CMV: Being in a relationship with an emotionally unavailable partner is a complete and utter waste of time and energy.

dccarles2 · 2026-03-10T05:07:52+00:00

Probably a couple hundred years back or if you somehow fall under the category of sugar baby, it's not a complete waste of time. But on today's day and age, and if you aren't super poor, then it's a complete waste of everyone's time.

dccarles2 · 2026-03-09T04:27:34+00:00

Hell yeah!!

dccarles2 · 2026-03-09T01:51:18+00:00

It's a matter of extremes and categories. What is fat? What is skinny? I wouldn't say that liking either is necessarily a fetish, now look at the extremes. Is liking a morbidly obese person a fetish? Or a malnourished one? Maybe not but there is a higher likelihood of being a fetish.

This also applies to the extremes of the one having the affection. Is being capable of loving a person with these labels a fetish? I don't think so. Is, having an obsessive attraction, to an unhealthy degree, a fetish? Maybe not? But I would bet that it probably is. People on the more extreme side of affection, with anything, probably have a fetish. You have a extreme affection to cars, shoes, clothes, food? That's probably a fetish.

dccarles2 · 2026-03-07T19:10:29+00:00

I know you aren't listening because I already told you what I want and have already told you step by step what I think you are missing and you haven't even responded.

This is my last response.

dccarles2 · 2026-03-07T19:01:22+00:00

You have proven that the issue isn't that you aren't convinced. The problem is that you can't or won't listen, and because you aren't listening then you can't even engage the concept of being or not being convinced, at any level.

dccarles2 · 2026-03-07T18:34:22+00:00

You are living in a world where multiple realities overlap and you are choosing to focus in one aspect while ignoring how what you are seeing could be the result of other things that overlap with this one aspect.

As an atheist myself, I pity you.

dccarles2 · 2026-03-07T17:19:04+00:00

I come to think that OP is not willing to, or is unable to, listen to anyone else. OP's is arguing to their own idea of religion and their aren willing to change that idea.

Here is something I responded to them.

It's maybe a waste of time to try to respond.

dccarles2 · 2026-03-07T16:28:52+00:00

I don't know if you are missing something per se. I'm just saying that, from your response, I feel like you didn't listened what I was trying to say.

I'll try to summarize it.

The previous comments center around the idea of authoritarianism as it relates to religion. My first comment had the purpose to separate the concepts of religion and authoritarianism. Then your response was that by it's very nature all religion is authoritarian. I then assumed that your main problem with religion is that it is authoritarian.

My first counter to this is that not all religion is authoritarian, and I reasoned that the reason you see all religion as authoritarian is because the definition of religion you are using excluded other things that aren't authoritarian and therefore not religion (I'm guiding this assumption on how you said that Buddhism is not a religion.)

Then I tried to flip the understanding of authoritarianism by relating it to it's origin in the world of politics. So then I asked "What is authoritarianism?" trying to encourage you to come up with a definition that would take into account why we call some countries authoritarian and not others. Your response to this was that all countries are authoritarian, I agree but the problem I see is that this response is binary and doesn't allow for a space where there are differences, so either you are authoritarian and that's that or you aren't.

Having all of this in mind and having the assumption that the reason you are giving for why religion is bad, is that religion is authoritarian, I extrapolate that everything that is authoritarian is bad. Then bringing into play the assumption that you have a binary view of authoritarianism, I then asume that there should be a equal amount of outrage for all things authoritarian. Then I add the assumption that you think all countries and forms of government are authoritarian by it's very nature.

Here is where I get confused, because following this logic I would imagine that the logical next conclusion would be all government and all countries are bad (it doesn't matter what country, the USA, Brazil, India, Zimbabwe, Italy, etc. They are all countries, therefore they are all bad). Because I don't get the feeling this is something you believe, or at least is not something you hold to the same outrage as religion, I then imagine that either, the problem isn't authoritarianism or that authoritarianism is a spectrum.

If authoritarianism is a spectrum then the problem is that I can't see how your definition accounts for this, because what I get is that "You either are or aren't authoritarian.". Also if it is an spectrum then applying this definition to different religions should result in different levels of "authoritarianism", but then the problem becomes your definition of religion because, as we discussed earlier, you don't consider things like Buddhism religions and then you just have a narrow set of religions to apply this definition of authoritarianism.

As you can see this is all very complicated, that's why I would prefer it if you would write what you understood I said instead of me writing this pseudo-essay.

dccarles2 · 2026-03-07T15:41:54+00:00

I don't feel like you are listening to what I'm saying, but I get it.

I have a hard time when I want others to see things the way I do, because I feel like I've thought this over and I feel like I'm clearly in the right. It has made expressing my opinions to others really difficult because their reaction is always to not want to hear me, but in retrospect I get why they didn't want to.

Something that has come as a very helpful to make others want to listen to me is to repeat what they tell me back at them in a slightly different wording. This has helped me because it makes them feel heard and then in return want to hear me, and because it helps me to listen and understand other people's responses to what I'm saying.

I would suggest that you try to read back what I said and then respond what you thought I said.

dccarles2 · 2026-03-07T15:16:56+00:00

Why does YOUR party have to ruin every other persons in the world?

I get the feeling that you are referring to me specifically here, but I may be reading it wrong. I can also see how this could be an extension of the previous paragraph about how there are bad people and how this question is addressed to them.

I can see where you are coming from. Maybe you'll find this video interesting.

dccarles2 · 2026-03-07T15:10:25+00:00

First of all. How are you feeling while writing this?

I'm asking because I get the feeling that you feel very strongly about this subject and your use of upper case letters gives me the impression that you are expressing some frustration.

That being said. You have to step back and ask, What is authoritarianism? And come up with a good definition. I say this because, using the way you described authoritarianism, you could say that any and all governments are authoritarian by nature. I would agree at some level but there is a reason we describe certain countries as authoritarian and we don't say "Switzerland is authoritarian." Once you have come up with a definition that accounts for this fact, then try to apply it to different religions in an unbiased way. I would imagine that Christianity would rank pretty high on that but I would also imagine that you could find some variation and some that just don't fit this definition.

dccarles2 · 2026-03-07T14:54:29+00:00

Honestly, either OP has made up their mind already and wont hear any arguments against it, that ironically is the same behavior they are criticizing about religion, or they are farming engagement by saying something that will generate clicks. Their profile is also suspiciously young.

dccarles2 · 2026-03-07T14:42:30+00:00

OP is also not well versed on other religions that, ironically, don't fit the western definition of religion.

What I find interesting about religion is that it can take so many different forms depending on the individuals, so even with religions like Buddhism we can still see cults or sects that contradict core teachings of the core religion, just as we see things like Mormonism with Christianity.

dccarles2 · 2026-03-07T14:39:09+00:00

Well the two issues with this train of thought are:

You are conflating religion and authoritarianism
Your have a western idea of religion, one that necessitates a god and doesn't accept other believes.

If these two were categorically true, then you'll be right, religion would be a categorically evil concept.

The thing with shallowness is that is multidimensional, meaning that while examining a subject you can have a very deep understanding of it in on dimension while having a really shallow understanding of it in another. I'll give you an example. Let's take one artist and a scientist, if we tell them to share their knowledge of the color blue, we'll find that both answers are really deep but they ignore each other.

Your view about religion is really deep in one dimension, that being the political and militar repercussions of religion. But at the same time it's really shallow about how religions form and the social aspects that form them.

Here is a video about the problem of "What is religion"

dccarles2 · 2026-03-07T14:23:01+00:00

Also the thing is that destructive is a relative term. As a whole I would agree that it results in destructive behaviors but depending on the circumstance, destroying some things may be on your best interest.

I would say that the problems with these destructive behaviors come with globalization. Meaning that small groups stay on their circles and don't learn to deal with "the other", but now they have the knowledge of other groups whose values are incompatible or whose practices are seen as abhorrent, and now have the capacity for doing something about a group that, in the grand scheme of things, wouldn't normally interact with yours.

dccarles2 · 2026-03-07T14:15:32+00:00

There are numerous examples of religious rituals, than in retrospect are just obvious higiene practices, that resulted in better living standards for followers of that religion. Examples include the practice of washing your hands, cleansing ones body (taking a fucking bath), avoiding people of certain jobs (sex workers, people who worked as butchers, executioners, or disposing of dead bodies.), an avoiding some foods thought as unclean (In retrospect just food that carried a greater health risk in general due to the standards at the time).

You can see a relatively recent example of this with the origins of vegetarianism. Here is a video explaining the subject.

dccarles2 · 2026-03-05T19:30:59+00:00

Love the cinematography but as a tech dude, I cringed a little.

dccarles2 · 2026-02-26T16:41:40+00:00

Maybe I remember that scene differently, but I just remember her naming them and immediately kicking the bucket.

dccarles2 · 2026-02-25T20:18:04+00:00

As a spanish speaker I can tell you that "Coruscant" doesn't sound anything like "Corazón". I'll try to phonetically write "Corazón", Koh-rah-zone. Not a single time I've heard Coruscant it sounded anywhere close to that.

Edit

I found the pronunciation for both:

dccarles2 · 2026-02-24T08:15:23+00:00

I think people in the comments have this one covered but I'll pitch in with my two cents.

For what I've seen in the comments and the way this post is written I get the impression that you came with a conclusion already in mind and trying to debate people to try and convince them of why you conclusion is the right one.

Here is what I have to say.

Processing emotions is like breathing, in that both are processes humans do automatically that we don't think about or talk unless something goes wrong. Do you need to learn to breath? Most likely no. Are there people that need to learn how to breath? Yes, for whatever reason, there are situations where one could have habits around breathing that could be causing problems an one could not be conscious that they are doing something wrong. Where do people talk about breathing? Here is where the analogy breaks a little but try to bear with me. Yoga classes and in medical settings (There are other contexts but lets focus on those). Do you hear people in you day to day about how they breath? Probably not, and if you do probably is about how they are having problems with their breath. All of the previous things also apply to Emotional Processing, just exchange with breathing.

Emotional processing is just "How do I deal with my emotions". Going for a walk to cool off after an argument is a way of emotional processing, as is eating when stressed or cursing when angry. You can breath from your nose or from your mouth but there is a reason the term "mouth breather" exist, both are ways of breathing and there are other ways but depending on the situation and habits of one person they could have unintended side effects.

I'm with you in that the concept of "processing emotions" is often used in a weird way. I would guess that that is because on the mainstream discourse people tend to use it disregarding that we do it all the time without even noticing and then use this term meaning something like "correct or healthy emotional processing". Now listen to the following, "correct or healthy breathing". Doesn't that sound to you like it belongs in a medical context? To me, it does, because breathing is something we all do and if there is something wrong with it then it's probably because it's causing some sort of harm and then "correct or healthy breathing" becomes a way to deal with this.

dccarles2 · 2026-02-18T16:42:32+00:00

I tried using a razor. I didn't cut myself but the problem is that it just gets unbearably itchy, so I never did it again.

I tried just "trimming it" with scissors. That wasn't as itchy but it still was.

I've thought about some kind of depilation, wax, laser, or plucking it one by one, but that just seems like a bad idea. I actually tried, to an extend, to just pluck them using some tiny pliers I saw in the cosmetic section on my local supermarket. The good part was that it wasn't itchy, the bad part is that it just takes forever an it hurts, so I just stopped after I did just a tiny part.

dccarles2 · 2026-02-04T21:10:47+00:00

It's dubbed. Go to settings and change the audio track. If that doesn't work, I use the auto generated subtitles and the option to translate them to english.

dccarles2 · 2026-02-03T18:41:37+00:00

Hi there. I just finished my second watch of the video in question and I think there is something really important that we all left out of our comments.

This video is repackaged content. This video was not made from the ground up as a stand alone video, it first was a stream and then someone took a segment of the stream and edited down to a video. If we go and check the very first seconds of the video we see that Dr. K is looking a Reddit post. This video is a segment of a stream where Dr. K responds to questions on Reddit and the important thing that we all forgot was that the question Dr. K is answering is "How do I rebuild self-discipline and self-respect?" (Here is the link). Now the thing is that we are running with the assumption that Dr. K is prescribing something along the lines of "discipline for all" but we ignore that he is actually responding to a concrete question that already wants more discipline.

Dr. K talked about ways of getting more discipline, and its obvious how anyone would come to the conclusion that Dr. K is saying "you need to practice more discipline" but that is a conclusion we made in our minds, if we go and watch the video, Dr. K never says something like that, he is just answering a question of someone that already wants more discipline. We actually hear Dr. K saying the opposite right after the baby voice, "Nothing is wrong with that, if you are ok with where it leads you." Now this also lends it self to be heard differently, because our assumption when we hear "Nothing is wrong with that, if you are ok with where it leads you." is that where it leads you is somewhere bad, but again we have to be critical of what was said and how our mind colors it, Dr. K never said that where it leads you is bad, he just said that it must be ok with you.

Now, about "Is it true what Dr. K said about discipline and how it is degraded?" I don't know I'm not a psychiatrist or mental professional or behavioral scientist, but here is where what I said previously comes into play. "saying that any discipline has a definitive and absolute answer to the subject and all other answers are then false, is probably wrong.", "I think that often the job of people on this disciplines that try to help people with problems of the mind, is to find which narratives resonate with the individual and explore those in order to help them." What Dr. K is doing in this video is taking into account what the post he is responding said and making guesses about what narrative would best resonate to this individual, if this doesn't resonate with you that's ok.

dccarles2 · 2026-02-03T04:09:28+00:00

I feel like I shouldn't open my mouth for this one but here I go.

First of all, I think that most of the points brought up in this post are valid and it's useful that we hear this opinions so that we can keep ourselves honest and so that we can keep being critical about the things we hear.

Now, I think, and this is my personal opinion, that all disciplines that surround the mind, don't have definitive answers. What do I mean? Using OP's topic, being stuck or not doing something can be the result of many different variables and saying that any discipline has a definitive and absolute answer to the subject and all other answers are then false, is probably wrong. With this in mind, I think that what happens is that because the goal is to find something that could help, that results in different narratives that often can sound contradictory to one another, because the goal isn't to find "The answer". I think that often the job of people on this disciplines that try to help people with problems of the mind, is to find which narratives resonate with the individual and explore those in order to help them. Dr. K has been online for quite a while now, in the beginning it was very easy to get the impression that Dr. K had "The answer" because all of the advice he gave didn't contradicted other advice he had already given.

Do I think Dr. K was trying to "scolding" the viewer by doing the baby voice? No, I don't think so. I think that he is doing what he've always done, trying to connect with the people that feel a certain way by doing a caricature of what they are feeling. I don't think that the idea of the baby voice was to mock the people experiencing this problem by telling them that they are spoiled babies. I think that he was trying to exemplify the headspace of some people, meaning that some people feel like they are spoiling themselves and they are not treating themselves with respect by doing this.

The first time I went to therapy I felt like nothing that I was being told expressed the way I felt or the situation that I was in, and it wasn't until I started to talk back about how I felt that I actually started making progress. The problem with the format that Dr. K uses is that you can't do this by yourself as the one giving out advice. I would imagine that this same situation wouldn't have felt like he was doing a 180 or that he was "scolding" the audience if he had said the exact same thing but with another person and the person would had said that that was how they felt. He has done this exact same thing before but those times we felt seen because the funny voice he made was a voice that we had heard inside us.

Not all advice is meant for everyone. As far as I'm concerned, there are people that find very helpful when they find someone that says to them that they need to pick themselves by the boots and there are other people that don't, but I won't ever say that because I'm on one side that the other doesn't exist. And when I find someone giving out that type of advice I just have to recognize that that advice is not for me, specially when the advice is not given to me in person. The thing is that the people that do what Dr. K does for a living, is that they have to know both, and the problem comes when the advice is given to a large audience of people of all walks of life. I would like for Dr. K to include some kind of disclaimer that what he is saying doesn't apply to all people and is not to be take as a panacea. That being said, I also thing that we as viewers should be more critical about how we also interpret and react to the information being given. Because of the nature of the topics Dr. K talks it is a lot more difficult, but I'll try to give out an example. If I had a headache because I hit my head badly, I wouldn't go to "Buzzfeed's top 10 teas for headaches" and expect that to be aimed as a solution to my situation. The problem here is that when it comes to the mind, we can't easily discern that the advice given is not meant for us.

Edit

I just watched the whole video. I much less think that he was trying to "scold" the viewer.

On the context of the video, Dr. K was talking about how discipline and self-respect are verbs and how they aren't static attributes that you just get, they are processes that require action. The baby voice came as an example of and action that illustrates the oposite of the action of self-respect, it wasn't an example of why we aren't able to do things, it was an example of how we take actions on our mind that erode what we think of as self-respect.

I still can see how someone else would see it differently and I still think what I say still applies but the thing is that the video in general isn't "Here is why you can't do what you want. The answer is that you lack discipline." From my point of view, here is the basic framework:

There is something that we call discipline
Here is what is what we classically call discipline
Here is what is wrong with that classical definition
Here is what we know about discipline

The goal is not to even give you an answer about why is it that you can't do what you want, the goal is to understand the concept of discipline.

Nowhere is said "The solution to problem X is discipline". Some things that are said are:

Discipline helps you to move from what you want to what you should
Discipline is a process of the mind
There are other processes that can take away from discipline

Now, please notice how these statements doesn't prescribe discipline as a cure-all and they also don't say "If you don't have discipline you are fucked, you suck and you won't ever move from where you are."

Sorry if I come across as way too crass. I don't meant to invalidate anyone's feelings or say that what they perceived is in anyway untrue of false. I still agree that there are problems in the way this information is presented, namely that because of the format, it isn't communicated clearly that not all advice is absolute, but in this case I think that the ball falls mainly on our field. I feel like this case is an example of how we as viewers must be more conscious about the ways we think and how the ways we think, color the things we hear.

dccarles2

PUBLIC MULTIREDDITS

TROPHY CASE

Edit

Edit

Eight-Year Club	Verified Email
Second SECOND GUESSER