It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Just read about the Dunning–Kruger effect and now I'm thinking about how often in my life I behaved like a complete idiot because I was - and still am - a complete incompetent ignorant.
I guess I should try to restrain myself more and not always try to attract attention.
Post edited July 27, 2015 by viperfdl
Sorry for the laments but I'm in an overall bad mood right know and I know this community is a very friendly one.
I can't get over the death of my cat and loss in general.
My best friend left me for good and I'm the kind of loner who doesn't have any alternatives.
On Monday I have to start an apprenticeship and I'm so anxious, I can barely sleep anymore, and even playing some games I like just can not comfort me, I can't even begin with it.
I tried to read through some books so I have at least a little clue when I start there, but I can't concentrate.
+ I haven't finished school and I wrote them, they seemed quite irritated about it.
I couldn't go to school anymore because I was too scared to, even though I had quite good marks and some teachers thought highly of me.
So I underwent therapy but it didn't help much. (I have an obsessive-compulsive disorder since early childhood and an anxiety disorder since I suffered chronic pain after an operation)
My family helps me a lot with everything and I'm real afraid to disappoint them.
Now it just seems like everything is getting more and more complicated, what can one do to avoid the complete failure?
Anyone else faced such fearful thoughts?
avatar
Zeeaire: Sorry for the laments but I'm in an overall bad mood right know and I know this community is a very friendly one.
I can't get over the death of my cat and loss in general.
My best friend left me for good and I'm the kind of loner who doesn't have any alternatives.
On Monday I have to start an apprenticeship and I'm so anxious, I can barely sleep anymore, and even playing some games I like just can not comfort me, I can't even begin with it.
I tried to read through some books so I have at least a little clue when I start there, but I can't concentrate.
+ I haven't finished school and I wrote them, they seemed quite irritated about it.
I couldn't go to school anymore because I was too scared to, even though I had quite good marks and some teachers thought highly of me.
So I underwent therapy but it didn't help much. (I have an obsessive-compulsive disorder since early childhood and an anxiety disorder since I suffered chronic pain after an operation)
My family helps me a lot with everything and I'm real afraid to disappoint them.
Now it just seems like everything is getting more and more complicated, what can one do to avoid the complete failure?
Anyone else faced such fearful thoughts?
Life's hard sometimes as I've had a lot of rough trots thru it and you learn to
just battle on.Just keep battling on and sorry for your cat and the only thing
to fix this is time.Failure's are a big part of life and you learn from them,so
don't get down for too long.

I said to my father once ''Dad I need new shoes''
He said ''New shoes,what about the kids that don't have any feet?''
I never asked for shoes again or complained:-)
avatar
pigdog: I don't mean to be flippant about this but it's just yet another hate crime(s) from a section of society that can't accept diversity due to some messed up belief or principle.

Just throwing this out there without any foundation whatsoever but the it wouldn't surprise me if the murderer(s) weren't in some way confused about their own feelings but had an ingrained, perhaps religious, belief that causes them to lash out.

It really is fucked up.
avatar
monkeydelarge: They were probably conservative Christians who despise everything that wasn't tolerated in the 1950s and are extremely pissed off at the world for not staying in the 1950s. The USA still has a lot of these types, unfortunately.
And there's plenty of Christians who are also kind, down to earth people who wouldn't hurt a fly. Stop going for the cheap heat. Picking on Christians is easy because... here's the weird part... most of them are damn near pacifists who don't fight back. There are double standards on both sides of the railroad tracks, pal.
avatar
monkeydelarge: They were probably conservative Christians who despise everything that wasn't tolerated in the 1950s and are extremely pissed off at the world for not staying in the 1950s. The USA still has a lot of these types, unfortunately.
avatar
Emob78: And there's plenty of Christians who are also kind, down to earth people who wouldn't hurt a fly. Stop going for the cheap heat. Picking on Christians is easy because... here's the weird part... most of them are damn near pacifists who don't fight back. There are double standards on both sides of the railroad tracks, pal.
There are plenty of christians who are not conservatives. "Conservative christians" here kinda designate people whose conservatism is driven (or validated, solidified, sanctified) by religion. And this can indeed be a nasty combination. I don't think it's that unfair.
Post edited July 28, 2015 by Telika
avatar
Emob78: And there's plenty of Christians who are also kind, down to earth people who wouldn't hurt a fly. Stop going for the cheap heat. Picking on Christians is easy because... here's the weird part... most of them are damn near pacifists who don't fight back. There are double standards on both sides of the railroad tracks, pal.
avatar
Telika: There are plenty of christians who are not conservatives. "Conservative christians" here kinda designate people whose conservatism is driven by religion. And this can indeed be a nasty combination. I don't think it's that unfair.
So you're assuming that an entire philosophy or world view that you don't agree with is dangerous. Isn't that kind of exactly the point of criticizing the concept of religion itself? Aren't we hypocrites when we tag entire groups of people as dangerous or wrong simply because we don't condone or agree with their ideas? I mean, what if I called you a Euro-trash faggot for thinking the way you do? People here would jump my ass for being a closed minded American bigot. But constantly slamming conservatives or Christians is ok? How are those prejudices any different?

I'll give you a specific example. My step father's father. He was a Nazarene choir minister. Very religious family. That dude was one of the kindest human beings I've ever met in my life. He always had a nice word and a smile for anyone. Anyone. He never had a bad word to say about anyone. He didn't judge, he certainly didn't hate, and he was absolutely a true Christian. Do the Westboro church losers represent him? Why do people think of those types when they hear the word 'Conservative Christian'? Because the nice quiet people aren't in the news, they're not on your radar. As they say, 'if it bleeds, it leads.' When my step grandfather died, almost 2000 people showed up for his funeral. 2000 people there, and they weren't mourning a bible thumping bigot who hated queers and didn't want to see women working jobs. They were there to mourn a nice man who followed his life as much as he could in the path of Jesus Christ and died believing 100% that love and forgiveness were the keys to happiness.

There's nice and bad people out there from all walks of life, and all belief systems. But just because they're now a public whipping boy, doesn't mean they're all bad. It also doesn't mean that people aren't total fucking hypocrites for slamming racism or sexism, but then turn around and call open season on religious people and Christians. That level of bullshit makes me lose my temper a bit. I guess you'll JUST HAVE TO FORGIVE ME.
avatar
Telika: There are plenty of christians who are not conservatives. "Conservative christians" here kinda designate people whose conservatism is driven by religion. And this can indeed be a nasty combination. I don't think it's that unfair.
avatar
Emob78: So you're assuming that an entire philosophy or world view that you don't agree with is dangerous. Isn't that kind of exactly the point of criticizing the concept of religion itself? Aren't we hypocrites when we tag entire groups of people as dangerous or wrong simply because we don't condone or agree with their ideas? I mean, what if I called you a Euro-trash faggot for thinking the way you do? People here would jump my ass for being a closed minded American bigot. But constantly slamming conservatives or Christians is ok? How are those prejudices any different?

I'll give you a specific example. My step father's father. He was a Nazarene choir minister. Very religious family. That dude was one of the kindest human beings I've ever met in my life. He always had a nice word and a smile for anyone. Anyone. He never had a bad word to say about anyone. He didn't judge, he certainly didn't hate, and he was absolutely a true Christian. Do the Westboro church losers represent him? Why do people think of those types when they hear the word 'Conservative Christian'? Because the nice quiet people aren't in the news, they're not on your radar. As they say, 'if it bleeds, it leads.' When my step grandfather died, almost 2000 people showed up for his funeral. 2000 people there, and they weren't mourning a bible thumping bigot who hated queers and didn't want to see women working jobs. They were there to mourn a nice man who followed his life as much as he could in the path of Jesus Christ and died believing 100% that love and forgiveness were the keys to happiness.

There's nice and bad people out there from all walks of life, and all belief systems. But just because they're now a public whipping boy, doesn't mean they're all bad. It also doesn't mean that people aren't total fucking hypocrites for slamming racism or sexism, but then turn around and call open season on religious people and Christians. That level of bullshit makes me lose my temper a bit. I guess you'll JUST HAVE TO FORGIVE ME.
You miss the point. Not all religious people (be them christians or muslims or whatnot) are conservative dickwads. The issue is how those who are push for a less diverse, more intolerant, more normed, more unfair society. Including mutual intolerance when it comes to religions themselves. The point is precisely that it is not about religion itself, but about the norms that are being enforced upon people. Bashing religions for religions sake is wrong. Assuming that all people from a religion are clones with the same worldviews, the same values, the same behaviours, the same projects, is wrong. But you can narrow it down to pass more accurate judgements. That's a function of the term 'religious conservatism', to designate cases where a more conservative society (against societal progresses and maximized recognition and inclusion of harmless diversities) gets advocated on the ground of sacrosanct ancient mythologies. That is where religion becomes its own caricature, and becomes as nocive as religion-bashers claim it always is. You cannot, for instance, comprehend and accept homosexuals when you refer to a conservative interpretation of a sacred text that denounces it. You cannot refine society if you want it to match the taboos and values if the most narrow traditionalist read of ancient religious scriptures. But most religious people go beyond that, and modernize their interpretations of these scriptures to fit our evolving understanding of humans and societies.

That is the difference between religions and fundamentalisms. A progressive or a conservative approach to religious doctrines. The latter being an issue both in the western world and in the middle east.
avatar
Emob78: So you're assuming that an entire philosophy or world view that you don't agree with is dangerous. Isn't that kind of exactly the point of criticizing the concept of religion itself? Aren't we hypocrites when we tag entire groups of people as dangerous or wrong simply because we don't condone or agree with their ideas? I mean, what if I called you a Euro-trash faggot for thinking the way you do? People here would jump my ass for being a closed minded American bigot. But constantly slamming conservatives or Christians is ok? How are those prejudices any different?

I'll give you a specific example. My step father's father. He was a Nazarene choir minister. Very religious family. That dude was one of the kindest human beings I've ever met in my life. He always had a nice word and a smile for anyone. Anyone. He never had a bad word to say about anyone. He didn't judge, he certainly didn't hate, and he was absolutely a true Christian. Do the Westboro church losers represent him? Why do people think of those types when they hear the word 'Conservative Christian'? Because the nice quiet people aren't in the news, they're not on your radar. As they say, 'if it bleeds, it leads.' When my step grandfather died, almost 2000 people showed up for his funeral. 2000 people there, and they weren't mourning a bible thumping bigot who hated queers and didn't want to see women working jobs. They were there to mourn a nice man who followed his life as much as he could in the path of Jesus Christ and died believing 100% that love and forgiveness were the keys to happiness.

There's nice and bad people out there from all walks of life, and all belief systems. But just because they're now a public whipping boy, doesn't mean they're all bad. It also doesn't mean that people aren't total fucking hypocrites for slamming racism or sexism, but then turn around and call open season on religious people and Christians. That level of bullshit makes me lose my temper a bit. I guess you'll JUST HAVE TO FORGIVE ME.
avatar
Telika: You miss the point. Not all religious people (be them christians or muslims or whatnot) are conservative dickwads. The issue is how those who are push for a less diverse, more intolerant, more normed, more unfair society. Including mutual intolerance when it comes to religions themselves. The point is precisely that it is not about religion itself, but about the norms that are being enforced upon people. Bashing religions for religions sake is wrong. Assuming that all people from a religion are clones with the same worldviews, the same values, the same behaviours, the same projects, is wrong. But you can narrow it down to pass more accurate judgements. That's a function of the term 'religious conservatism', to designate cases where a more conservative society (against societal progresses and maximized recognition and inclusion of harmless diversities) gets advocated on the ground of sacrosanct ancient mythologies. That is where religion becomes its own caricature, and becomes as nocive as religion-bashers claim it always is. You cannot, for instance, comprehend and accept homosexuals when you refer to a conservative interpretation of a sacred text that denounces it. You cannot refine society if you want it to match the taboos and values if the most narrow traditionalist read of ancient religious scriptures. But most religious people go beyond that, and modernize their interpretations of these scriptures to fit our evolving understanding of humans and societies.

That is the difference between religions and fundamentalisms. A progressive or a conservative approach to religious doctrines. The latter being an issue both in the western world and in the middle east.
Do you see Christian Conservatives chopping off heads during a gay pride parade? Nope. Do you see jews and also Christians losing their heads in the middle east from Islamic fundamentalists? Yes. In terms of intolerance leading to violence, you have my total agreement. But you seem to have a specific problem with JUDGMENT, as in people with a certain religious view toward the world seeing things differently than you.

Believe it or not, there's a great many people on Earth that still think that men and women should be together, not men with men or women with women. To many of us, that's a backward and ignorant view. But that's how religious people construct their world views. They do it according to the teachings of scripture... which tends to look down upon things like women's suffrage and gay rights. Are you willing to stop them from believing that? Are any of us? What will it take to change a man's opinion? To some people it's a machete and a chopping block. All I'm saying is that when you take people to task for ignorance or being overly judgmental, just remember it's easy for the coin to flip to the other side.

I'm hoping you just have a problem with religious violence, because with that I'd agree with you. But if you're going to sit there and hope that religion is banned or something, and profess your love of freedom while you do everything you can to take it away from others... well that would just makes you a hypocritical fucking asshole, now wouldn't it?
avatar
Telika: You miss the point. Not all religious people (be them christians or muslims or whatnot) are conservative dickwads. The issue is how those who are push for a less diverse, more intolerant, more normed, more unfair society. Including mutual intolerance when it comes to religions themselves. The point is precisely that it is not about religion itself, but about the norms that are being enforced upon people. Bashing religions for religions sake is wrong. Assuming that all people from a religion are clones with the same worldviews, the same values, the same behaviours, the same projects, is wrong. But you can narrow it down to pass more accurate judgements. That's a function of the term 'religious conservatism', to designate cases where a more conservative society (against societal progresses and maximized recognition and inclusion of harmless diversities) gets advocated on the ground of sacrosanct ancient mythologies. That is where religion becomes its own caricature, and becomes as nocive as religion-bashers claim it always is. You cannot, for instance, comprehend and accept homosexuals when you refer to a conservative interpretation of a sacred text that denounces it. You cannot refine society if you want it to match the taboos and values if the most narrow traditionalist read of ancient religious scriptures. But most religious people go beyond that, and modernize their interpretations of these scriptures to fit our evolving understanding of humans and societies.

That is the difference between religions and fundamentalisms. A progressive or a conservative approach to religious doctrines. The latter being an issue both in the western world and in the middle east.
avatar
Emob78: Do you see Christian Conservatives chopping off heads during a gay pride parade? Nope. Do you see jews and also Christians losing their heads in the middle east from Islamic fundamentalists? Yes. In terms of intolerance leading to violence, you have my total agreement. But you seem to have a specific problem with JUDGMENT, as in people with a certain religious view toward the world seeing things differently than you.

Believe it or not, there's a great many people on Earth that still think that men and women should be together, not men with men or women with women. To many of us, that's a backward and ignorant view. But that's how religious people construct their world views. They do it according to the teachings of scripture... which tends to look down upon things like women's suffrage and gay rights. Are you willing to stop them from believing that? Are any of us? What will it take to change a man's opinion? To some people it's a machete and a chopping block. All I'm saying is that when you take people to task for ignorance or being overly judgmental, just remember it's easy for the coin to flip to the other side.

I'm hoping you just have a problem with religious violence, because with that I'd agree with you. But if you're going to sit there and hope that religion is banned or something, and profess your love of freedom while you do everything you can to take it away from others... well that would just makes you a hypocritical fucking asshole, now wouldn't it?
I really think you are adressing a different person, through this conversation. Either that, or you consider yourself that religion is fundamentally intolerant and reactionary. Because you do exactly the same jump from "criticizing fundamentalists" to "forbidding religions" that do those who want to forbid religions because of fundamentalism. While i make the point that fundamentalism is not how religion works as a whole, and that religion (when not petrified by religious conservatism) is very evolutive in content. People from all ideological horizons can have religious beliefs, and can express their values in religious phrasings. Religion in and by itself is not an issue. It is only one when it serves to anchor beliefs in glorified traditionalisms for sanctity sake. That is, when religious references are instrumentalized to glorify "keeping it to our father's father's father's father's way because deviation and evolution is unholy". In practice, this is seldom how religion functions. In practice, religious meanings adapt and evolve.

Now, pointing at isis violence is all dandy, but here we have our own stakes or making a society better, more fair, more refines, more livable for a series of minorities that used to be denied or delegitimized by our traditional worldviews. Ww have our own evolutions and progresses to deal with. And in that specufic context, the religiously stuck backwardness of christian traditionalists is an obstacle. Amongst other forms of "you shall not question grandpa's views" conservatism. It is a trend that valuates faithfulness to ancient beliefs for its own sake (because faithfulness to ancient beliefs is holy in and by itself). And this is an illegitimate drag to a society's attempt at getting better (whether it us about segragation, about feminism and women vote, about gay rights, about racism and xenophobia, etc). There is the trend of wishing democracy to become some sort of theocracy, that is, to apply norms based on unquestionned ancient beliefs (unquestionned ancient beliefs = religious conservatism). It is a political ideolological current that should be opposed, be it through mockery (desacralization) or education or information or criticism or deconstruction, etc. The nature if the fight (public debates or civil wars) is independant from that.

And again, it is not an "atheists versus believers" opposition. It is transversal. Religious people disagree amongst themselves, like atheists do, on societal issues. But there is one type of conservative self-justifification that is entrenched in glorified obscurantism, and this is worth being pointed out. And it is also pointed out by more progressive religious people, without them attacking religion in itself.

Just like islamophobes and islamists agree that "real muslims are fundamentalists" (concluding, respectively, that islam must be forbidden and that fundamentalism must be enforced), both religion-bashers and religious conservatives will claim that criticizing religious conservatives is the same thing as stigmatizing religion. And in both cases, most religious people (and most educated people) will point out the fallacy. Christians, muslims and atheists consider the most restrictive conservative interpretations of religious texts as backwards and harmful to societies, and consider it an issue distinct from religious rights.

Not to mention (once more) that religious conservatives themselves tend to be the most vocal ones against our societies' perfectly necessary and harmless religious freedoms.
avatar
monkeydelarge: They were probably conservative Christians who despise everything that wasn't tolerated in the 1950s and are extremely pissed off at the world for not staying in the 1950s. The USA still has a lot of these types, unfortunately.
avatar
Emob78: And there's plenty of Christians who are also kind, down to earth people who wouldn't hurt a fly. Stop going for the cheap heat. Picking on Christians is easy because... here's the weird part... most of them are damn near pacifists who don't fight back. There are double standards on both sides of the railroad tracks, pal.
My post wasn't really about Christians. It was about a certain kind of conservative Christians. The really angry ones. I know, most normal Christians would never kill someone. And I know most normal Christians do a lot of good in this world, like helping homeless people with food, shelter and clothes.
Post edited July 28, 2015 by monkeydelarge
avatar
Emob78: And there's plenty of Christians who are also kind, down to earth people who wouldn't hurt a fly. Stop going for the cheap heat. Picking on Christians is easy because... here's the weird part... most of them are damn near pacifists who don't fight back. There are double standards on both sides of the railroad tracks, pal.
avatar
Telika: There are plenty of christians who are not conservatives. "Conservative christians" here kinda designate people whose conservatism is driven (or validated, solidified, sanctified) by religion. And this can indeed be a nasty combination. I don't think it's that unfair.
Yeah, I was talking about the conservative Christians who are full of rage because the world around them is turning into "Sodom and Gomorrah" when it was once a 1950s conservative Christian "paradise". These people are dangerous because that combination of beliefs and rage is dangerous. Of course, I'm not saying these people are as dangerous as ISIS but I wouldn't put these kind of conservative Christians in the same room as a trans woman for more than 5 minutes.
Post edited July 28, 2015 by monkeydelarge
My two bob's worth:
monkeydelarge: They were probably conservative Christians who despise everything that wasn't tolerated in the 1950s and are extremely pissed off at the world for not staying in the 1950s. The USA still has a lot of these types, unfortunately.
Although I'm not religious myself I think these comments do more harm than good. I'm not saying that there's no bad christian groups, but the problem isn't the religion itself. The problem is with any group of people who wish to insulate themselves from the rest of the world. The crisis comes when they realise that they can't be insulated, then they go on the offensive trying to force everyone else to their own beliefs.

The Spanish Conquistadors were the classic christian extreme example but there's plenty of examples of non religious closed societies doing exactly the same. Nazi's. Fascists. All sorts of funny names and funny ideas. There's nothing wrong with having ideas and ideals that differ from everyone else, This is what gives us cultural diversity, it's healthy, it's good. The mistake is misinterpreting those beliefs to mean that anything else is bad.

I know that the US general population was a fairly insular society that struggled to adapt to the concept of a more international community but they have advanced considerably in the last couple of decades. If you really want to know about insular societies take a closer look at Australia back in the 60's. It was really not a nice place to be unless you were one of them. We had the "White Australia Policy" that meant the only migrants we would accept were English, we would take some northern europeans but they had to have fair skin, fair hair and little accent. Even the English were racially abused, ridiculed, and not readily accepted in to many communities.

Pizza was a new thing in Australia when I was a kid and it was a huge hit across the entire land. But if you could actually pronounce "Capricciosa" then you were probably an illegal dago that should be deported. The city I grew up in had a very large Italian Community, and that phrase is the sad part, they formed an Italian Community because the locals rejected them. It's no different to so many other societies around the world, no better, no worse. But it could be better.

These attitudes across greater communities (country, not local) seem to swing back and forth like a pendulum between one extreme and the other, never really settling on a middle ground for very long. The strange bit is that any society that does find that middle ground and stays there too long tends to "stagnate" and decline. We stupid humans seem to require conflict as one of the necessities of life. No matter what problems you solve we'll find new ones to fight about.

Cheers.
avatar
Zeeaire: Sorry for the laments but I'm in an overall bad mood right know and I know this community is a very friendly one.
I can't get over the death of my cat and loss in general.
My best friend left me for good and I'm the kind of loner who doesn't have any alternatives.
On Monday I have to start an apprenticeship and I'm so anxious, I can barely sleep anymore, and even playing some games I like just can not comfort me, I can't even begin with it.
I tried to read through some books so I have at least a little clue when I start there, but I can't concentrate.
+ I haven't finished school and I wrote them, they seemed quite irritated about it.
I couldn't go to school anymore because I was too scared to, even though I had quite good marks and some teachers thought highly of me.
So I underwent therapy but it didn't help much. (I have an obsessive-compulsive disorder since early childhood and an anxiety disorder since I suffered chronic pain after an operation)
My family helps me a lot with everything and I'm real afraid to disappoint them.
Now it just seems like everything is getting more and more complicated, what can one do to avoid the complete failure?
Anyone else faced such fearful thoughts?
Really sorry to hear about your cat. An attachment is ...an attachment. It could be a family member or a teddy-bear. So don't apologise for your mood.

In answer to your question - yes, I and I'm guessing many others on here, fear life spiralling out of control and one's sense of failure.

In your case, you actually do have a lot of pressure piling up but perhaps a large proportion of that pressure is self-induced. OCD and anxieties are incredibly difficult to live with on a day by day basis. I'm no therapist so I don't want to give some misguided advice but I think you need to recognise that you're not failing at anything.

From what little I know, you're coping pretty admirably with trying to juggle your education, apprenticeship, family expectations (and/or your own) as well as dealing with anxiety and OCD....and of course the passing of your close bud.

Perhaps when you see someone else recognising it, you may pause and realise that you're justified to feel under pressure. Once you accept that, you can maybe chip away and deal with each specific issue with a clearer head.

I sincerely hope this hasn't made things worse but I was moved by your post and just felt you were being very harsh on yourself.
avatar
pigdog: Really sorry to hear about your cat. An attachment is ...an attachment. It could be a family member or a teddy-bear. So don't apologise for your mood.

In answer to your question - yes, I and I'm guessing many others on here, fear life spiralling out of control and one's sense of failure.

In your case, you actually do have a lot of pressure piling up but perhaps a large proportion of that pressure is self-induced. OCD and anxieties are incredibly difficult to live with on a day by day basis. I'm no therapist so I don't want to give some misguided advice but I think you need to recognise that you're not failing at anything.

From what little I know, you're coping pretty admirably with trying to juggle your education, apprenticeship, family expectations (and/or your own) as well as dealing with anxiety and OCD....and of course the passing of your close bud.

Perhaps when you see someone else recognising it, you may pause and realise that you're justified to feel under pressure. Once you accept that, you can maybe chip away and deal with each specific issue with a clearer head.

I sincerely hope this hasn't made things worse but I was moved by your post and just felt you were being very harsh on yourself.
Thank you a lot for your kind words, that is somehow relieving.
My cat became ill all of a sudden, we didn't know how old he was, so that took us by surprise.
Beloved animals can be really encouraging, I just miss his company, I hate that one always has to deal with mortality of others, that's much awfuller than dealing with the own.

Yes, especially with OCD there is even more self-induced pressure, a lot of people would think I worry too much about everything even about banalities, making things more difficult than they could be, and to some extent they are of course right. But I don't know life without those self-imposed restrictions.
And so I often try to avoid things because they seem too intimidating, but in the end I don't recognise that I choose in fact a much harder way by doing that. I just hope I can free myself from those limitations one day. But then again, everyone has to carry his burden, and a lot of other people have even heavier ones and it's fascinating and admirable how many of them are optimistic nonetheless. I also should be optimistic, more often at least.

Well, I don't think I cope with the situation as good as I should, and I don't know if I'm really too harsh on me, but you made me think about that, maybe acceptance is indeed the first step to deal with problems.
Struggling against oneself and things that can't be changed anymore isn't too good.
I just need to wait and see if it won't turn out better next week than I fear right now.
Anyway, this reply was very nice of you and it surely made things only better :)
avatar
Emob78: ...
avatar
Telika: ...
avatar
monkeydelarge: ...
avatar
slopsbucket: ...
In monkeydelarge's defence, it was I who wrote the original comment linking religion to the news story. Specifically, I wrote:

"Just throwing this out there without any foundation whatsoever but the it wouldn't surprise me if the murderer(s) weren't in some way confused about their own feelings but had an ingrained, perhaps religious, belief that causes them to lash out."

It could and maybe should have been articulated better. If I used the word "extreme" or "fanatical" before "religious" it may have been a better way of making my point.