DarkBluePhoenix wrote:^ No one (besides those two girls) has ever asked me if I'm gay.The guys that spread that rumor also knew full well that I wasn't, to them it was just another sick practical joke.

Honestly, it more sounds like thinning out the competition - after all, if everyone thinks you're gay, no girl is going to think they can get with you, which makes you a non-option. Given the nature of high school relationships and the people in them, though, it may - or may not - be as simple as a shitty practical joke, but still, those relationships don't last long, and they may have just been making sure you couldn't get with anyone they wanted to be with, though AFAIK most high schoolers don't have the foresight or self-awareness to come to that conclusion. It's also possible that they honestly thought that you were - as sure as you are that they knew you weren't, are you really that willing to assume malice over stupidity, especially considering how dumb high schoolers are in general - and how dumb jock douchebags tend to be specifically - over something you can't really change except to inform past crushes that no, you're not gay, and yes, maybe a date wouldn't be so bad, if they're not romantically preoccupied?

On another note, though - yeah, we've all felt like Quantum Leaping to fix one big HS-era problem that would've saved us from our current, miserable existences (in case anyone forgot my preternatural talent for shameless oneupsmanship: one GF in my entire life, lasted six years, I have a kid with her, haven't recovered mentally, emotionally, and certainly not romantically or sexually - it's been five years since then), but the problem with dwelling in the past is that the science isn't there just yet - we just kind of have to bury it, dig it up every so often for reference, than re-bury it after we've learned some sort of meaningful insight or advice to help win today's battles. It can only hurt you more to obsess over chances you might have had, because they're gone...but in time, the future will avail you opportunities, if you give it the chance ("give it the chance" meaning more than just sitting around and waiting, of course - you've gotta do you in the meantime, but also put yourself in positions where others can see you for who you are and hopefully appreciate you, advice I'd do very well to actually follow).

There's also the fact that life is long, people are incredibly numerous, and the worst that can happen if you ask out a girl you like is that she'll say "no" (or "I have a boyfriend", or become violent towards you). There's also something to be said about becoming just friends with girls as well - if you're actually friends, she/they will probably help you sort through whatever issues bar you from dating. The main thing is, you probably aren't going to die from talking to a bunch of women, and so long as you're not overly pervy or bordering on criminal, you're probably not going to get hurt or hated, either, so there's no real reason not to just throw yourself out there apart from fear of rejection (pretty strong demotivator, if I'm being honest here), and eventually, like all shitty, painful things, that'll get easier to deal with.

It also helps to know what you're really looking for - I mean, sure, you want a girlfriend because you've never been with a girl, but what does that mean? Do you seek the emotional comforts and nuances of a committed, long-term relationship, the fun and the euphoric rush of a casual relationship (which can segway into the former), near-perpetual companionship and friendship with someone who understands you more than you understand yourself, or still-enjoyable physical gratification with another person? It's not an easy question to answer, at least at first - there's so much overlap and it feels offensive to one who longs for love if he or she comes across the possibility that sex is their strongest motivator, but eventually, there are factors to consider. Do you have female friends? Are you particularly close to any of them? How many of the needs of your perceived relationship are fulfilled by "mere" friendship? Is it that you simply want to experience something you never have before because it seems to be part of what we've come to know as part of our progression through life towards becoming fully actualized people? Do you feel that everyone else around you is closer to this self-actualization than you are because of this?

You don't have to actually answer any of these questions, obviously (at least not to me or anyone here - probably wouldn't hurt to ask yourself, though), and there's a lot of me in that last paragraph (I'm dealing with a lot of this stuff - it occupies my mind more than I'm comfortable with) - I'm not going to sit here and say that this stuff will get your desired results and such, because I haven't followed much of this advice, and I'm very much in the same boat because of my non-adherence to it, but I would probably be in a better position to give that advice if I had followed it.

Also, you're 25 - you have literally decades to potentially date girls. The main thing is, the past is only good for learning from your mistakes and occasionally getting lost in some good memories - it's the future you've gotta invest yourself in, because it's the only thing you can change.

I suppose this is a fairly minor one, but... Fuck my life, I've only got five more years until I'm FORTY?? I've somehow managed to snag a life partner and get out of my parents' house, but I still feel like a bloody child in so many respects. Namely, I have yet to demonstrate any aptitude whatsoever for being reliable to myself or others; my existence is a blurred haze of anxiety that parasitizes upon those with steadier feet. If this is still the case in 2022, my shame levels will be truly overbearing.

(The main trick, I suspect, is finding and holding a job that doesn't exacerbate my mental health issues faster than I can keep up, but this is a grueling and painful process.)

This has been poking at me for the last couple of weeks, but I figured I may as well rant about it today. My dad and I are the only people who use our PC, so whenever I decide to pop on over to YouTube, I can see recommendations based on videos he's been watching. Most of them tend to be comedians/atheists taking the piss out of religion, Neil Diamond songs, and those "LIFE HACKZ" videos Jim Sterling has been taking the piss out of lately, but there's also a good deal of videos relating to conspiracy theories. Not just popular theories, like the JFK assassination and 9/11 (more on that in a bit), but baffling nonsense about the Earth being flat or Madeleine McCann's parents staging her kidnapping to gain exposure.

And I have to ask: if you (the person reading) actually do believe in some of these theories, why do you believe in them? I want to know because some of this shit sounds so ludicrous and cynical to me that I honestly cannot comprehend the sort of person who does believe in them. Like, if the Earth really were flat, even after we've gone into space and observed what the Earth actually looks like, everyone would be in agreement over that sort of thing. Or people who feel that 9/11 must have been an inside job because it was odd the way the buildings fell: in what way are buildings supposed to collapse that ISN'T odd? Are they meant to implode in on themselves and fade out after a few seconds like it's a video game?

Granted, I tend to be very sceptical towards most conspiracy theories because, as Alan Moore once put it in the 'dance of the gull catchers' appendix of From Hell, I feel most people who parrot these theories don't actually believe in them or care about what they imply; they just want to be seen as interesting. They're people who are so fantastically dull or without any merit that they feel the only way anyone will pay attention to them is if they spout crazy nonsense, no matter how improbable or evil it may be:

"Who's that man sitting there by the punch bowl?"

"Dunno, but he's keeps banging on about how vaccines cause autism*."

"Really? Well, I must go and talk to him, then!"

I want to understand how someone can believe these sorts of things, and more to the point, how they feel they must absolutely correct in what they believe, regardless of whatever reality has to say, simply because if THEY're the one who believes it, then it must be true. You know, never mind the fact that belief is a very subjective thing that doesn't automatically agree with reality, or the human mind is as fallible as anything possibly can be and therefore prone to making mistakes and errors.

Nope, that's not possible, you must be 100% correct all the time because it's you and if anyone disagrees, then they're the fools who have been misled/brainwashed/are too stupid to understand (this sentiment was conveyed by my Dad when I disagreed with his 9/11 theories, albeit in a less openly venomous tone).

I really would like to know, just so I can at least have some understanding and not immediately judge conspiracy theorists with scepticism at best and vile hatred at worst. (Or maybe they deserve nothing less, I really don't know.)

(*Speaking as someone with autism, if you genuinely believe this/use it as an excuse to not give your kid vaccines, you are scum of the lowest, laziest sort.)

You seem to have the right of it though, however, crazy that may seem. But I won't go further, as I suspect this is on the edge of ye olde Serious Discussion territory.

There are many conspiracies in the world. Many are probably true. A lot aren't though. We live in an age of information, too much information. Many of us pick and choose our own truths, and can be allowed to live within bubbles of relative delusion. Those prone to crazy conspiracy theories have thicker bubbles. A person of relative capability can critically examine information and apply it to the world, adjusting their worldview accordingly. However, even then it's easy for two people to come to different conclusions, influenced by factors such as upbringing, and so it's very difficult to come upon objective truth.

People who believe in crazy conspiracy theories have a couple things going on. First is a dangerous level of confirmation bias. They decide a thing is true, and then look for anything to support that truth, no matter how flimsy. The second is that bubble I previously mentioned. They can afford to ignore or reject information that doesn't support their worldview. Information they don't like can be dismissed as lies from the government or the mainstream media. The conspiracy theorists know in their hearts they have possession of the real truth, the truth THE MAN doesn't want you to know. These two things perpetuate the crazy.

I like very much what Sachi here said. I thought you might find this post from /r/evangelion interesting; it discusses the OP's view of conspiracy theories during the '90s (such as about the Dead Sea Scrolls) vs. conspiracy theories nowadays, and how he feels that, while most conspiracy theorists used to just do it as a laugh, or for fun, sadly nowadays people are much more serious about them. May want to read it (and the comments) in full.

I used to be into conspiracy theories. It was fun. It was playing pretend, like those people who pretend that Sherlock Holmes was a historical person.

Now it's just right wing crazies.

FrDougal9000 wrote:
And I have to ask: if you (the person reading) actually do believe in some of these theories, why do you believe in them? I want to know because some of this shit sounds so ludicrous and cynical to me that I honestly cannot comprehend the sort of person who does believe in them. Like, if the Earth really were flat, even after we've gone into space and observed what the Earth actually looks like, everyone would be in agreement over that sort of thing. Or people who feel that 9/11 must have been an inside job because it was odd the way the buildings fell: in what way are buildings supposed to collapse that ISN'T odd? Are they meant to implode in on themselves and fade out after a few seconds like it's a video game?

Granted, I tend to be very sceptical towards most conspiracy theories because, as Alan Moore once put it in the 'dance of the gull catchers' appendix of From Hell, I feel most people who parrot these theories don't actually believe in them or care about what they imply; they just want to be seen as interesting. They're people who are so fantastically dull or without any merit that they feel the only way anyone will pay attention to them is if they spout crazy nonsense, no matter how improbable or evil it may be.

I really would like to know, just so I can at least have some understanding and not immediately judge conspiracy theorists...

(*Speaking as someone with autism, if you genuinely believe this/use it as an excuse to not give your kid vaccines, you are scum of the lowest, laziest sort.)

I generally buy into the JFK-assassination having some CIA imprint because it was obvious from what little testimony that Oswald gave, he had zero idea how to properly use a Carcano. He chambered 6.5x55 rounds instead of 6.5x52 Mannlicher rounds which would've caused a considerable accuracy drop, to the point where the bullet would've basically been tumbling before it hit the Preisdent, creating a very different type of entrance wound, especially accounting for the distance. Is your dad a firearm enthusiast? I usually find that's the first step towards someone taking a look at the Report and raising their eyebrow. I had this discussion while on a boar hunt in Piemonte with a Fellow who, now retired, worked in the Brescia Arms manufactory (where Carcanos were made) in the 60s, and they were given a gag order to not talk about the Kennedy assassination publicly, which again struck me as deeply odd.

It's really not a cause for me by any stretch, I don't envision myself making 5 hour long YouTube videos about it, but I also come from a line of state agents for totalitarian regimes (my grandparents were imperial agents for the Portuguese Salazar regime during the Angolan wars) and I can tell you that these sorts of cover ups happen all the time, all over the world. Often it's on a need-to-know basis. Americans and Brits by and large have the luxury of thinking that their government generally acts in good faith, so the idea of "conspiracies" are somehow bad.

FrDougal9000 wrote:And I have to ask: if you (the person reading) actually do believe in some of these theories, why do you believe in them?

Duh, mate. On every 3rd May I am obliged to celebrate the anniversary of some masonic (sic!) conspiracy which led to a coup-d'etat in order to push the act of Constitution through my Parliament – the first constitution in Europe and second one in the whole wide world. This conspiracy is cannon of our historical curriculum here, so we all know that the king himself was a mason; and yet nobody here even thinks it was a classical conspiracy, as it was indeed. Maybe it's because it eventually failed – the radical right wingers (sic!) gathered and called on a neighbour power to deal with the Royal Conspiracy and to restore the pre-constitutional order, which effectively canceled the independent Polish state for 123 years (note the suspicious sequence of numbers!).

TL;DR: I am an old gramp and you are a baby playing with box of matches.

Please send prayers/well wishes, my aunt's cancer is probably back.
Thanks.

@Ran1

Huh. You certainly seem to have an interesting background...

@movieartman

Our thoughts are with you and your aunt. I hope she recovers.

ran1 wrote:He chambered 6.5x55 rounds instead of 6.5x52 Mannlicher rounds

Given that this is physically impossible, whoever told you it should probably not be taken seriously.

BobBQ wrote:Given that this is physically impossible, whoever told you it should probably not be taken seriously.

It's not like you can't chamber-ream it or re-barrel, if he did I'd imagine it was likely in some Mexico chop-shop because apparently he spent a week there in between ordering the gun in its original caliber and shooting the President. I know that was a thing with the Arisakas, at least. Obviously you'd have to resize the grooves which would've rendered it even more inaccurate. But again I'm just taking Oswald's own word in his testimony that he fired a Swedish round instead of the Mannlicher 52s.

movieartman wrote:Please send prayers/well wishes, my aunt's cancer is probably back.
Thanks.

My thoughts are with you and I really hope your aunt recovers.

Wait, what? We know exactly what bullets Oswald used down to the lot number of the 6.5 Carcano he fired. No way in hell he put a different cartridge in his gun.

Besides, he was a marine and a qualified sharpshooter. Any claim that Oswald was inexperienced with firearms or couldn't shoot is a flat out lie.

Chuckman wrote:Wait, what? We know exactly what bullets Oswald used down to the lot number of the 6.5 Carcano he fired. No way in hell he put a different cartridge in his gun.

Besides, he was a marine and a qualified sharpshooter. Any claim that Oswald was inexperienced with firearms or couldn't shoot is a flat out lie.

That's what I'm getting at. According to his own testimony to the DFWPD, he stated that he used swedish ammo when the bullets on file in were the 6.5x52 Mannlichers. That's what a lot of these folks fixate on. I'm perfectly willing to qualify it as a Freudian slip or misdirection. No problems there. But it can't be denied there's a discrepancy between his testimony and the what the claims by investigation were. I'm also willing to accept that he may have been signaling that he wasn't the shooter. I'm not going to pretend to know, I'm just not sure enough myself to argue vehemently that it's a conspiracy theory to be ignored outright. The coincidence about the guide I went on a boar hunting trip with piqued my interest in looking into it, but again, it's not a cause and I'd defer to the people actually researching alternative interpretations.

And I'm not in doubt of his skill. But if he fired a re-chambered Carcano with Swedish 6.5s than all the training in the world won't hinder a shitty re-manufacturing. presumably in some backalley chop-shop in Tijuana. I haven't done a thorough examination on the rifle itself. We're limited to what the investigation issued, so I don't claim to know. I'm just not completely opposed to hearing other interpretations regarding a cover-up, especially given my experience as a grandchild of totalitarian colonial administrators whose line of work often did precisely that.

Sachi wrote:Back to the topic please. Feed me your sorrows.

Missed this before posting, FML bc we live in post-Kennedy America, and I'll leave it at that.

movieartman wrote:Please send prayers/well wishes, my aunt's cancer is probably back.
Thanks.

Hopefully they're wrong about it having come back. Best wishes to her.

Many thanks imprimatur13, silvermoonlight & child of Lilith.

I want to grab the entire millenial generation by how disinterested and ironic and above everything it is and shove it up its own ass. Thanks for listening.