So rednecks are self sufficient and hard working and hippies shiftless, except the ones who aren't.

What about blacks, Jews, and Asians? What does everyone think about them? Admire them or hold the them in contempt?

For the record, I was born in 1966, which makes me one of the first citizens of Gen X. As one of its eldest statesmen, I can say that it is was and remains the finest generation. It was the last generation that considered tattoos only acceptable for those who once served in the military, lived in trailer parks, or served time in prison. When I was born, as the record reveals, the world was in black and white. Today we have cell phones and pornography availability previously unimaginable. The transition has been flawless for my generation of survivors. We are also the funniest and best looking generation, each and every one of more clever than the rest. My accession to moderator on this forum is precisely the type of success my generation has come to expect.

If you made a movie making fun of America’s move into Vietnam during the Vietnam war (or the 40
Years after for that matter) you would be blasted by everyone everywhere. — TogetherTurtle

There was a very powerful anti-Vietnam movement throughout the war, which many would credit as hastening the end of that conflict. In fact, I'd say Vietnam was a turning point in American history that ended the reverence for American military policy. You'd probably make a better point in arguing that belittling America's involvement in World War 2 would not go over very well, but that has to do with the nature of the conflict more than the sorts of senses of humor the various generations have.

As for the jokes I thought were funny that older people thought were horrible, I suppose you could do a quick google search for memes about the Vietnam war and the disaster that was, about horrible illnesses like AIDs or tuberculosis, or events like 9/11 or the any terrorist attacks in Europe. That last one is my favorite personally right now, those Europeans really have dug themselves into a hole and laughing at that dumpster fire has brought me a lot of joy. Of course, I don’t think those poor people living in Orwellian failed socialst surveillance states are laughing too much. Especially the British, with those acid attacks. — TogetherTurtle

I was looking for a specific joke, not a generalization so that I could see if I would laugh or not. I'm not particularly sensitive, so if I didn't think it was funny, maybe it wasn't. I don't know really because you've not shared the joke.

An AIDS joke isn't really funny to those who've watched their friends buried, a 9/11 joke isn't really funny for those New Yorkers who once worked in the Twin Towers, and the Vietnam War isn't funny to those who can't hold onto any relationships. For that reason, such jokes are usually shared only among very close friends who know their audience and know one another's true opinions. It's entirely different to tell an insensitive joke in private where you respect the sensitivities of those who might be offended as opposed to insisting that you have the right to say whatever you want to whoever you want.

However, in stark contrast to this, there seems to be a prevalent culture among "baby boomers" (typically the younger baby boomers, and especially the ones in the public eye) to take almost everything seriously, no matter how stupid or absurd. — TogetherTurtle

I really don't know what you're talking about with this observation.

Why do people get offended at jokes? — TogetherTurtle

Maybe you lay on us a joke you think super funny that the old people haven gotten offended at and we'll see if we can tell you why they're so terribly offended.

If you go back in time and watch some old sit-coms (like All in the Family for example), you'll see that offensive humor was far more in vogue back then than now. We currently live in a very sensitive society, and that's not the work of boomers as much as it the result of an increasingly diverse society where more people have a voice than before. Those who typically are most sensitive are those that are more liberal than conservative, and there are plenty of conservative old people. Plenty.

I too wonder about this especially people from the south who talk about the "good ole days" considering that back in those days people of a different skin pigmentation were lynched and all. — Anaxagoras

The OP was referencing baby boomers, not those over 100 years old. As noted in the Wiki article,
"Lynchings were most frequent from 1890 to the 1920s, with a peak in 1892." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynching_in_the_United_States.

Regardless, what I suspect is that those reminiscing about the good old days, whether having grown up in the Jim Crow south or even the apparently racist free North, are not talking about how great it was to be white and privileged and how they could kick around those less fortunate, but they are probably referencing their day to day lives, living among friends and in places now long past that they miss and have fond memories of. Sentimentality is not a terribly complicated thing and it's understandable that someone "old" who came into being in a different world and who had adapted to those circumstances at that time would yearn for its return.

I agree in part with the idea that warm memories of days gone by are often romanticized, but I don't agree that they can be dismissed as entirely false. Some good things are lost and not all progress is good. To say otherwise suggests a perfect world where evolution constantly corrects, and that simply is not so.

What about your personality/brain do you think drives you to study philosophy? — Edward

All for the chicks and the money.

But maybe you don't like Buckley either? — csalisbury

It's not so much a question about whether I agree with Buckley or Chomsky. It's a question of whether they deserve special attention because of their self-perceived elevated position in society. Questions about what direction society should take are not necessarily empirical and they aren't matters where there will be universal agreement. They are matters of value and particular moral based worldviews, where different people place different value on different things. Chomsky (and Buckley) have no special power of discerning what it right from a value perspective than does the local minister at the church, the guy working the assembly line, the trust fund baby, or the college professor. When anyone steps forward and declares their values and perspective deserving of special attention because of some superiority they believe they have, they are creating a culture war, saying their religion, their god (or their lack of one) is superior to yours

I have a strong feeling ithat you'll adjust to whatever the circumstances are, so long as you can can maintain a no-nonsense persona. — csalisbury

If you're saying that at the end of the day I'm pragmatic, then I'm likely to agree.

You have ideas, but you're content to bracket them, in order to get a rise. Racy joke --> the lesser sense of humor of others --> self-identity, and political ideas confirmed. There's something to that. But there are others as well-rounded as you, and they're not all dry, sardonic trumpians. — csalisbury

Interesting psychoanalysis of. me, along with some defensiveness on your part that suggests I'm elitist myself, being dismissive of those I don't think are smart as me. It really is interesting insight, but I don't know what it adds to the discussion.

tldr: you're playing on an old 'smart 'experts'' vs 'honest, realistic americans' trope, even if you would balk at that trope put so baldly. And you're making that trope align with the liberals vs conservatives dichotomy, even though that isn't accurate, and would give most traditional conservatives minor seizures. — csalisbury

Is the objection you pose here that I'm using hollow rhetoric, pandering to my pro-American base? I don't follow that because @ssu, who seems aligned with me (and typically he's very much not, so I'm trying to get use to this) is Finnish, a progressively liberal Scandinavian country (although from what I gather, a bit more suspicious of communistic leanings due to their proximity and history with Russia).
At any rate, I'm not sure what to make of it because it doesn't appear as a specific objection to something specifically I said, but I'm open to hearing more on this.

@Ilya B Shambat We've really left the topic. My original comments about the Swedes related to the incorrect statement in your OP where you over-generalized and called all of the 1940s Europeans as "brutes." My next comment to @Bitter Crank sarcastically referenced the abundance of Scandinavian descendants in the US Midwest (where he lives) and their stereotypically wholesome demeanor.

Since we're now talking about regional and national personal behavior stereotypes, have we moved on from the unsupportable claims of the OP?

Norwegians? Finns, maybe? Somebody must have disliked them. — Bitter Crank

They were probably not liked at one point when they were vikings, wearing those cool horned hats, wreaking havoc, raping and pillaging. Nowadays they're pretty well liked I think, living up in your neck of the woods, probably complaining about their neighbors' yards and that gosh darn traffic.

This is massive over-simplification, suggesting that the US, every country in west Europe, every former Soviet bloc nation, and the Jewish people all owe their entire identities to World War 2.

At first the Europeans were seen as brutes and the Jews as cowards; now it is the other way around. — Ilya B Shambat

Where's your support for this? The Germans specifically were considered brutes/genocidal maniacs, but who thought the Jews cowards? The Germans blamed them for all sorts of things, but cowardice wasn't one of their complaints. And who thought of the Swiss and Swedes as brutes?

"It is the responsobility of intellectuals to speak the truth and expose lies" — ssu

The hubris is in self-declaring one's self an intellectual, suggesting one belongs in the court of philosopher kings. It is at the heart of liberal elitism, and it forms the core of the left/right polarization. Who is the intellectual in Chomsky's view? I'd suggest it's Obama and not Trump, despite Trump hardly being an intellectual light weight. It's hard to read that without laughing isn't it, it being so ingrained in us that the right and its leadership is thought to either be composed of simpletons or those puppeteers manipulating simpletons.

So, per Chomsky, the duty then is shifted upon those who know better, not the simpletons, not the manipulators, but those even tempered, well educated, well informed academics whose wisdom should guide us. It would seem that it must be Chomsky himself who would be the top intellectual, which should come as no surprise.

Your focus in your OP is in pointing out that many other countries owe their failure to themselves and that the West has not created ALL the problems of the world. That is empirically and clearly true. The bigger question is whether the West has been overall shameful in its behaviors. The predominant liberal view is that it has, despite the view of the right that says it has not. The left is thought of as apologetic and therefore understanding and the right unapologetic and therefore stubborn.

Here's what I think. The US has made tactical mistakes, has faltered morally from time to time, has misstepped and caused unnecessary misery, and has not been a purely angelic force on the world at every turn. Without it though and never having had it on the world stage, we'd all live in a state of barbarism and fear, far less advanced in all regards, and not listening to the musings of Chomsky.

Too many people too eager to shadow box here. "But you're responsible!", yes, to some extent. — S

Don't hate the haters. There's a certain joy in casting aspersion upon others.

The disagreement I suppose is in what we each mean by "to some extent." I probably am less tolerant of drunken behavior than others and not as willing to separate the Dr. Jekyll from the Mr. Hyde, especially if Dr. Jekyll knows that the drink will elicit the appearance of Mr. Hyde. My intolerance is probably the result of my age and experience I guess. I'm sort of over the stage where stumbling drunk is at all okay. At any rate, in your example, I doubt you were terribly irresponsible or dangerous, but more so just a danger to yourself in that you decided to test the tolerance of the police. They probably decided they had enough Ss at the station already and didn't need to cart another one down there, so you lived to see another day.

What I will say is that if this were an aberration, it's more excusable. If you tell us next Monday you've had yet another run in and then this becomes a pattern, I'd say you were worse than the person who intentionally stirred the pot from time to time. At least that person has some deliberation involved, as opposed to someone who knowingly gets themselves out of control and then has everyone around him having to deal with him for the hours it takes to sober up.

If I had a friend (doubtful) and he got really drunk and then told me to fuck off and whatever else, I'd place limited blame on his drunkenness and hold him pretty much fully responsible. In fact, I'd allow a greater excuse to the person who told me that he's been having a really bad day, got fired from work, broke up with his girlfriend, or whatever than someone who had just taken a drunken vacation from reality and went berserk.

But the second is as a greater offense to me, because it expresses active hostility. — csalisbury

Yes, that is true, the intent does matter. The intent to be reckless versus the intent to do actual harm does matter. In fact, the law respects as much, as it would be an entirely different crimes if (1) you killed someone in your car while sober and it was a complete accident , (2) you killed someone in you car while drunk and it was a complete accident, (3) in a fit of road rage, you intentionally slammed into someone with your car and killed them, and (4) you laid in wait for someone to exit their home so that you could mow them down.

The first is entirely involuntary manslaughter and the last is first degree intentional murder, killing in cold blood.

Back to floor pissing though. I do think that an intentional floor pissing is funnier in a way than the tired old drunken closet pissing that we've all heard of. Although I've never done it or seen it done, I like the unapologetic primal element of the intentional floor piss, where you use your urine to express your displeasure. It truly leaves nothing in doubt in terms of where you stand on things.

So, next time your roommate leaves his socks in the hallway and dirty dishes in the sink, which I suspect he does because that's what all roommates do, piss on the floor in his bedroom, leaving a yellowish bubbly puddle right before his bed. Nothing else need be said. He'll know clearly where things stand.

when I consumed the alcohol, a) I didn't intend to cause trouble, and b) I wasn't in full control of myself when I was drunk. — S

I know why you wish to absolve yourself of guilt, but I'm simply pointing out that the law follows the same logic that I do and it isn't just some arbitrary announcement of a rule. The logic (and this would seem to apply for a moral theory as well) is that you are responsible for your recklessness, especially so if you intentionally engage in a reckless act. It applies in all sorts of situations. If I decide to drive my car 100 miles per hour in order to feel the rush that accompanies it, and I crash into a van full of children, killing every last one, I could say rather unconvincingly that I should be absolved of sin because (a) I didn't intend to cause trouble, and (b) I wasn't in full control of myself when the car hit 100 mph because it gets crazy hard to steer at that speed.

My lack of intent to cause trouble is somewhat offset by the fact that I engaged in an act that had fairly foreseeable negative consequences, despite the fact that usually I drive 100 mph without incident. Usually I just get that excited scared effect you feel when you think you're going to die, but somehow you don't. Usually I can sort of control my 100 mph hour car more or less, at least enough that I keep at least 2 wheels on the road. So, it would seem that I should be absolved of guilt don't you think?

I'm not suggesting that morality requires you become a teetotaler, but it does require you accept moral responsibility for all the bullshit you dole out, drunk or sober. You (or I) don't get to say "Sorry dude., I... (a) wrecked your car, (b) broke your lamp, (c) ate all your food, (d) punched you in the head, (e) slept with your girlfriend, (f) pissed on your floor... I was drunk" and expect the "I was drunk" part to matter.

It seems less relevant whether do-gooders are arrogant and whether do-badders and do-nothings are humble than whether good, bad, or nothing is being done. I'd think a hungry person would rather choose to be fed by a son of a bitch than to have a really nice person sit around and shoot the shit with him.

. Being so drunk or high that you're not exactly you is a mitigating circumstance. — S

No it's not. You chose to drink knowing it would compromise your judgment, so you're fully responsible for the mess you created. I suppose if you really didn't know what drinking would do to you, you might have an excuse, but I suspect you've received both formal education in the dangers of alcohol and have learned by prior experience. It's all on you, unmitigated.

The law of the great state of Georgia:

O.C.G.A. 16-3-4 (2010)
16-3-4. Intoxication

(a) A person shall not be found guilty of a crime when, at the time of the act, omission, or negligence constituting the crime, the person, because of involuntary intoxication, did not have sufficient mental capacity to distinguish between right and wrong in relation to such act.

(b) Involuntary intoxication means intoxication caused by:

(1) Consumption of a substance through excusable ignorance; or

(2) The coercion, fraud, artifice, or contrivance of another person.

(c) Voluntary intoxication shall not be an excuse for any criminal act or omission.


It is for this reason that you cannot plead voluntary intoxication as an excuse for causing a motor vehicle collision, arguing that had you been your sober self, it'd have never happened, so there's no reason to prosecute you. That is to say, voluntary intoxication is an aggravating circumstance, not a mitigating one. You can't walk around with a blindfold and earplugs and go slamming into things and then argue that the real, fully aware you would never have done that. If there's a better you, then society should expect to deal with that person, not the voluntarily reckless one.

As I see it, the distinction between patriotism and nationalism is one of oppression and control, with the former accentuating and promoting the positive through celebration and encouragement and the latter imposing upon and oppressing those identified as threats.

I see it similar to the distinction between ethnic pride and racism, with it being perfectly acceptable to have an Oktoberfest with a biergarten and schnitzel and celebration of German culture, but unacceptable to hold an Aryan superiority rally.

Have I spoken some heresy? — Wallows

It's sexist, poorly thought out, and a continuation of your ongoing nonsense about how you love your mommy.

Aren't women just basically better suited for some roles than men are or are I getting this all mixed up? — Wallows

And now we've taken a hard right turn. Women have their place and men theirs. Lovely.

I contend that patriotism was higher under Reagan and GW and that it is now more acceptable in the US to be critical of America within America, which now brings increased conflict between critics and traditionalists.

I do think without an empirical showing of your premise that unhealthy nationalism is on the rise and that it is related to Trump, yours is just another tired anti-Trump rant that ought be relegated to the single thread reserved for that purpose.

Since the inauguration of President Trump, the difference between patriotism and nationalism has attained new heights or division between the two is blurred. — Wallows

Where is the empirical evidence for the claim that patriotism or nationalism has increased under the current administration? Without it, this thread becomes just another anti-Trump rant.

The OP asks if bodybuilders are poor neurotic men, which logically asks three combined questions: Are they poor, are they neurotic, AND are they men? As to the last question, it's clearly not, considering some bodybuilders are women, and the question being linked with the conjunctive, the question is properly answered in the negative.

Perhaps a uselessly technical reply, but one I am satisfied with.

She’s the mother of my children. I don’t hate her. The love of my life is my wife, Crystal, who I’ve been with for twelve years. — Noah Te Stroete

Introducing names into this discussion tends to humanize the people we're talking about, and I'd rather think of them as hollow literary constructions we can ridicule. Also, telling me that this crazy ax murderer of yours mothered your children also doesn't help me in keeping her in non-human status.

We are more of an exception to the fallacious “Rule”. — Noah Te Stroete

You meet the rule perfectly. In my case, though, my ex is crazy, but I am lovely beyond compare, so there is at least one instance of the rule not being applicable.

She is also an asshole and I am also crazy (clinically when I’m off my meds). I was reciting nothing. — Noah Te Stroete

You sound like you still love her.

You said I was “reciting” the “universal rule”. I am not reciting it. In our case, it happens to be true, whereas others are usually biased towards their exes when they recite it. — Noah Te Stroete

An interesting distinction worth discussing. It might be that the universality of the rule is based upon reality. You have no counterexample, considering you meet the stereotype.

Well, I AM an asshole, but my ex-wife was in the “emotionally disturbed” classes in high school and was voted most likely to have a hit list. LOL. We still hang out and get along just fine, so you really don’t know what you’re talking about. — Noah Te Stroete

I do know what I'm talking about. I said she was crazy and you were an asshole, and you confirmed both of those things. I didn't say you didn't get along with her.

Out of the three of us, my ex-wife is most likely to end up behind bars. — Noah Te Stroete

You're just reciting the universal rule that all ex-wives are crazy. The other side of that rule is that all ex-husbands are assholes. That's what the wives say, not me.

Everyone knows that men act differently than women. It's obvious. Other than certain outliers, little boys emerge from the womb acting differently than little girls.

Women look different, act different, talk different, and smell different than men. Those differences result in entirely different behaviors, some of which result in disproportionate incarceration rates for men.

As of now an outside observer using fMRI can only see that certain areas of the brain light up, but it is impossible to tell what is going on at the cellular level. Let's suppose that you had access to all this data, could you then predict exactly what they are thinking? — curiousnewbie

So, the mind body problem asks how can a non-physical mind (or soul) interact with the physical body, which doesn't seem to be your question.

Identity theory holds that for every mental state there is an identical physical state. A very strong identity theory seems unsupportable, where you would be saying that the brain processes were actually the experience. A weaker version would identify a particular brain state with a particular phenomenal state, so that you could predictably state that when a brain is in state A, the person is smelling roses (or whatever). The problem is that fMRI results have not shown identical brain states always correlate to specific phenomenal states. It's also problematic that we consider the report of the person to be the gold standard in identifying phenomenal states, not the objective verifiable data. That is, if the fMRI indicates I'm smelling roses, but I tell you I am not, we defer to me, not the fMRI.

I don't see why it's theoretically impossible for a weaker version of identify theory to hold, where there is some ability to decipher another's thoughts based upon various objective data, including brain activity. That would not address the mind/body problem though, as it could still be the case that a brain state was correlating to a non-physical mental event (whatever that means) as well. I do think, though, that if we got to the level where we could accurately predict phenomenal states and even control phenomenal states through brain manipulation, that would through Occam's razor strike a heavy blow against dualism because there would be no need to postulate the non-physical. If dualism is declared dead, then that would resolve the mind/body problem simply because there would be no non-physical minds to interact with.

You sound like my therapist who quit or changed offices, who kept on asking me whether I want to get better? I have a roof over my head, a warm bed I spend most of my time in, food in the fridge, a very loving mother, clean clothes, a decent neighborhood, a nice house, hiking trails if I ever get the urge to go outside (very rare). What more can I ask for. — Wallows

You live the life of my cat, which is a nice life if you're a cat.

If all's hunky dory, why the therapist?

And what's up with your not knowing if your therapist quit or changed offices? Didn't feel like exploring wu happen?

See, this has been a problem that goes back to my childhood. I've never been competitive, subscribed to the self-esteem movement, that everyone is special and should be treated that way, love feminism, hate indoctrination, tolerate tradition and observe it as anyone else. — Wallows

Your attempt to describe yourself as simply shiftless seems trollish, as if it's motivated by some desire to evoke annoyance by those who adhere to traditional views of responsibility and conscientiousness. As we all know, the truth is far more complex than that. You have told us you have been on some pretty heavy psychiatric medications, been diagnosed with some form of schizophrenia, and are completely disabled. For some reason you want us to believe that really you're just lazy and working the system, playing along so that you can hang out and do nothing but be fully taken care of.

You might be wondering if I set myself up for this very early retirement plan with the social security disability pay and possibly growing some pot in the garage to supplant my income? Yes, I think I have. I chose the path of least resistance and it's not going all that bad if you really care for my opinion. — Wallows

My choices are that you are (1) an evil genius or (2) suffering from mental illness? I choose #2, simply because you've told us that you've been so diagnosed.

And, sure Hanover, you've been following my threads or life, and have been an impartial witness throughout the whole venture; but, you may have noticed that I've also quieted down considerably. I don't know if this is a sign of maturity; but, I just want to have an easy and happy life with my mom. — Wallows

It's the ebb and flow of interest. Everyone varies their frequency for whatever reason around here, without maintaining obsessive interest for too long a period.

Like I said, maybe you're a special case, but we all have a certain desire to just sit around the house sometimes because it's easy, but most of us realize that sitting most literally gets you nowhere. I fully expect that if you start sitting today and you really put your mind to it, you'll be in the same place tomorrow as today. Eat, sleep, maybe push the cat off your chest, change the channel, surf the net, repeat. It's not exactly living up to the capacity of your creation, but you're going to do what you're going to do regardless of what anyone says.

It seems at this point you're trying to relieve yourself of the guilt of doing nothing all day, so you tell us the tale of feminism and societal pressure and whatnot. Once you can feel good about living with mom and having her dote on her little Wallows, you can carry on a little better I guess.

It's like the quitter who feels bad about quitting so he convinces himself that quitting isn't all that bad. The problem is that it is.

See, this thread isn't only about me then, don't you agree? — Wallows

We should start a sub-thread and ask whether the thread isn't about you.

I have only expressed my unconditional love for my mother, and her's to me. Insofar then if it's about our happy relationship, and my disability, then fine, it can be about me. — Wallows

It's great your mother loves you and you love her back. You ought go up and ring her neck with a big ole hug and tell her, "Mama, I 'preciate the shit out of ya!"

Wrong again, this topic is about my mother, who loves me unconditionally. Though, yet again you try and tell me it's all about me. How tiring. — Wallows

It's not tiring for you at all. You delight in this conversation about you, which is now paradoxically about you to the extent we can talk about it being not about you.

All that you say is true, but to give you some perspective on this, Wallows, as I understand it, is fully disabled due to emotional issues. That being the case, who knows what is best? If my son were telling me that he just loved hanging out with dear old dad, so he has decided to forego college, finding friends, looking for love, or getting a job so that we could spend time bonding, he'd get ejected pretty quick. On the other hand, if it just made sense at the moment due to finances or whatever and he was doing all he could to achieve, and especially if he had some special needs, I'd probably give him special consideration.

I know Wallows didn't say all of this, but instead tried to justify his living condition as just being an alternative way to live life and not be bound by contemporary norms. Then there was the whole discussion about how his life was really just a unique and pure expression of mother/child love that honored feminism and that ought not be interfered with. For the vast majority of the population, I think what he says is pretty lame and borders on the absurd, but for someone in his shoes, maybe not.

And yes, Wallows, I know you're in the room, yet I talk about you like you're not. Having folks talk about you is your favorite topic though.

Well, I just think of the fact that prison populations are predominantly male, and this gives me the impression that females are less aggressive, domineering, and violent than men are. — Wallows

It could be you've looked at the prisons and seen that most of the bad actors are male, or it could be:

My father frowns on the whole situation. He thinks I have passed the age of leaving the nest and will always stay with my mom.

But, you know what? Fuck him. He abandoned his fiduciary duty when I was 15, when we moved to another country. So, he can go have a fig or something. — Wallows

I'm just saying I looked at the same prisons you have, but my views on fathers are not quite the same as yours....

Nowhere can you find the unconditional love a mother grants a (particularly) a son or daughter. — Wallows

Yeah, well, I'm sort of attached to my kids as well, so I'm not sure it's a feminist thing in actuality, but more of a feminist thing stereotypically.

I'm almost a 30 year old man living with his mother, and I wake up every morning feeling like a kid with his mother. — Wallows

The question isn't whether you should bow to societal norms for the sake of meeting expectations, but it's whether your current situation is confining or leading to greater happiness. I can tell you that my feelings of self-worth and happiness rest heavily upon my accomplishments, which to a large degree are the result of my being autonomous and fully living my own life.

I realize you're not me though. You have shared considerably on this board and have let us know of your emotional struggles, and I can't say if it makes more sense to have a strong emotional anchor like your mother in place or whether you'd fare better having at it on your own. The question you have to ask yourself is whether your current attempt to justify your living arrangement is due to laziness or fear or whether you're honestly working to self-acceptance of it because it is in fact the best course.

Since it is the case that there are some people who actually do best in a fully confined institutionalized setting, it stands to reason there will be others who will do best in arrangements others would not find ideal. Since my personal experience is that autonomy is so interrelated to happiness, my instinct is to suggest that you find as much avenue toward personal expression as possible. Then again, I really don't know if you're so constructed.

The other part of this equation is, of course, your mother, and whether she is entirely a positive force in your life or whether she is simply creating for you an overly comfortable situation that fails to adequately challenge you to greater success. That I don't know, but I do think all of this worth exploring (to the extent you haven't already) because your long term living situation and apparent limited personal goals are atypical.

This doesn't change the fact that psychology being a branch from philosophy, provides value through the structural reasoning that many researchers and professionals like myself use as a model to understand the foundation of the human mind. — Anaxagoras

I think being logical probably helps in all fields.

I hope this was sarcasm and I hope there was a method to this madness. I take offense at someone who pokes fun at someone's mental health whether they are going through some form of mental abnormality or not. — Anaxagoras

I think it was sarcasm. He might in fact be crazy as shit. I'm not a doctor, so can't be sure. It was all in fun though. Many of us have known each other here for a very long time and this was just gentle ribbing. As to calling me out when I am actually offensive, sometimes I care, sometimes not.

Great self-reflection! but it doesn't change the fact that you may not have gotten down to the root cause as to why you were there in the first place, and why you were there is indicative that there exist something that required objective mitigation through therapeutic means. — Anaxagoras

I knew exactly why I was there actually and I didn't want to talk about it. I wanted to talk about how introspective I was. Those Kleenex scared me.