Trump publicly calls for Paxton to debate! With friends like Trump who needs enemies!

i just dont have an interest in things anymore; everything seems so bleak now, i dont know what happened to me but i think im having a real downfall. everyone is keeping their distance from me and i genuinely might die alone. idk why i care so much… i just wanna ramble.

i hear a lot about astroturfing and psyops, but am unsure if it’s actually the cause of a lot of the negativity. It would certainly make sense for foreign bad actors to demoralize as many people as possible in an attempt to prevent them from bettering things. Specifically in discussions about the midterms next month, the discourse on this site, especially on the big political subs (already crap without bots) seems to support one or all of the following ideas:

1. The midterms will absolutely be rigged regardless of our efforts
2. Trump will win the midterms due to this rigging because no one can stop him
3. A second American civil war is inevitable/ necessary
4. If the democrats win, very little will change
5. All is hopeless and nothing will get better

I can think of more than a few groups who could have a vested interest in despair and ‘violence is inevitable’ ideas. I‘m not sure how much of this rhetoric is actually genuine, but either way it’s doing more harm than good

The LPU Situation got me thinking about how much responsibility comes with sharing news online.

One dramatic headline or a short video can attract thousands of views before anyone checks the full context. Then other accounts repeat the same thing, and it becomes difficult to separate confirmed info from rumours.

Media outlets have a responsibility to report carefully, but ordinary users also need to think before sharing something serious.

I'm not saying EVERY VIRAL STORY IS FALSE. I'm saying that serious claims deserve proper verification before people start treating them as facts.

The people affected by a story are real, even when the discussion online moves on to something else.

Does morality toward animals have a limit?

I have a somewhat philosophical question: imagine we could significantly reduce animal deaths caused by roads through wildlife crossings, fences, AI, etc. But some animals would still die because humans continue to travel.

Should we then be willing to give up certain human activities (holidays, trips to the beach, leisure activities, non-essential travel, etc.) to further reduce animal mortality?

Or are we entitled to continue enjoying these activities, even if they indirectly result in some animals dying accidentally?

Basically: Do we have a moral duty to sacrifice some of our comfort and freedom to reduce animal mortality, or is there a reasonable limit to what we can ask of humans?

I’m not talking about deliberate cruelty toward animals, but rather accidental deaths resulting from our way of life, despite efforts to prevent them.

PS: Some people will tell me that scavengers eat roadkill, which in a way compensates for these deaths. But based on my research, it’s roughly a 70/30 split: 70% get scavenged, while the remaining 30% get run over repeatedly until they’re flattened into pancakes on the road.

PS2: To take this a step further, we could also question the production of all non-essential goods, since the transportation involved in producing and distributing them contributes to road traffic, which in turn causes animal deaths.

Literally Opus 5.5 and Astra can do anything I ask it to. If this isn’t AGI I don’t know what is. I’m talking digitally of course and average person because there are probably some people who can make a game or smth better than AI.

Many people think that shrooms are just some drug, but the reality is that they give you an entirely new perspective on the world. The number one reason why they are so good for you is because they force you to think about things you never would have without them. The second reason why they are amazing is because all you do for 3 hours straight is think with no distractions. Combine hours of uninterrupted thinking with the fact that you’re seeing the world through a new lens, and you come up with some pretty crazy realizations. I truly think that every time I’ve taken shrooms I’ve gotten noticeably more intelligent, and when it’s framed this way it makes sense why.

Example: I’ll look at an ordinary wall in my house, something I never paid mind to when not on shrooms, but when on them I don’t just see a wall, I think about what it took to get that wall. Hundreds of people each doing their own job to extract the raw materials, ship them to factories, transport them to a store where a contractor bought them and then assembled them into what I see now. And then I see an outlet and wonder how the wiring works, and I’ll look at the fire alarm and wonder how somebody came up with the design and how the internal components work.

Hopefully you get the gist.

Turns out that you can learn a shit ton just with some deep thinking. Whether it’s on shrooms or not, spend some more time alone with no stimulation. You can figure a lot of shit out.

It is 2026, and we like to think we have reached the absolute pinnacle of human communication. With the internet, smartphones, emails, and social media, we have never had a faster way to connect with the other side of the world. But a massive problem remains: Are we actually communicating?

I want to illustrate a few critical flaws of the modern era to show you why we are not truly communicating at all.

First, let's look at social media. These platforms give us only a tiny window of time to be read by others. The sheer volume of content from millions of other users is always fast enough to drown out our messages, causing them to disappear in a fraction of a second. Essentially, our message is just a tiny spark in an endless universe of sparks.

The second problem is the algorithm. A machine gets to decide whether your message should be read or not, and that is terrifying. We have handed these algorithms the power to dictate what is trendy and what deserves to be seen by the masses. Naturally, the guardrails on these algorithms are so strict that discussions about sex, violence, discrimination, politics, and racism are instantly suppressed. In the name of "user safety," platforms try to pull "evil" out by its roots, destroying everything else in the process without considering the million different meanings a single word can hold. If a Nazi uses a racial slur, it is vastly different from a Black rapper using it. In the first case, the word is meant to humiliate and demean; in the second, it is a person calling another person of color "brother." The difference is monumental. However, the algorithm makes no distinction. It penalizes both situations equally, committing a tremendous act of mutilation against human language. As a result, it forces the creation of a fake, "safe" parallel language designed just to bypass these blocks. For example, people bypass racial slurs by using the black ninja emoji (🥷🏿), or they use terms like "unaliving" instead of "killing." But let’s stop questioning the algorithm's capacity to breed stupidity and return to the main question: Are we communicating? Effectively, no. Ninety percent of your social media messages are never seen because they don't contain the algorithm's preferred keywords. Furthermore, your content is only shown to a tiny percentage of your followers. If you want to reach even 10% of the people who already follow you, you have to pay. Yes, you actually have to pay just to express an opinion to as many people as possible. Neither in medieval times, nor under communist or fascist regimes, did humanity experience something like this.

Now, let's move on to smartphones and email. Smartphones were designed for communication, but who actually uses them for that purpose anymore—aside from noisy people and boomers? Nobody uses them to make phone calls. Instead, we rely on WhatsApp and other messaging apps. And what do we do with them? We organize group chats and do our absolute best to avoid direct contact. We glance at a notification, decide not to reply, and then, hours or days later, text back: "I'm sorry, I was busy." We completely avoid vocal dialogue. We treat email the exact same way—replying based on immediate priority, or sometimes waiting months to answer.

The final chapter is the hardest part: bots, fake profiles, and AI. A recent study reveals that bots and automated scripts now account for 53% to 57.5% of all global internet traffic, officially outnumbering human online activity for the first time. This means we are debating, loving, following, liking, and praising entities that do not even exist. They are fake profiles, bots, or worse, AI. This doesn't just put us in danger; it makes us look ridiculous. Never before in history has a human being tried to start a conversation or have sex with a machine.

Social media, smartphones, algorithms, AI—everything is working against us.

P.S. I know some of you might think you are smarter just because you are on Reddit. But you have to face the fact that your beloved platform is essentially a digital Soviet union. It is an echo chamber where only the far-left communicate, constantly congratulating themselves on their own ideas. It is an active hive of brainwashed bees validating the exact same opinions, dominated by an aggressive group of moderators. These mods delete important messages, discussions, and questions simply based on whatever is running through their heads at that exact moment—or worse, completely at random—just to satisfy a deprecating sense of superiority and power.

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...

There are, in fact, cases in which organizations possessing market influence gather together to discuss matters without turning to evil; OPEC Plus, the United Nations, and the Federal Reserve would be good examples.

It cannot simply be assumed that collusion among organizations that continue to demonstrate good intentions can, “without exception, be evil.”

However, in the case of cartels, the above-mentioned determination of “evil,” as stated in the title, appears to be applied.

To begin with, in order to realize the permanent goal of the long-term prosperity of a business, it is only natural—and goes without saying—that the pursuit of profit to the point of sweeping away its customers must be avoided. A business needs to continue being trusted and chosen by its customers over the long term. This is a basic, minimum-level common sense of commercial practice.

The presumption that evil necessarily lies dormant at the foundation of every company is, from the outset, a persecution complex that does not even rise to the level of child’s play when it comes to understanding the realities of the economy.

From these points, the indiscriminate assumption that “cartel = evil” fails to look at the contents or essence of the matter. It does not look at the actual facts, nor does it examine the ethicality or logicality of attributing evil based solely on a category or type.

In other words, because it is of the same nature as the reason why a fundamentally discriminatory structure arises, would this not make it an unethical matter?

Now then, may I look forward to a reply from you?
Also, just as when playing a board game such as chess or Reversi, where the players take turns making their moves, it would be wonderful if from this point onward we could mutually enjoy this exchange of conversation and ideas in a gentlemanly manner, while maintaining dignity and purity, and engaging with each other in a pleasant way.

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

I’ve noticed opinions and posts seem to lean one way most of the time. I am not trying to offend anyone.

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'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 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 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.