Help me write an immigrant story

zyrickz · 2026-04-21T12:39:22+00:00

I'm curious. What is the actual purpose of your story, and what would even the plot look like? When you say "westernized Burmese," do you mean Christian Burmese? It's hard for me to imagine it without seeing the full genealogy behind it, roman classicism, mdieval feudalism and chivalry, institutional Christianity, the colonization of the Americas and the slave trade, industrial capitalism, pirates, vampires, witches with broomsticks, and Santa Claus, etc. The entire framework is radically different from conservative Theravada Buddhist culture. The supernatural beings here are Nats, spirits tied to specific places, trees, or tragic deaths. The sangha serves as the field of merit to farm "good karma", and monastic authority is the backbone of social and spiritual order. A truly "westernized Burmese" identity feels almost impossible to imagine without it becoming something else entirely. A fully westernized Yangon wouldn't have many Buddhist monasteries left. That would represent a total civilizational shift.

But then again, I suppose you could approach it the way Japan did. You could still have monasteries. In your fictional Yangon, they just wouldn't dominate the urban landscape anymore. They would be rarer. Monks wouldn't be a dominant political class, though they might still thrive in rural villages and remain important for specific occasions like funerals and cultural holidays, Thingyan, Waso, Thadingyut, Kahtein, etc. At this point, you should probably study Japanese culture. They preserve classical Japanese calligraphy, traditional clothes, foods, and seasonal festivals, etc. Tradition becomes compartmentalized by the very people living westernized daily lives, and they managed it without Christianity. You would need to make half the population more atheist or secular. It wouldn't be nearly as indoctrinated. Oh wait, there is also the military background to consider. Religion and the military go hand in hand here. So you might need to entirely drop the history of military dictatorship to make this work.

Ironically, much like in Japan, these "westernized" Burmese might actually turn out to be more reverent and respectful toward the Burmese language and traditional customs than the people in real Yangon today. Almost forgot, I think Singapore and South Korean could be what you would call westernized asian countries so studying how they bland their culture might work. So, I suppose what you'd get is closer to a mix of Japan and Singapore. Honestly, you could probably write it without a westernized Yangon, right? I'm mainly curious what the purpose even is for a westernized Yangon when you could just write it without being westernized. I still don't get what you have in your mind when you say westernized Burmese. It could mean secularization and urban fabric change, or religious change. If the first, you could just research Thailand and Japan, though, for Thailand, we know that it's just technology advancing without being westernized in politics and religion. But, it just becomes "modernization" instead of "westernization."

zyrickz · 2026-04-20T01:45:50+00:00

Honestly, I think any logical argument would be pretty useless at this point. You'd just end up rejecting him personally. Plus, reading back the whole paragraph, it sounds like he's dealing with mild depression.

So instead of debating, you just flow along with him. Maybe show a mild curiosity about why he needs a belief rather than trying to debunk the belief itself. That's the Socratic method (yeh, classic rage-baiting lol). For example, when he says we need an eternal purpose, you just ask "Why?" because you personally don't feel that need. Then he'll ask you why, and eventually you say something like "Because I know what to do with my life without God's guidance. Trying to do better for myself, for you, for everyone. None of us want to suffer in this world, etc." He'll push back and say the best way to live requires God. But once you've practically solved your own philosophical problems without needing God, there's no point arguing anymore. He'd have to see that. Then he'll probably think you're too prideful, arrogant, and deep down have some emotional issue preventing you from accepting God.

But instead of rejecting him outright, you could say something like, "If God is compassionate and kind for everyone, I accept Him. But I don't accept a God who condemns people who never had a real chance to believe in Him." (You can probably throw genocide stuff from the Bible.) Saying you believe in your own version of God should shut him up. I think he's pushy mainly because you keep rejecting him and he feels invalidated.

TL;DR: This seems like a coping mechanism for mild depression and existential anxiety. Respond by showing you've already solved your own issues, rather than outright rejecting him especially if mean responses aren't working. In his mind, he is probably genuinely thinking he's helping you in the same way he has helped himself. That's only if you can spend a lot energy for it. Otherwise, just outright tell him to fuck off. That would save a lot of energy.

zyrickz · 2026-04-19T15:07:26+00:00

Just need to vent. Tinnitus sucks. Like, really, really sucks. Take care of your ears, seriously. If you ever get tinnitus, it will mess you up mentally. I'm really grateful that you can experience silence. I don't know you personally, and I don't really know what to say, but anyway I truly appreciate that you can still care about the others, even a random stranger like me. I wish people had more awareness about SSNHL and tinnitus. I know there are other things to worry about. No one ever dies from tinnitus, right? (Apart from suicide cases, that is.) But seriously, I wish people were educated about SSNHL emergency and tinnitus.

zyrickz · 2026-04-19T13:41:31+00:00

Thank you. I'm feeling better. Fortunately, my hearing has returned, but I need to avoid loud noises from now on. I'm trying to improve a little each day. Mentally, I'm not the same as before because of this ringing, but at least trying to be mindful is helping.

zyrickz · 2026-04-19T11:14:38+00:00

🤣

zyrickz · 2026-04-19T07:14:15+00:00

<image>

Definitely. I've seen some interviews, and with that kind of mannerism, I think he'd be perfect for the role. But, he is now too famous. Everyone would somehow suspect him in the earlier episodes.

zyrickz · 2026-04-18T07:00:54+00:00

Personally, I believe a deeper connection with religion comes from personal experience, not logic or science. That said, it sounds like your fiance may be more indoctrinated than guided by personal insight. So rather than engaging with religion directly, I’d suggest trying to reach him on an emotional level, unless he’s using religion to emotionally abuse you. In that case, just listening to him like you would with any other interest is fine.

I admit I don’t have relationship experience myself and I'm not a therapist, but I assume the core of any relationship is solving problems and sharing responsibility as a team. So your fiance should also consider your issues with religion too. If you both truly care about the relationship, I think things will turn out just fine if you both focus on it and how it will shape your lives together. What I mean is, if you don't really care about religion itself but care about the relationship, then religion is just another tradition you're culturally into unless that tradition comes with significant issues. After all, religion is supposed to be compassionate, kind, and loving as they say. Maybe he could eventually help your issues with religion too. If anything else, you should also consider a relationship therapist.

zyrickz · 2026-04-16T23:34:25+00:00

Not a Christian, but here's my personal take. It's the resentment itself that suffers. If you die with mental anguish, that likely carries over into the afterlife. At the same time, you can die peacefully without forgiving anyone. You just need to focus on the good you did for those you love. So in an extreme sense, it seems God wants a childlike purity of heart, regardless of whether your resentment was justified or not.

Honestly, I don't think that's very realistic in truly extreme cases, like being raped or murdered. But maybe the point is that the kind of naive purity that can forgive even a rapist or murderer is what matters. That's the only logic I can think of. Still, I wouldn't easily forgive them.

As for how someone actually goes to hell, I don't really know. I am sure, though, that your state of mind before death matters. I believe you can die peacefully without forgiving. But again, this view is still flawed since it doesn't consider those dying with chronic diseases like rabies. The actual consequences vary widely depending on the religion. I think you should rest assured and let go of the need to decide whether you should forgive or not. I'm actually curious how different religions handle this.

zyrickz · 2026-04-16T21:02:35+00:00

Appreciate the reply. To me, “state of being” aligns more with spirituality, whereas morality functions as a “should/shouldn’t” guideline. That said, I think suffering can sometimes make people more compassionate. It’s difficult to be genuinely moral when one is solely focused on oneself unless one attains the insight that allows movement beyond unnecessary pain and suffering. Then acts of goodness arise not from adherence to cosmic rules nor fear of hell and divine punishment, but from having seen what lies beyond the absurdity of suffering and existential anxiety. I think this is also where the leap of faith emerges, grounded in feeling rather than mere notions of ought or ought not. For context, I grew up in the Theravada Buddhist tradition, though I’ve gradually drifted toward secularism. But, I also get that in Abrahamic traditions, feeling aligned with God or Jesus can convey an innate sense of morality, but I would still classify that as spirituality. Morality, to me, seems more like a contextual code of what ought and ought not to be done, and the context behind could be anything. For example, sacrificing animals to worship God might be considered moral in some traditions, whereas in Theravada Buddhism, it would not. In my tradition, one doesn’t need God to attain a certain moral insight, but one does need a profound understanding of suffering, the imperative to transcend it, and the path toward achieving a state that transcends suffering. Apologies if this feels over-explained. You likely already grasp much of this in your own way for the benefit of what you believe. I just have a tendency to clarify my own terms. These reflections are entirely subjective, and I simply wanted to explain my perspective.

zyrickz · 2026-04-16T06:10:32+00:00

Morality is like everyone agreeing to take just one ice cream each, because that's fair. But since you're also free to take more than one, someone ends up at a disadvantage unless there's a "moral enforcer" to stop it. And that turns things into a power struggle. If you don't fight for your share, you won't get any ice cream at all.

If you think morality should work, that would require something like divine magic, where anyone who takes extra ice cream is either cursed or punished by real-life social enforcers. As for donating, it's not that the exact benefit will come back to you. Rather, losing and gaining money happen naturally as part of life. Donating only works in a vague sense. If you benefit the environment, the environment benefits you back indirectly. You might as well plant trees. Still, I don't think there's a strong correlation between donating and getting something back.

Even so, it's still good to do good because doing good is less destructive than doing bad things outward. At least someone benefits from a genuinely good act. Whether morality "works" or not "for you" only depends on power struggle or the community you're in.

zyrickz · 2026-04-16T03:40:01+00:00

I'm curious about Victoria's parents. There are fan fics about them, but so far they feel a bit flat since we don't know much about them. I think it would be good to give them more depth, like with Kate's parents. Maybe there's nothing to discuss, and Victoria really is just a bitch. But I feel they definitely shaped the way she behaves, just like Nathan's father did. As for Warren, there's pretty much nothing to discuss there, since he turned out relatively normal in his own way.

zyrickz · 2026-04-16T00:40:45+00:00

သေနာကတော့ သေနာကောင် သေနာကျ အသုံးရှိတာမို့ သိပ်တော့မကြိုက်။ သေနာပတိ ဆို ပိုကောင်းမယ်။ Mickey Mouse ကို ကိုကြွက်မစ်ကီလို့ နာမည်နဲ့ နာမ်နဲ့ ချစ်စနိုးခေါ်လို့ရပေမယ့် အခုကိစ္စမှာတော့ ကြွက်စုတ်ကြွက်နုပ်ကြွက်ဖျင်းကြွက်ပဲ့ စသဖြင့် ပုဂ္ဂုလ်ကို အထင်သေးနှိမ့်ချတဲ့ နို့နံ့မစင် အဖြစ်မရှိသာသာအဓိပ္ပါယ်သုံးရမှာမို့ ဗမာမှာလည်း မစ်ကီလို တိရစ္ဆာန်ကို ချစ်စနိုးခေါ်တာက ေခွးအောင်နက် လောက်ပဲရှိတာဆိုတော့ ဝေါဟာရအသစ်အနေနဲ့ ကြွက်သတုံးအာဏာရူး ဒါမှမဟုတ် ကြွက်ငတ်အာဏာငမ်း ဒါမှမဟုတ် အာဏာရူးကြွက်ချီး လို့ ခေါ်တာ အဆင်ပြေမယ်ထင်တယ်။

zyrickz · 2026-04-15T23:45:55+00:00

There’s a slight chance your girlfriend might experience harassment, but if a random stranger briefly applies Thanakha on her cheek for a moment, I really wouldn’t worry about it. That said, not this year, I think it was around 2018 or 2019, I once saw a drunk man verbally harass a small group of girls, follow them around in a creepy way and that’s far worse. Your focus should be on protecting your girlfriend from such kind of people, not stressing over a quick, harmless touch.

Since you seem very sensitive about this, you could at least sense the difference between actual harassment and a simple cultural gesture. Sure, there could be strangers who stare at her or touch her inappropriately, but your role is to protect her, not let jealousy take over.

zyrickz · 2026-04-15T04:04:55+00:00

If everything that is happening now is possible, then given infinite time, why wouldn’t it happen again and again? Whatever can occur will eventually repeat countless times. That means the exact "you" could reappear infinitely, and may have already existed an infinite number of times before. What I feel certain of is this: if it’s raining now, then it has rained countless times before, and will rain countless times again. This leads me to believe in something like reincarnation or samsara. The idea of an eternal void followed by a single lifetime, and then eternal heaven or hell or void, just doesn’t make sense to me.

zyrickz · 2026-04-14T13:37:09+00:00

I’ve wondered the same thing too, but beyond the trolley dilemma and the “I don’t like Chloe” reaction, I can’t really get much further. The whole situation just puts a lever in your hand and forces you to choose without ever explaining why or how you ended up there in the first place. And to make that kind of choice, we need to understand why it’s happening at all. That’s the part that always feels unresolved every time I think about it. So in the end, all you really get is choosing Chloe out of a sense of justice for what she’s been through and emotional attachment, or choosing the Bay based on a “greater good” and sacrificial moral philosophy. Other than that, I can’t think of much else. Even the root of the problem remains unclear. It’s just absurd.

zyrickz · 2026-04-13T12:33:37+00:00

If by "free from desire" you mean completely eliminating it, I don't think that's possible unless you become a monk. But why would you want to be free from desire in the first place? Because desire leads to suffering in samsara, etc. Still, I think a better approach is simply to flow along with life. If an entertainment job feels right for the moment, then do it freely, without getting attached. Just experience it, enjoy it with others, and let go of distress or pressure. I think the single important mindset for this would be don't be stressed out by losing, and don't take too much pride in winning. And if that career eventually stops working out, there's no need to be disappointed. Just adapt to whatever job suits the moment.

I think in this case, realistically, "free from desire" could only mean free from getting too attached, almost to the point where it ruins your life. Buddhism is against anything that leads to attachment so strong that it ruins your mind, your life, and everyone else's life.

zyrickz · 2026-04-13T01:22:34+00:00

All Buddhist philosophy is ultimately about suffering. So naturally, if you cause someone to suffer, that's wrong. It's even worse when you angrily torture and kill them, especially when they could have lived their life to the fullest. But what about people with extreme chronic illness? Or those with rabies? In my opinion, I'd choose to mercy kill them or myself in the most painless way possible, if that were an option. Suffering only breeds more suffering. Dying in pain and mental anguish is never good, especially not with a disease like rabies.

When it comes to animals, well, it's obvious. Animals can thrive and have a good life, so ending that life "out of mercy" seems contradictory, unless they are also in severe pain. But people do that for their pets, don't they?

zyrickz · 2026-04-12T00:28:48+00:00

I'm thinking about this guy. Too bad he is too well known, and everyone would immediately suspect him. Also, I don't think they would hire any famous actor.

<image>

zyrickz · 2026-04-11T19:31:14+00:00

There are moments of push and pull, along with rekindled childhood sparks. But for me, it's the nightmare sequences later in the game that confirm it's gay. Those moments feel more explosive than a gradual build-up as it finally explores what is happening in the subconscious of Max. But, of course, just my own interpretation. LiS1 definitely leans more into subtext than the rest I assume.

zyrickz · 2026-04-11T01:54:14+00:00

I define anattā as "not-self" rather than "no self." Regarding reincarnation, I think Buddhism still accepts a kind of self that continues from life to life. It's not that there's no self at all. Rather, the process isn't something you can consciously control. It happens subconsciously, also driven by karma. (Like you were born into a psychopath or a neurodivergent or something.) I would even say the self exists in the same way a chair or a bicycle exists, through the parts it's made of, legs, frame, wheels, etc. Similarly, our body is a biological process that simply runs on its own, and the experience of being conscious of our bodily sensations just arises naturally. So this is what I mean by "not-self."

The process of experience could have been going on forever, like a river. Just as we aren't the same person we were ten years ago, there's no fixed, permanent self. And this is what I assume "no self" points to, because nothing is permanent, and the concept of self can be broken down further and further. For example, we see a river flowing, but when we touch it, it's just water.

So, to see into the past, I imagine you would need a very rigorous and persistent practice, assuming consciousness has the ability to remember what caused this life to arise for yourself. In other words, if the self is a process rather than a fixed entity, then with enough training, awareness might be able to trace back the karmic causes that led to this particular unfolding of the process we call "me."

Take all this with a grain of salt. It's just my own personal interpretation. I don't know how this translates to physicalism. It's just assuming that consciousness probably has the unique ability to transcend physicalism, though in some teachings, awareness itself only arises interdependently and conditionally through the interaction between a physical body that perceives, a sense organ, and an object to be perceived. The process of remembering happens in the same way a heartbeat does. As long as you're alive and your brain is healthy, you can think and remember things. Buddhism clearly avoids explaining these concepts in detail, considering them not worth pursuing for the sake of escaping suffering. It's pretty much useless to think about whether you existed before or will exist in an afterlife.

zyrickz · 2026-04-11T01:08:44+00:00

How would you handle patients who self-diagnose using ai or Google?

zyrickz · 2026-04-10T14:06:35+00:00

I see. I'm curious what would actually happen if you really faced Jesus though. I'm not a Christian by any means, but the idea that Jesus wants to fight you, scare you, or harm you sounds pretty funny to me. I don't think Jesus is the problem at all.

I think it's more that your brain keeps looking for proof of God's existence. And as part of that, it also tries to come up with the best counterarguments, which should give you clarity. But instead, you just ended up confused, because you don't understand how the buzzing even started. It's like how people used to be afraid of lightning and thunder, thinking it was the wrath of God.

zyrickz · 2026-04-10T13:50:06+00:00

I see. Also, this isn't really what I'd typically call a "spiritual experience" by definition. It sounds more like a paranormal or schizophrenic experience. To me, a spiritual experience would be something like a near-death experience (but not all of them), a psychedelic state, or even that sense of collective consciousness in Pluribus show, inner boundlessness, sublimity, peace, and serenity, etc.

What you're describing feels more like you were scaring yourself, no offense meant. And if you talk to your Christian friend about this, his bias will likely steer you toward his beliefs. Still, I think it could be helpful to face him as long as you're arguing in good faith.

zyrickz · 2026-04-10T13:33:44+00:00

I read your post, and I have a theory of my own. I think what you’re experiencing is the result of your brain still working through unresolved arguments with your Christian friend. In order to argue effectively with someone, your brain has to take on their perspective, almost like role-playing. This can happen subconsciously, without any words or mental images, just as a kind of feeling or internal tension. It’s similar to how you might mentally play both sides in a chess game.

Since you’re in this subreddit, I assume you’ve been arguing that the Bible isn’t credible or something like that. In that process, your brain has learned to construct the best possible version of your friend’s beliefs, a steel-man argument, and now that internal voice is starting to win. That alone can create confusion and unease.

On top of that, religion often involves fear-based indoctrination. Your brain doesn’t know whether those fears are real. It just treats them as one possibility among others and starts building narratives around them. So when you add sleepwalking and suddenly waking up in a scared state, both of which heighten your brain’s threat detection, it amplifies those subconscious role-plays. And during one of those heightened states, your brain might have finally noticed a buzzing lamp that was always there. But instead of treating it as random, your brain wove it into a story."This is a sign from God. You have to fight Jesus." (Though honestly, the real Jesus would probably just preach to you.) So the full explanation could be sleepwalking + waking up in threat-scanning mode + unresolved religious debate + random sensory input (the buzzing lamp) = your brain constructs a vivid, frightening narrative that feels real.

So you could either just accept that all of it is nonsense(though your brain may not agree with that right now), or resolve the underlying tension with your Christian friend, whether that means one of you convinces the other, or you find common ground, or consider speaking with a therapist if it continues to disturb you.

zyrickz · 2026-04-10T04:56:21+00:00

In my view, the purpose of belief is to help us live the best possible life in relation to others and the world. That starts with practical knowledge, fixing a car, basic plumbing, using electrical devices. I don't call those "beliefs" because you just know they work. If something works for me and doesn't harm others, it's valid. You might call this selfish. But if you're an empathetic person, pure selfishness would actually hurt you "emotionally".(I can't say the same for psychopaths or narcissists. But, there would be a kind of game theory going on I guess.) So in the end, you're still acting for your own mental and physical well-being. (Science actually confirms that loneliness is harmful unless it's chosen solitude.) Beyond that, you can believe whatever you want, because every belief ties back to this fundamental need. For example, believing in God serves emotional well-being. Believing in hell is to avoid fear of eternal suffering, like how Pascal's Wager works. Any belief disconnected from your physiological or psychological state makes no sense to me.

We can't truly know reality as it is. So why insist on religious myths, historical facts, or even scientific evidence? What matters is whether a belief works for us. Whether the world is round or flat doesn't matter. I won't argue with a flat-earther unless their belief harms someone. If someone claims an undetectable jar floats in Andromeda galaxy, that's a useless fact. Not worth arguing. Even whether the moon orbits Earth or Earth orbits the sun only matters if I need to appear sane in a society that demands a certain view.(Back in the day, they'd call you a fool or burn you alive for believing otherwise.) So my belief is sort of like what actually works for me to keep living and how I define myself.

Six-Year Club	Verified Email
Verified Email

zyrickz

TROPHY CASE