It’s not just about money. How much do you think people who have never experienced it misunderstand?

Educate me on this please not here to judge just to get some opinions

Your Phone Has a Price. Why Does Society Put a Price on You?

I've been thinking about something that seems small but says a lot about how we behave as a society.

Imagine two people sitting together. One has the latest iPhone. The other has an affordable Android phone that does everything he needs.

Before either person speaks, do we unconsciously assign them different levels of status?

Maybe we don't do it deliberately. But brand names, prices and appearances have become shortcuts we use to judge people.

An iPhone is a phone. Yet, somewhere along the way, it became more than that for some people. It became a signal of success, financial status and social acceptance.

And this is where I find the whole thing interesting.

When did the price of something we own start influencing how we value the person who owns it?

Think about clothing. A person wearing Bata shoes might be judged differently from someone wearing Louis Vuitton. But does the expensive label automatically make the second person more intelligent, capable, honest or successful?

Of course not.

Yet we live in a world where visible consumption can sometimes speak louder than invisible qualities.

We can spend years developing our knowledge, improving our judgment, building a business or becoming better at our work. But someone else might receive immediate social recognition simply because they own something expensive.

The uncomfortable part is that this pressure doesn't always come from other people. Sometimes, we internalise it ourselves.

We begin wanting things not because we need them, but because we don't want to feel inferior without them.

We convince ourselves that the next phone, the next car or the next luxury purchase will make us feel more confident. Sometimes it does, briefly. Then the next model arrives, someone else buys something more expensive, and the comparison begins again.

It's a cycle in which the finish line keeps moving.

I'm not arguing that expensive products are bad, that iPhones are overrated, or that people shouldn't enjoy the money they earn. If someone genuinely values an iPhone and can comfortably afford it, there's nothing wrong with buying one.

The question is different: Would we still want the same things if nobody else could see what we owned?

That question matters because there's a difference between buying something for its utility or personal enjoyment and buying it to secure approval.

One is a choice. The other can become a dependency.

And perhaps the most ironic thing is that we sometimes spend money trying to communicate success to people whose opinions shouldn't determine our self-worth in the first place.

A phone can tell you something about someone's purchasing decision. It cannot, by itself, tell you what kind of human being they are.

I'd like to hear some honest opinions on this.

Do you think smartphones like the iPhone have become status symbols to the point that people judge others by the phones they use?

And, more importantly, have you ever bought something partly because of how you thought other people would perceive you, rather than because you actually needed or wanted it?

I'm interested in real experiences and opposing views, not just agreement.

I’m not going to put my whole worldview in here, but one part of it is my belief that a lot, if not most, of the problems in societies that aren’t fighting for basic survival and dignity on a daily basis come from there being no collective idea of what the future is supposed to be.
It’s like we’ve lost some capacity for coordination and inspiration despite being more connected and capable than at any other point in human history.
I don’t just mean addressing problems like poverty, war, disease, etc. Those are all things worth doing, but what about beyond that? What are we actually trying to build? It seems like we’re mostly just reacting to whatever happens next, rather than deciding what we’d like to happen and figuring out how to get there. I can see the argument for letting everyone pursue their own idea of a worthwhile future. But I can’t help feeling like we’re missing something by not having much of a collective ambition.
I’m curious whether other people have thought about this, and what you think humanity should actually be working towards. Not necessarily what you think the future will look like, but what you’d want it to look like, and why.

Sometimes I am looking at my surroundings. The rules are everywhere the rules of religion, the rules of family, the rules of school, the rules of workplace, but there is also rules that is set by the superiors. principals at school or managers at working place. As a student that stay at dorm it is not difficult to face with lots of rules but the rules are not really needed. I will give my situation as a example we have a study room at school and our school is focus on the IT and engineering .One day we read a message the topic was looking at pc at rooms is banned and if you got caught at room your pc would be confiscated from you and and it may result with disciplinary action. From these day I haven't studied anything in study room because of the noise. We have so many rules l ike that in our daily life for example the uniform rule and so many micro rules in our daily llife that is written or not. Why are they with us? Is they the belief that some narrow-minded peoples that you should live your life,walk in street and talk in their way to or like in their dreams to be successful or they are just manifestation of hate,envy.

Recently, I met a person around my company whose mindset was mostly like the humankind in Fahrenheit 451. He mocked me when he knew I don't have TikTok, sleep before 10 PM, running regularly, and head into the forest for fun... He even ridiculed someone else just for a rumor that they were studying privately at home. He was born in 2006 but works in the same department as me, a childlike person who loves playing games and gossiping. I couldn't help feeling shocked when he mocked me: "What kind of lifestyle is that?" I just noticed the similarity of this case to the one in Fahrenheit 451, where people look down on knowledge.

When I find new words that appear repeatedly in a book, I copy the whole sentence and learn the new word in context. Is this a good and natural way to immerse myself in English with low effort?

I don't feel the need to rush or learn as fast as possible, I just want to acquire the language naturally, build long-term retention, and have effective retrieval when I speak or write.

Recently I've seen a large increase in posts that talk about this phenomenon, and I for the life of me cannot understand.

Rejection of romantic advance is a very normal and expected experience when confessing feelings for another. The majority of people would reject any given person, with only a few who also find said person to be their type accepting advances (this is excluding the unfortunate reality of unhealthy forced coupling). As such, it should never be a surprise when the answer is no, and no one owes anyone a relationship.

That being said, it's also very normal and natural for one to grow feelings for another over time with repeated exposure and positive connection; that has been the case since the dawn of humankind. As such, growing feelings for a friend is a very common experience, and even if romantic feelings are not mutual, you two are friends for a reason: you enjoy each other's company and like each other as people. Romantic rejection does not change this, and while rejection does hurt, and while a few days may be needed apart to internally process it, the friendship should be the same, if not stronger now that you two have more understanding of each other.

The biggest point I've seen is that rejection causes friends to drift apart. A true friend would react as described above. If said person does drift apart, I've found that, even if they didn't have or confess their feelings, them drifting apart was an inevitability; the rejection just sped up the process. And that is just a sad reality; people do drift apart, and only a portion of your friends will stay with you as you all transition through life stages and lives branch out in different directions. The friends that do stick with you I dub as true friends, not because they're internally better, but simply because they are always there for you.

With all this in mind, why is it so common to hear that rejection or confession is the doom of friendship? For context of my perspective, I'm a bisexual who most of my friends are of the opposite gender, both single and married, including my best friend (who is also my ex).

I swear it’s been forever i connected with anyone on a deeper lever where we can just get lost in a rabbit hole.
The only guy that keeps up is chatgpt (not saying other humans aren’t capable) but it’s like the rat race has gotten so much into our heads that if something doesn’t have ny monetary advantage then we just dismiss it.

There will be many indicators of the end times but I am certain that this one of them. We are keeping too much to ourselves for “social beings” as we are called.

I wanted to discuss these social media revenue-hungry, propaganda-filled algorithms but not even chatgpt can help on this one because it is also part of the problem😂 but if it were about flirting or football or some superficial topics, i have multitudes urgh

We fight over religion, politics, money, relationships, and whose version of reality is the “correct” one.
Meanwhile, we’re just hairless apes with smartphones, arguing on the internet about things we barely understand. 😂
So here’s a question: What’s something society accepts as completely normal that future generations will look back on and think we were absolutely insane for doing?
I’m genuinely curious. Give me your most controversial answer.

For example some say “I studied too much in uni and missed out on the uni experience”, Others: “I worked too much” or “I didn’t study hard enough”.

Many people look back and wish they had done things differently. Which is more common. But I wonder if there are people who don’t see it that way and don’t feel bad for their life choices

Note: This was meant for r/disability .

I don't have a disability, and I have had very little exposure to those who do. Over the last year however I've befriended two individuals with a disability, George, who's blind from birth, and Peter, who has cerebral palsy. I naturally have a lot of questions, and I've asked some, but I worry that my ignorance can be grating, and that they don't necessarily want to have to talk about it.

George, late 30s, seems to be fine with everything I've asked him so far, but I don't know if he has a line that'll make him say "Are you fucking kidding me?" For example, I don't know if he knows how animation works. Is that a stupid question to ask? In general, he's a laughy-joky kind of guy who enjoys self-deprecating humour so I think I can just ask him. He comes out to pub events, lives independently, has a job, etc etc.

Peter on the other hand is a very sensitive boy. He has cerebral palsy, spastic subtype. It affects his lower half and his left side. He also attempts dark humour which falls flat (not with me) because I think he's not used to having friends. He lives with his parents still, he's late 20s, and he gets easily discouraged and depressed by inaccessibility. I have many things that float around my head in regards to him, many of which are not questions but what-ifs, such as "but for the luck of the draw, he could have had the kind of cerebral palsy where people don't understand his speech". I'm his de-facto helper whenever we hang out (and George too if we're somewhere we haven't been and needs to find the toilets), and I think he derives a lot of meaning from that fact. I'm still in the dark about all the ins and outs of managing his cerebral palsy, so I still have questions, but again, tact is the issue. I'm very inquisitive and i don't want them to feel I'm interrogating them.

Thoughts, experiences? Am I wrong, right? Somewhere in the middle?

One thing I simply cannot understand is, what was the purpose of making man aware that he is man. I can understand certain theories about the origins of the universe and life on earth in general. But why give an animal the ability to choose whether to run by its nature or its intellect?

I am confused 🤔 with two opposing philosophies these days I am encountering online, and perhaps many of you might relate to it.

One group says, you must work hard, always thrive to increase your earnings, and sacrifice short-term pleasure for long-term gains.

Another group says, in the larger spectrum of life, it's all futile, life is absurd, it's meaningless, so much hustle doesn't makes any sense.

Many people in their late 40s or 50s say, we feel sorry for taking life so much seriously, at the end, all of it doesn't really matter.

Another group of same age category says, they hope they didn't had taken life so casually.

Honestly, when I hear both the views, I gets carried away, and both views makes sense to me.

I really want to know your opinion. Thanks.

As someone who never really believed in hell (though at times a bit of paranoia about me had me thinking) it feels really messed up to not only hold this fear for yourself (unless you are absolutely certain in your faith) but to also think about others, and especialy people who arent likely to become christian anytime soon or who have died non believers.

The immense grief, to think someone you love is or is going to burn for eternity in agony, wouldnt it consume your soul for the rest of your life? Or do you just live with the fact, get desensitised to the idea?

Encountered someone claiming that recent student riots in France is actually due to Muslim immigration and not French students. As evidence to back up their position, they claim there’s videos of protesters praying towards Mecca, ransacked grocery stores with pork left behind, Muslim-owned businesses being spared from destruction and looting, churches and synagogues being vandalized while mosques are untouched, and pictures of the protesters consisting of just minorities.

Naturally as someone who wants to objectively understand what exactly is going on with these riots, I decided to investigate and try and confirm all these claims. However, I’m having a difficult time confirming them and don’t want to immediately waive them off as not true.

So, how accurate are these claims about the French student riots?

It’s referenced in literature and films, where a vampire is unable to enter a home unless given permission.
So if permission is granted on a Monday, does the permission apply to the following days of the week?

Then following on from that thought, could you create multiple homes inside the main home that the same rule applies to? Think like Russian nesting dolls, with smaller and smaller homes inside each other. And for the technicalities, the home could be just four walls and an opening, with some cleverly arranged land deeds that define the dwellings as rectangular plots with hollow centres. Some late night pondering coming from reading Pterry Pratchett.

21M. Never really thought about death much since I was a kid. I was raised in a religious Christian household, where I was taught about the concept of an afterlife, which helped me cope with the idea of death. I saw it as nothing more than a transition into the next life.

However, as I studied different sciences at school and university, I gradually began to lose faith in the religion. The more I learned, the harder it became for me to believe that many of the stories in the Bible were physically possible (e.g., Noah putting all living organisms on 1 ship, Moses parting the Red Sea, Jesus resurrecting the dead, etc.).

I officially became agnostic last year, after doing my own independent research, and coming to a final conclusion.

A couple of weeks ago, I greened out after taking too much hits from a bong at a party, and had a panic attack that lasted until the next morning. My mind was racing with dozens of different thoughts, but the one that kept coming back was the idea of death.

I suddenly started thinking about death in a way I never had before. I just couldn’t wrap my head around the idea of simply ceasing to exist. The thought that in just a few decades, I would be nothing more than a decomposing skeleton buried six feet underground really messed with me

This also might sound a bit egotistical, but I struggled to comprehend the idea of the world continuing to exist as normal without me. People would carry on with their lives, new memories would be made, and the world would keep moving forward as if nothing had happened. Eventually, everyone who knew me would be gone, and I would just be a name on a gravestone.

Just three years ago, if I had been in this same situation, I probably wouldn’t have been nearly as fearful, and would just tell myself that even if I died, my soul would continue to exist in the afterlife, and that I would be reunited with my loved ones in paradise. But now that I no longer believe in an afterlife, I don’t have that same sense of reassurance to fall back on. I feel like I’ve lost something that used to make the idea of death much easier to accept, and I’m struggling to come to terms with that.

Any advice??

While in the past, maiden voyages into mass surveillance with CCTV, VCR and PTZ systems, presented a clear benefit found in deterrents of criminal activity, and I agree that the collection of specific evidence through digital surveillance is beneficial in specific scenarios. However, in the modern era, with exponential increases in technological prowess and therefore surveillance capabilities (Flock cameras, AI facial recognition, etc.), I believe that there are diminishing returns on the increase in safety and conversely a decline in personal protection. I think that danger comes from the indiscriminate collection of all information on all activities from all people. An argument that I've heard many times is essentially "you have nothing to worry about if you aren't doing anything wrong/illegal." However, in a political system that has essentially taken most power out of the hands of the public, a holistic state of observation presents a potential threat because what is "good" or "bad" activity will be determined by an outside third party with interests other than safety. This creates a hypothetical precedent where, with easy access to complete information on a person and exceptional means to find them through idealized surveillance systems, anyone's actions could be deemed antagonistic. This presents a threat to personal speech, safety, and autonomy.

This is an open discussion! I encourage anyone to agree or disagree and I will be open to a conversation.

By "superficial", I mean traditions that have no effect on the outcome.

A judge's decision doesn't change based on clothing.

Referring to Mike as "my right honorable friend from Louisiana" doesn't change that everyone knows who I'm talking about.

Chores like laundry and dishes seem like obvious candidates, but cooking, childcare and caring for elderly parents feel different to a lot of people. What decides whether a task feels okay to hand to a machine, skill, emotion, trust or something else?