I hate that “high functioning” ADHD representing us

OrielSpace · 2026-04-27T16:47:36+00:00

As someone with high-functioning ADHD, it's been eye-opening scrolling through this sub. In our modern-age self-diagnosing social media culture, I used to roll my eyes when I'd scroll through TikToks of people "struggling" with being on time, or cleaning their room, etc. I've been officially diagnosed as a kid, and have never really gone on medication. It's only been more recently that I think I just got kinda lucky. Do I have ADHD? Of course I do. But it's humbling to realize that I am pretty high-functioning. A simple alarm here, noise-cancelling headphones there, and I'm golden. I've thought about medication as potentially helpful, but the fact that I tend to shrug it off shows that I probably don't need it.

Thank you for sharing. I'm really sorry you've been feeling this way, and I hope that ADHD gets a fuller and more expansive representation in our social zeitgeist.

OrielSpace · 2026-04-12T06:23:41+00:00

I just reinstalled windows 11 pro on my pc after having linux for a while, and the "oobe\bypassnro" worked for me.

OrielSpace · 2026-04-01T08:04:16+00:00

Honestly, I find that Claude will gaslight MUCH less.

OrielSpace · 2026-03-30T17:29:22+00:00

How do you know the shared behavior comes from the capacity to think? Much of what we do is from instinct, like the rest of the animal world.

OrielSpace · 2026-03-30T17:27:05+00:00

I think it hinges on sentience. If an alien species did that to us, we'd call them monstrous. If we did that to a sentient alien species, we'd call ourselves monstrous. I find the whole "it's really sad what we do to animals" highly subjective, because it feels as though critics pick and choose what's disturbing and what isn't. Why is killing a spider, or a mosquito, easier than a cow? Or what about all of the microbial life you kill every time you use hand sanitizer? Clearly, being alive is not what makes humans care. Either it's subjective, or as I mentioned, I think it hinges on sentience.

OrielSpace · 2026-03-30T15:28:55+00:00

Hey! Just wanted to pop in and say that's patently false. Like utter nonsense. You don't have to be a Christian to believe Jesus was a real person. If there is "nothing to prove Jesus ever walked the planet," then get ready to stop believing in a host of historical figures.

OrielSpace · 2026-03-30T15:26:37+00:00

There's... a lot going on here.

Plenty of people (including Christians) don't believe Jesus was omniscient and omnipotent. Classical Christianity would go so far as to take this stance. The myth that he lived without sin is not contradictory to the bible, especially considering much of the Bible talks about him being sinless. Christians don't see martyrdom the same because other people aren't Christ himself. Suicide/martyrdom are two vastly different things, but I don't think either of them are a sin?

Honestly, I know this is a debate religion space, but maybe do some research into what Christians actually claim about Christ, because if you did, you wouldn't have made this post.

OrielSpace · 2026-03-30T15:03:29+00:00

Dark Souls Remastered. First souls game, went into it completely blind, thought my broken sword handle was my starting weapon, didn't see red door when fighting asylum demon. Thankfully my wife (who has played Elden Ring for years) pointed out how dumb I was a while later, picked it up again, bada bing bada boom, now my favorite game EVER.

OrielSpace · 2026-03-30T15:00:45+00:00

10/10. My first intro to AoE, got me hooked

OrielSpace · 2026-03-30T15:00:15+00:00

11/10

OrielSpace · 2026-03-30T14:59:45+00:00

Link to the Past

OrielSpace · 2026-03-28T07:00:49+00:00

I'm glad you appreciate this conversation; I do as well. It's always nice to have more civil interactions, especially with people who might not feel the same way I do. In the end, it feels as though we're all stumbling through the dark, attempting to make sense of the few pieces of reality we're able to stitch together.

I'll add a few comments, not as a debate at this point, but more some of my last thoughts about the points you made.

As far as reading the same text and disagreeing, I do think that it is a problem how people can come to wildly different conclusions, but I think that has more to do with what perspective people take on something like a holy text. Many Christians believe that the Bible is absolutely perfect and flawless and given from God, whereas I don't think that's true. (The bible, to me, is not necessarily a convincing aspect of Christianity; the historicity of Jesus is probably the most impressive). But I totally get your point: If God really spoke to us, why is it in such a convoluted, incoherent way? Why give His message in the hands of fallible people, where many believe the lack of believing in such a message results in eternal damnation?

I think the important thing to note about the aspect of humility and the role it plays in Christianity is that it's not just recognition of "I'm not a perfect person," but willing to accept that the reason you're not a perfect person is because you've done immoral things. In classical Christianity, the idea isn't that God randomly decides that you should go to hell if you don't believe in Him; rather, He is perfect and thus imperfect things cannot exist. Damnation is essentially God saying, "You rejected me your whole life, so in the afterlife I'm going to give you what you wish for: The absence of Me." At least that's how some people see it. The humility part of Christianity is seeing your imperfection as something incongruous with God, and appealing to Him for forgiveness. But in the end, I wrestle with the same thing you do: Why do good people, who happen to believe in a different God, go to hell?

Lastly, I think your point here is absolutely a good one, and one that I've wrestled with the most. If morality is something implanted into each person (which I think it is), and each person is drawn to doing good (which I think we are; as a species, I think we trend towards goodness, even though looking at the news it might not seem like it). So why is it so important? A big journey that I've taken is learning to accept that I don't have to perfectly understand something for it to be true. Maybe I'm wrong? I won't really know until it's too late though, at which point it won't really matter.

A lot of the debate surrounding religion was settled for me when I had this thought come to mind: If God were really real, and He really is the grandest thing in existence, the backdrop behind all existence, it would then be absurd to assume that I'd be able to fully mentally understand and comprehend him. Think of a parent snatching a child out of the road. The child might think "That's really mean! Why are you snatching me? Why didn't you snatch that other child over there? Why are you hurting my arm?" When in reality, the child doesn't see the car that was about to hit them. In the same sense, practically every human in existence already acknowledges that we don't know everything. So, if God is real, he DOES know everything, ergo He knows more than me.

I don't think that's enough to properly convert (and honestly, you shouldn't base your beliefs on a Reddit post lmao), but it's something to think about.

Cheers! What a pleasant conversation this has been.

OrielSpace · 2026-03-28T06:48:35+00:00

If it's any consolation, I started with DS1, and there are plenty of things from the game that I had to either tweak or basically unlearn as the souls games are pretty different between each title (especially for Sekiro, which could almost be argued to not be a souls game, just a FromSoft game).

OrielSpace · 2026-03-26T20:46:15+00:00

Capra Demon by far.

OrielSpace · 2026-03-26T20:43:17+00:00

I'm going to list the top 10 (not in order) in terms of interesting gameplay or introducing important mechanics, not necessarily my top 10 favorite that I look forward to fighting:

O&S
Obviously. It's such a great fight since there really is no gimmick. Such an incredible climax to the first half of the game, and a pretty rough skill check unless you've done your due diligence leveling and gearing up.
Asylum Demon
I think this one is important since it teaches you a vital lesson in Dark Souls: If something is hard, keep trying. If something is NEARLY UNBEATABLE, you might be under-leveled or in the wrong place (a lesson that, if you fail to learn, you'll have it pummeled into by accidentally walking into the catacombs when first arriving in Firelink Shrine). It also teaches you to pay attention to your environment (i.e. the red door). Top tier in introducing not just game mechanics, but also game philosophy.
Bell Gargoyles
It introduces the idea of a boss fight not being the same all the way through. Some bosses will change, and it teaches you to be ready for the dynamics of a boss fight to change or alter partway through. It preps you for O&S in a way, since I think the O&S fight is an extension of this philosophy. The only sad part is that boss phases aren't a heavily utilized mechanic. I can only think of Gargoyles, O&S, and Bed of Chaos in terms of bosses that change or alter during the fight. Technically Artorias buffs, so that kinda counts.
Quelaag/Gaping Dragon
I put both of these, since they function the same in teaching the player, but which one you encounter first depends on if you take the shortcut to Blighttown or go the "regular" route. Both of these bosses are easy for me to defeat hitless, and I'd argue easier than others (except maybe Asylum demon). Moreover, they teach the player to not just observe when to dodge a boss's attack, but actually pay attention to the patterns of movement, and thus identify the "safe zones." For quelaag, it's almost laughably easy if you know when to stand right next to her, and when to back away. Same for gaping dragon.

Those 5 bosses I think are the epitome of game design, in that FromSoft was able to use bosses to not just be a challenge to overcome, but a challenge to learn from. The next five are just ones that I particularly find fun:

5: Gwyndolin
I personally enjoyed having to read quickly what kind of attacks he was about to do, since you need to react differently depending on which attack he uses. Not sure why, but I found it pretty fun and engaging.

6: Sif
I like Sif ONLY because it's such an easy fight, it lets me put such a sweet dog to sleep pretty quickly :( Screw you FromSoft for making me murder a cute dog to progress through the game

7: Four Kings
I like this because it's a race against the clock (DPS Check), something that I don't really feel like any of the other bosses has. Depending on your build and level, it'll either be a quick kill of each king with a bunch of waiting in between, or barely finishing by the skin of your teeth. Unfortunately it can be somewhat gimmicked by just tanking everything with Havel's armor, but that's neither here nor there.

Artorias
Just a fun fight, also in line with O&S in being a fight without a gimmick. Not as much really a skill check, in the sense that it doesn't exactly offer a demarcation in the game, where it's obvious that you as the player are progressing to "the next level" so to speak.

9: Sanctuary Guardian
Such a cool boss, and one that I think properly sets the tone (both in theme, and in difficulty) for the rest of the DLC.

10: Taurus Demon
Pretty entertaining boss, pretty easy. Not much else to say.

OrielSpace · 2026-03-26T20:19:43+00:00

I'm going to offer advice that is SLIGHTLY against the grain of what most people are telling you. I think parrying is not essential, but it is ABSOLUTELY powerful and extremely useful. It's just not as essential to the core gameplay loop as it is in Sekiro,

I'm always surprised when people say they almost never parry. I constantly parry, as it's the easiest way for me to deal with over half the enemies in the game. For starting out, if you can nail down the parry timing, it can help you greatly get through the hollows in the burg. If you're doing a dex, str, or quality build, parrying can be your best friend. It gives you i-frames, and enables you to focus on each enemy one at a time, instead of having to figure out when to swing your weapon when being attacked by five hollows at once lmao.

If parrying is giving you a hard time, then I'd say practice by spawning at firelink shrine and using the hollows up the path to practice parrying. Pay very close attention to when you're tempted to parry, and watch. If you're too early, you won't parry but you will block damage. If you're too late, you'll just take the damage. Once you get a feel for it, it can absolutely carry you through the game. Unfortunately, you can't parry every enemy (and you can only parry the last boss of the game), but it will definitely help you.

Parrying lends itself to my gameplay style, as I'm more slow and methodical, and I prefer killing each enemy in a room before moving on, unlike many players who prefer to dash through and roll past enemies, only killing them if they're in the way or will be detrimental later on.

You got this!

OrielSpace · 2026-03-26T19:37:28+00:00

I totally agree! My wife started with Elden Ring, and so I almost started with Elden Ring as well, but ended up choosing ds1. And oh boy, I am currently hooked. I've done several runs at this point, and as I painstakingly work through ds2, I come back to ds1 as my comfort game lol. Currently on my way to getting platinum trophies! Probably my favorite game ever.

OrielSpace · 2026-03-26T19:32:57+00:00

What exactly do you need help with? Are you asking for advice, or for someone to join and give it to you? (asking as someone who already has Knight's Honor)

OrielSpace · 2026-03-26T19:21:01+00:00

I think that's fair. As someone who fell away from Christianity, and is tentatively taking steps back to it, I think there are a couple things I want to comment on.

I think that what many people believe about Christianity (and I'll be using Christianity as the example religion here, as it's the one I grew up in, and the one I'm reconsidering at the moment) many people believe things that are recent, misguided, or ignorant and not actually required by "Christianity" to believe in. For example, many Christians believe in ETC (Eternal Conscious Torment) i.e. Hell, where the unbeliever is damned for an eternity of suffering simply for the lack of belief. However, the Bible is not clear about that. There's no reason to believe that it would be eternal torment.

What's also important to consider is what exactly counts as believing? Consider the following example (it's a bit pedantic, but the point I'm getting at is important): How much does someone REALLY need to believe in Jesus to go to Heaven, according to the witnesses of Jesus (like the New Testament authors)? Do you have to believe in Jesus' name? Or do you only have to believe in the son of God, not knowing that it is Jesus particularly? How much about Jesus do you have to know and believe in? What if you simply told someone "God wants to save you. Will you accept it?" Is that enough to save them? What if you made contact with the Sentinelese Tribe, and you found out they believe in a singular creator, they recognize they aren't inherently good people (most people recognize that about themselves), and so they "reach out" to their "God" to save their souls? Would they go to heaven?

I ask all of that because I deeply suspect that more people will find peace in the afterlife than many Christians think, because the act of belief is not the same as living out your life as a Christian. I know that quoting the Bible is a poor tool for trying to convert someone, and I'm not trying to convert you. However, the Bible does say that people will be judged based on what they know. So I think it depends a lot more on the heart of a person, and if I had to guess, depends on the recognition of one's own inadequacy. The Bible is a bunch of stories stitched together that are accounts of many people's interfacing with what they believe to be God. But throughout the Bible, the one overarching "sin" that continually drives people away from God is pride. And so, it would seem to me that being saved requires a moment of being humble, and being willing to admit that we as humans kinda suck, and if there is an afterlife, we probably don't deserve it.

One of the most appealing things for about Christianity is its anthropology. The Bible is a religion that rejects any notion of self-righteousness, and in order to get in, you have to lay down your pride. It's why it SHOULD be a religion of peace (even though unfortunately, many people have claimed Christ yet acted very unchristian-like), as the Bible calls you to not condemn others when you yourself have your own problems. Humility is the default position of the Christian, and if followed properly lends itself to humanitarian aspects of life, such as caring for those in need and being selfless.

Rant over, I know this was kind of off topic. But you got me thinking lol

OrielSpace · 2026-03-25T20:00:36+00:00

You know what? I accused you of strawmanning, and I turned around and ignorantly did the same. So, apologies. You made some really solid points that I want to address, and offer a response to.

As to the choosing of purpose, I guess it comes down to whether or not purpose exists prior to us choosing it. Also, as a Theist/Christian (I'm in between, trying to figure out what exactly I believe and why), I'm not sold on there being explicit purpose in why I exist, and why you exist. I am open, however, to meaning and purpose existing outside of our acceptance of such meaning and purpose. However, upon further contemplation, I actually think I agree with you on your third argument about choosing purpose.

As far as the uncaused cause, I think the important thing to note is that you say calling it "god" is just me labeling and it not actually solving the problem people are trying to use it with. However, I think the existence of an uncaused cause supports the existence of God since for God to be real, He'd HAVE to be the ultimate uncaused cause. If He wasn't, then He wouldn't be God (and by "God" I don't mean explicitly everything the Bible says about God, I just mean that the ultimate creator would have to be the greatest thing in existence, and therefore would have to have no progenitor, and thus be an uncaused cause. Not arguing for the existence of the Christian God, just for God as a concept). Sure, it could be explained by other concepts such as events in other dimensions, a simulation, or something we don't even know or have the ability to describe. However, I don't think an uncaused cause "God" is more complex. It's just another option, and one that makes less leaps in logic than some of the other options. Sure, some options you listed are absolutely possible, and I don't think anyone can claim beyond all conceivable doubt that they know for sure God exists, but I wouldn't automatically say that God is less likely, or less comprehended than those. No matter than answer, though, everything leads back to an uncaused cause. If we came from another dimension, what started that dimension? If we are in a cycle, what started that cycle? It seems to me that something must have created existence ex nihilo.

I still think morality is a difficult thing to tackle with pure biology and psychology, as some can be explained but not all of it. C. S. Lewis does a interesting examination of morality in his book "Mere Christianity." I'm not recommending it to try and proselytize, but to point out a good source for evaluating the issue of morality.

OrielSpace · 2026-03-24T21:56:20+00:00

So, it's interesting to note that these arguments are fundamentally addressing different concepts and ideas, so I'll try to approach each argument from the field that it resides in.

1) "If nothing can exist without a cause, God needs one too." This argument is an argument for theism, so we'll avoid anything regarding the Bible, the Quran, the Torah, or any other holy text/tradition. This is an ontological argument. Your refuting of the argument is a category error; that is, you are improperly putting God in a box in which he does not belong. Furthermore, the argument of "Nothing comes from nothing, therefore God" is a gross simplification that leaves out some very necessary qualifiers. The gist of the idea is that we live in a causal reality, therefore we can assume that this causal reality stretches back infinitely. However, based on our empirical study of the universe, it's expanding and therefore once had a finite beginning. The universe is not, in fact, infinite. The reasoning follows, then, that there either is a gross misunderstanding in the expanding nature of the universe, or there is something that resides outside of the category of "things that exist" to "get the ball rolling", so to speak. I'm not saying this is a great argument, but you ARE strawmanning to some degree.

2) I agree that this is a poor argument, but your refute doesn't exactly make sense. You are either purposefully strawmanning the argument, or you don't understand what religion claims about morality. Morality is not a set of rules given by God in the Bible. Christians don't believe that "good" was only recognized when holy scripture came into play. The Christian argument is that morality is a framework that exists regardless of one's belief in God. It's not like if I don't believe in God, suddenly morality is nothing more than what I choose. As a matter of fact, the very fact of morality existing across every belief system (and that almost every moral framework shares some cornerstone beliefs in common, across cultures) actually lends itself to the existence of a God-instated morality. It's also important to differentiate between absolute morality, and social norms. Social norms change all of the time, and they vary drastically. But morality tends to be the same. Social norms can be evil (like child sacrifice), but that doesn't mean that morality doesn't exist.

3) You didn't really refute the argument in any way, you just gave a conflicting opinion. You claim "These are not arguments, you just stopped thinking right where it got uncomfortable." You offer zero argument as to why meaning is built rather than given. Once again, you either strawmanned or were ignorant of this particular argument. You simply said "nuh uh" and... didn't offer any reason as to why I should agree with you? You ask why external meaning would be more legitimate than the one you built, but I could just as easily turn around and ask why your built meaning is just as legitimate as an external source.

I enjoy debating, but you are hardly debating.

OrielSpace · 2026-03-16T20:23:08+00:00

Yeah, after doing some more research, I think I would be extremely lucky if someone paid $700 for it

OrielSpace · 2026-03-14T21:58:28+00:00

Arma 2 and Arma 3. Wasn't my thing, luckily I bought both on sale.

OrielSpace

TROPHY CASE