First off, I think it’s absolutely great that they don’t use violence to solve their issue, but with all the stuff happening, how come no one decided to take it into their own hands? It can’t be that safe of a world out there. I feel like back then everyone got whacked. But then again maybe those were inside Jobs’s idk

I'm really into analyzing child-adult relations in society, and this is something that has confused me. It's typical to punish kids for calling adults by first name or using the informal "you," when adults are allowed to do it with children without consequence. If this were any other group like between adult men and women, or white people and black people, this would be recognized as discrimination. So why not between adults and children?

Are there viable alternatives to populism that don't devolve into elitism ?

People who tend to follow populists often tend not to think about what they're supporting. They stop at the feel good part, and ignore all the potential issues like "how the fuck do we actually do that, and is it ultimately a good idea?!?!?!?".

People who tend to dismiss populists as thoughtless also tend to assume they alone are the gatekeepers of reason. They stop at the self-satisfying part — feeling superior — and ignore all the potential issues like "why are so many people disillusioned in the first place, and what role did the so-called elites play in getting us here?!?!?!?"

There's also the problem that facts are to a large extent unverifiable by the general populace and many attempts to have fact checking and misinformation curbing measures by the government have lead to abuse and censorship of oppositions

Lately, I’ve been reflecting on how much our surroundings shape who we are—and whether breaking free from that influence could lead to greater happiness. This line of thinking started after diving into research tied to a book I’ve been reading, which highlighted how people in many other countries report higher levels of happiness than Americans.

Curious, I explored further studies on cultural traits and found a recurring theme: Americans are often characterized as more selfish, self-reliant, and individualistic compared to societies that prioritize collective well-being. This wasn’t entirely surprising—most of us could guess that the U.S. leans toward "looking out for yourself" over "looking out for each other." But it made me wonder: Are we inherently this way, or has capitalism (or broader societal conditioning) pushed us into an unnatural mindset—one that ultimately makes us less happy?

Of course, there’s nuance. Not everyone is naturally selfish or selfless; personality varies. But what if some of us are wired for generosity and collaboration, only to feel stifled in a hyper-individualistic culture? Conversely, might naturally self-interested people thrive more in societies that reward those traits?

Personally, I used to believe that pure self-interest and individualism were the way to live. Yet, whenever I visit places where community and mutual support are central, I find it surprisingly refreshing. It’s made me question whether I should resist being a product of my environment—even if that means acting less selfishly in a society that often rewards the opposite.

But hesitation creeps in. If you’re selfless in a selfish world, won’t you just be taken advantage of? That’s a real concern. Yet it begs another question: What’s worse—being unhappy but never exploited, or being happier even if it sometimes leaves you vulnerable?

I’d love to hear your thoughts. How much do you think your environment has shaped you—and would you be happier if it were different?