made your fortune, and do these things as entertainment and relaxation, I don't think there's anything wrong with it. If you're unemployed and should be working, then these activities aren't going to be fully enjoyable, guiltily knowing you need to be earning your way in the world. If you have a cocktail after a day's work, you're relaxing, but if you're unemployed you're just drinking.

First thing? PUT. THE SHOVEL. DOWN! Claiming you have NO hobbies is ridiculous. You're purposely axing a perfectly good suggestion so you can remain alone. STOP IT. You can't tell me you don't play online games, or watch movies, or follow a TV series, or enjoy some activity that you could do with others for some socialization. Claiming you can't hold a conversation is another generalized negative image you're wearing purposely. You may not be good at it because you don't practice enough, but that's a long way from not being able to do it at all. STOP reaching for the dark paint when drawing a mental image of yourself! You've had some friends (not many, but some), which means your mother can't be your only contact with other people, yet you perceive it that way. I'll tell you something about friends, quantity isn't the key. And the only way to improve the quality is to put yourself out there and be a good friend. If you only have three tight friends by the time you're forty, you can consider yourself blessed. You've been practicing piling up all the negative aspects of your life as a weight that keeps you from doing better. You won't be able to throw all that off at once, so I recommend you start identifying what you want to improve, and make a list and tick the boxes. It's actually not as difficult as you think, because there are plenty of other people JUST LIKE YOU, swimming in a pool of muck you filled yourself. Once you put the shovel down, there's nowhere to go but up. Oh yeah, and this.

It's practically impossible to discuss anything rationally when you include irrational parameters. How much experience do you have with infinity, or things that are ALWAYS one way or another, or things that last forever? I don't think wishful thinking is meaningful. We had a thread about living forever some time ago, and IIRC, consensus was that a few centuries would be best, provided we age at a slower rate, so you don't spend 80% of your life as an old person. Personally, I know that I won't be bothered about not being alive when I'm dead, so it doesn't bother me now. Like StringJunky, it gives me a sense of peace knowing one day I'll go to sleep and it will just never end. I love life very much, but I know as long as my body keeps decaying, I'll reach a point where it's just not enjoyable struggling on.

Like it's owner, it's unobservable, and it's definition varies with each person. It doesn't act like it exists, so why should we believe it does?

Those who dwell on the negative have already started the process of dying.

Maybe you've already turned a corner. You aren't telling people anymore that you aren't willing to consider their thoughts unless they're an expert, so that's something. Stick with that and see where it takes you.

Adapting to crave salted fatback and jazzy gospel was an evolutionary leap in terms of how intelligent and cool we are.

I'd say early to mid-twentieth century. But it wasn't God, at least not directly. It was Ray Charles.

I think you should link to the study you're talking about. "Useless" should be an objective assessment, but often isn't.

ag400002 has been suspended for a week for serial hijacking, and for posting speculative notions in mainstream sections after being warned repeatedly.

With this in mind, it seems like the OP rejected the emotional investment because of his feelings about torture in general, and so he's not getting the rewards he should get when a protagonist survives being tortured (and most likely turns the tables on his captors). He felt the initial revulsion we all would feel, but left the story before he could get the surge of neurochemicals that would turn it into exhilaration and triumph. I also agree we use story lines like these to practice how we feel about issues and situations. Wrt torture, who hasn't wondered what they would do if faced with such a horrific situation? We may hate what we see, and revile the practice, but we're curious about our responses to such irrational behavior.

So you don't know if it's really happening that way, but think it's wrong if it is. Here's the real question. Knowing now that you aren't SUPPOSED to enjoy torture scenes, that they're a literary device for increasing emotional involvement with the characters, will you go back to the episode of The Umbrella Academy and watch it in that new light?

It's torture if it happens to the protagonist, but if you're the antagonist it's punishment or just deserts.

! Moderator Note zyntiger, your concept is full of misconceptions, mistakes, and misunderstandings that you refuse to look into. Others are pointing them out, but you're simply continuing as if nothing were wrong. We call that soapboxing here, and it's against the rules. If you can fix the most obvious errors (look back through the thread, they're all pointed out) and rethink your concepts, you can open a different thread on it, otherwise don't bother bringing up ideas you can't support, especially if you make assertive claims about them. Given your obvious lack of formal science education, perhaps you should ask questions about what you don't know, rather than making things up. Thread closed.

You glossed over my explanation of the need for conflict in any story. Torture is supposed to horrify the audience, and I think it does in the vast majority of cases. I don't believe people are enjoying the torture, they're enjoying seeing their hero thwart the bad guys, or they enjoy seeing triumph over adversity, or they enjoy the growth the characters experience due to abnormal conflicts. I don't see how I'm misinterpreting you. Perhaps you could explain that part. I just asked if you think other people are enjoying the torture, and that's why it sickens you so much. I thought it was obvious too, and I don't know why you feel the need to expand my comment. I did quote you fully on this. I understand that you only think people are wrong who don't feel exactly the way you do about torture as any part of entertainment. Nothing I said implied more. I think you're making the mistake of thinking people are being "entertained" by the torture, and not by what it means in terms of the story. Do you feel the same way about villains who threaten children? I find behavior like that nauseating, but I know it's a tool good writers use to fan emotional flames, make you care about characters. I didn't like that bank robber to begin with, but when he pulled a child out of line and held a gun to their head, I found a whole new level of dislike. Dramatic characters get put through a gauntlet of challenges, and torture is one that makes us all feel especially helpless. It can explain why someone has been broken, and it makes their recovery and triumph more poignant and relatable. Anyone who has seen a Harrison Ford movie knows that by the end, he's going to look like he's been run through a meat grinder. His wounds are like reminders of each conflict he and the audience went through. All this tells me is that you do, indeed, believe there are a lot of people who enjoy seeing torture for entertainment, rather than recognizing it as a dramatic tool for plotting stories, and you're offended by that. If I thought it were true, I'd be offended too.

Compelling stories NEED conflict to drive them. Whether the hero needs to cross the grueling desert, or climb the cliff face, or survive the inhuman torture of his captors, these things provide foils for what the hero needs to accomplish. You're supposed to feel deep revulsion for the things that thwart heroic endeavors. Torture in particular is usually used to show how determined, or skilled, or loyal, or clever, or resourceful the hero is. It's a signal to the reader/viewer that some watershed moment is about to happen. If the writer does their job right, you'll feel more connected and admire the hero more after they've endured a hardship. Whatever they go on to accomplish will be more relevant/meaningful/poignant because of the trials they've experienced. Do you think others are enjoying the torture? That they like what's being done? I think you're mistaken. And I'm sorry, but I think it's deeply wrong to feel this way about people who aren't exactly like you.

! Moderator Note NO, you haven't, you've just claimed you have, over and over. Please take the time to SPECIFICALLY show the evidence you're talking about, and how it supports your ideas. If you can't do this, and address the basic misunderstandings that have been pointed out, I'm going to have to close the thread.

! Moderator Note No, this is unacceptable. YOU need to point out the evidence and show how it supports your assertions, rather than make people go find it. You're trying to persuade the members here that your idea has merit, aren't you? Show some rigor, then, and help support this idea rather than just claiming it's true.

I don't want to starve, so I grab all three and wipe my hand on the bush.

! Moderator Note Too many mistakes that need to be corrected before any of this can be taken seriously. And it looks like we have a sockpuppet of a banned account as well, so this is closed for non-compliance with basic rules.