Come join. Plug Power - Dreams, Schemes & Themes
Retail investors with a sense of humor and wit are free to express themselves, their own opinions and feelings, make price predictions, and post gifs. The content we share will be high and low and everything in between, much like the chart of the company we believe in and have come to love, Plug Power. Facts are great, but speculation is also a big part of the game.
Here's to the maniacs, visionaries, and wide-eyed dreamers. To the moon, baby!
"All God does is watch us and kill us when we get boring. We must never become boring."

For me, it's not the customers that are ruining my experience. They are generally very kind and patient, except for a select few. It's actually my coworkers that ruin the whole thing for me.
We don't have designated roles, as we are all titled "store clerks." Each of us is supposed do a bit of everything around our grocery store to help. I was only trained on register and straightening shelves because that's all they wanted me to do. I work weekends and whatever days I have scheduled off school, depending on the semester. I have never called off, and I've only requested off once because I try my best to schedule things properly. I've been here for about 7 months. I'm nearly always on the closing shift because everyone else hates working busy evenings (especially weekends) and doing the closing responsibilities. It's a smaller but very busy store, so we have to do a lot to make it look nice and keep things stocked up.
Initially, I was kept as main cashier because I'm a faster ringer and a very reliable counter, but it's changed in the past few months because people are taking advantage of my kindness. At this point I've worn all hats and then some. I've even trained someone while being a new hire myself because, as my manager put it, I'm "the star" out of all the rest of my coworkers who have zero work ethic. I'm sick of it. I come to work for the sake of working, to gain job and social experience; not to be worked like a dog because everyone expects someone else to pick up their slack.
By the way, I'm a shorter girl lifting, pulling, pushing all this extremely heavy stuff with no one to help. If I ask anyone, they get annoyed with me, or help me with only one thing before walking away again to go chat it up with the rest of my coworkers. I dust mop and scrub the floors, I clean the bathrooms, I stock produce/dairy/meat, I run the register, I straighten shelves, I fill bread displays/coolers/candy shelves/etc... basically every task that we're supposed to do as a team I end up doing all on my own.
If someone doesn't do a certain job or do it the right way, a manager will eventually ask me to do it. At first I was doing it willingly because I wanted to be nice by helping around where I could, but that's was my mistake. It's become exhausting, as it's gotten to the point where I'm expected to go behind other people after close and fix what they were supposed to do hours before in a fraction of the time. It would be different if it was a customer that ruined whatever they did, because it does happen, but they're literally just not doing what they're supposed to. I've had to stay anywhere from 10-40 minutes later than my scheduled shift fixing things almost every night. I'm being paid, but I'm not doing any of this for the money. I could go elsewhere for that and get paid much more than this minimum wage job. Now I'm really tempted to do so because I'm extremely unhappy here.
There's only one guy that used to actually help me, but they started putting us on alternate nights because they noticed we were the only ones that had good closing shifts. If I left, he'd suffer immensely just like he did before they started giving me the same treatment. So while my coworkers are busy using their shift as a social hour, he and I slave away to get things done right. This is all while managers do nothing at all until they count registers, and they say nothing at all to people who don't fulfill their responsibilities because it ends up getting done anyway. The most they will do is talk badly about them when they're not in earshot, then praise me for being a "saint" as if that's supposed to make me feel better about it. I don't want praise. I want fairness. I'm done being nice to these people who clearly don't care about my feelings or well being at all. I've told everyone that I will quit if this keeps up, but nothing has changed so far. If anything, it's gotten worse. They say they'd hate to lose me because I'm supposedly their "best employee," but they're just continually driving me away with the way they're handing this.
Nothing is holding me here besides the few people that treat me well and the convenience of the job location. I'm a full time college student studying engineering, so I have no real brain capacity to be stressing over this job while everyone else is just standing around doing nothing. My self respect and work ethic is too high to do nothing like everyone else though. I know it's my fault for letting my managers overwork me, but I've reached my breaking point now because it doesn't have to be like this. If this continues into next weekend, I will be putting in my two weeks, definitively. (Sorry for any formatting things, I'm a reddit mobile user.)

Just unsorted or as a hint to the next chapter?
Quoted from At the beginning of a new chapter or irregular?
What should be in the code? "What is different from a normal scout of the Humans?
How is the equipment composed and the differences with that of a normal human regiment?
What is different in the training to become a Night Wolf/Night Runner?
What roles does the werewolf, wolf and human form play?
The physical adaptations and affinity for sneaking and the twilight and night have influence on the training which?
Are there other rules for completing the order?"
For example:
"the affinity to the night and the herdorange night vision is an enormous advantage in all three forms. Since the night wolves do not need their own light source, they are more difficult or, depending on the form and environment, impossible to spot. E.g. in wolf form in tall grass, overcast skies and the wind from the front it is possible to sneak up to the enemy within five meters without a generic light source and two meters away from the light source." Excerpt from sneak and forms, chapter 6.
Rough summary of the beginning:
In a harsh fantasy world. The MC finds the equipment and said codex of the Night Wolves of the 21st Regiment, along with the record of the fall of the 21st Regiment. And that a large part the 21st werewolves and blood siblings was. And that the survivors founded the village he came from. He decides to join the army and on the first night of training he is almost killed by the ghouls that cover the whole country. Since he didn't have to deal with them much, since there are hardly any around the village he comes from. And he feels comfortable in the forest and his senses seem to be better than those of the other comrades. If the comrades had not retreated during the attack, no one would have died. But the fear of the night and the more lively guhlen at night led to a panic, before the instructors brought the long under control die 4 of the 30 and the MC is rescued by a group of werewolves disguised as traveling merchants. One of the traders explains that he was one of the blood siblings and is now a werewolf. And explains that the equipment he owns is among the best of the 21st Regiment, the "Night Wolves" were the best scouts of the werewolves and the armor is magical and can adapt to the shape or disappear in wolf form but the weight remains.

Background: LO is 13 months, never slept through the night, and typically wakes every 3-4 hours still.
We’ve been surviving the horrible sleep, and usually although he wakes often it’s easy to get him back to sleep. However the last week or so my son has been crying for HOURS on end, and after a LOT of trial and error I am confident it’s separation anxiety.
All these websites talk about how to deal with regressions and how they’re hard after baby usually sleeps…in our case, we have been severely sleep deprived for over a year so a regression sends us into a spiral.
We did FERBER for naps which helped daytime sleep but didn’t transfer into nights. Well, tonight I finally have the last straw after multiple nights of being awake for hours on end, I finally just decided to do the cry it out, extinction method. I have been sick with a stomach bug this week as well so I desperately needed something to change. This is never some thing I wanted to do, although I don’t shame people who do because honestly I totally get it. I can’t keep physically getting up over and over again all night long, and he expected to make it through the day. Tonight he cried for the full hour before falling back asleep, and I feel so terrible. On the one hand, I just couldn’t do it anymore but I feel so guilty and like I want to cry. Why does it have to be this way? My son is amazing in every single way besides sleep. I am thankful for everything that he is but the sleep was unbearable.
Just needing to vent, and know that if you have a terrible sleeper, I totally see you and offer solidarity.

Just unsorted or as a hint to the next chapter?
Quoted from At the beginning of a new chapter or irregular?
What should be in the code? "What is different from a normal scout of the Humans?
How is the equipment composed and the differences with that of a normal human regiment?
What is different in the training to become a Night Wolf/Night Runner?
What roles does the werewolf, wolf and human form play?
The physical adaptations and affinity for sneaking and the twilight and night have influence on the training which?
Are there other rules for completing the order?"
For example:
"the affinity to the night and the herdorange night vision is an enormous advantage in all three forms. Since the night wolves do not need their own light source, they are more difficult or, depending on the form and environment, impossible to spot. E.g. in wolf form in tall grass, overcast skies and the wind from the front it is possible to sneak up to the enemy within five meters without a generic light source and two meters away from the light source." Excerpt from sneak and forms, chapter 6.
Rough summary of the beginning:
In a harsh fantasy world. The MC finds the equipment and said codex of the Night Wolves of the 21st Regiment, along with the record of the fall of the 21st Regiment. And that a large part the 21st werewolves and blood siblings was. And that the survivors founded the village he came from. He decides to join the army and on the first night of training he is almost killed by the ghouls that cover the whole country. Since he didn't have to deal with them much, since there are hardly any around the village he comes from. And he feels comfortable in the forest and his senses seem to be better than those of the other comrades. If the comrades had not retreated during the attack, no one would have died. But the fear of the night and the more lively guhlen at night led to a panic, before the instructors brought the long under control die 4 of the 30 and the MC is rescued by a group of werewolves disguised as traveling merchants. One of the traders explains that he was one of the blood siblings and is now a werewolf. And explains that the equipment he owns is among the best of the 21st Regiment, the "Night Wolves" were the best scouts of the werewolves and the armor is magical and can adapt to the shape or disappear in wolf form but the weight remains.

Are you ready to explore one of the most fascinating thought experiments in the history of philosophy? In this article, we will introduce you to Ibn Sina (Avicenna), a brilliant philosopher, physician, astronomer, logician, and polymath of the Islamic Golden Age. We will also explain his intriguing "Floating Man" argument, a thought experiment that questions our self-awareness, consciousness, and existence.
🌌 What is the "Floating Man" Experiment?
The "Floating Man" argument is a thought experiment devised by Ibn Sina to demonstrate his theory of self-awareness. It invites us to imagine a person who is suspended in mid-air, with no sensory perception or prior knowledge of their existence. The person cannot see, hear, touch, smell, or taste anything. They cannot even feel their own body or limbs. The question is: would this person still be aware of themselves?
​
🤔 What Does It Mean for Self-Awareness?
According to Ibn Sina, the answer is yes. Even in this extreme scenario, the person would still have a sense of self-awareness. They would know that they exist and that they are distinct from everything else. This shows that self-awareness is not dependent on sensory input or external objects. It is a form of knowledge by presence, which is immediate and intuitive. It is also different from other types of knowledge, such as knowledge by representation or knowledge by inference.
​
🧠 What Are the Implications for Philosophy and Metaphysics?
The "Floating Man" argument has profound implications for philosophy and metaphysics. It challenges the traditional views on how we acquire knowledge and how we relate to our bodies and the world. It also suggests that there is a part of us that is immaterial and eternal, which Ibn Sina calls the soul or the intellect. Ibn Sina's ideas have influenced many other philosophers and thinkers throughout history and continue to inspire debate and research today.
​
✨ How Is It Relevant Today?
The "Floating Man" argument is still relevant today because it touches on some of the most fundamental questions about human nature and consciousness. How do we know ourselves? What makes us who we are? How do we experience reality? These questions have been explored by modern philosophers such as Descartes, Nagel, and Chalmers, who have drawn parallels to Ibn Sina's thought experiment. They have also been tested by neuroscientists who have conducted sensory deprivation experiments to examine the effects of isolation on self-awareness and cognition.
The "Floating Man" argument is a captivating thought experiment that invites us to rethink our understanding of self-awareness and consciousness. It showcases the intellectual brilliance of Ibn Sina, one of the greatest philosophers and polymaths of all time. It also sparks our curiosity and imagination to explore the deeper aspects of our existence. Join us as we celebrate the legacy and significance of Ibn Sina's thought experiment, which has enriched philosophy and science for centuries.
#IbnSina #Avicenna #FloatingMan #Philosophy #Consciousness #Metaphysics #SelfAwareness #ThoughtExperiment

So I had to make a Palindrome checker for a project, And i was wondering how bad my code is. The code does what i need it to, But I feel like the way I did it was inefficient.

function palindrome(str) { let lowercase = str.toLowerCase() let trimmed = lowercase.replace(/\s+_,/g, "").replace(/[^A-Z0-9]/ig, "") let array = trimmed.split("") let reverse = array.reverse() let joined = reverse.join("") let lowercase1 = joined.toLowerCase() if(lowercase1 == trimmed){ return true } return false; } palindrome("A man, a plan, a canal. Panama"); 

So I’ve recently become single and have joined tinder. I’m 20 and met a guy on there who is 29 (kinda weird I know) and we got along well. We have been on a couple of dates and he’s extremely attractive and we clicked from the get go. Since the first date he has said some things extremely forward and almost pushy. The guy apparently owns his own business by selling cars and had tried to convince me to drop out of uni to work for him? Also on our second date he wanted to show me this new house he’s apprently planning to buy to get my opinion on. There are a couple more examples like that, such as proposing the idea on the second date for us to both delete our social media together, that he’s super serious about me and talks of meeting his family, etc. last night after we did the deed he asked (forcefully) that we both stay exclusive to one another??? Then he proceeds to say he doesn’t want any other guys to have any form of sexual experience with me and This literally happened after the third time meeting the guy, then he tells me to delete tinder and a couple other things. This sounds INSANE but in the moment he says it in a playful way/ light hearted way but thinking back on it I’m wondering if the guys a psycho or something. We have amazing chemistry, he’s super sweet to me, does heaps of romantic gestures, and things feel super natural between us too but these weird comments are making me question everything.
Do you think because he’s a lot older than me that he may want to settle down and move things quickly or does it sound like the guy is bat shit crazy and I should block him lol ?
Im also aware that this behaviour is toxic so my main question is whether this man sounds like a sociopath or psychopath because then I’ll cut off the possibility’s of him just being a FWB situation?

Hello! Recently joined to ask for help with this issue. Ever since recently (and after a couple of unwarranted blackouts and a faulty UPS), I have this app that I didn’t know has a feature that could warn me if my motherboard is heating up. And it’s been warning me frequently. I used to dismiss it as a false warning, but I started thinking and am getting concerned. I also only found out that Ultimate Performance does affect the lifespan of my PC. I forgot the specs of my PC—I’m not an enthusiast after all, but I’m told that it’s high-end. By my friends, by the technician that built it, that my mom who paid it for ₱80,000.
My biggest concern is what would be the lifespan of my motherboard after using my PC with the “Ultimate Performance” power option for two years? And if it’s in a bad state, what should I do? Any help would be really appreciated!

One Piece might possibly be the most overrated shounen series of all time. It's complete garbage, and Oda is not a good writer.
First off, the plot. The plot in One Piece is incredibly formulaic. Most of the arcs have the exact same structure to them. Go to an island, meet allies, split up, find out that the island is either being terrorized by a bad guy, or it's about to be taken over by a bad guy. Then, the straw hats have to battle against the bad guys. After saving the day, they feast and proceed to the following island, where the same thing occurs. The entire stretch from the Sabaody Archipelago to Marineford is the only part of this series where the plot deviates from this same formula. Other than that, most arcs adhere to the same pattern. The plot is largely devoid of any originality.
A few arcs in the series have little to no relevance on the overall story, and do little to help the Straw Hats accomplish their goals. Skypiea was almost completely filler, aside from the last part where it's revealed that Gold Roger went up there. The entire conflict with Enels regime and the Shandians was completely filler. Same thing with Fishman Island. The New Fishman Pirates are fodder filler characters, and the entire conflict revolving around them had zero relevance to the story. Given that they aren't even significant characters in the One Piece world, the Straw Hats defeating them didn't progress the story whatsoever. The arc had some relevant parts to it, but the conflict revolving the New Fishman Pirates was not one of them. Long Ring Long Land is another irrelevant arc, but that's not even worth talking about. There are probably more than 100 chapters/episodes in all three of these arcs combined. That many chapters with little to none story progression.
Now onto my second reason as to why One Piece sucks. It's terribly cliche and shallow. People frequently criticize Fairy Tail for having the power of friendship, however One Piece does the exact same thing. One Piece has an excessive quantity of plot armor and friendship power-ups. In some cases, the author writes himself into a corner and is forced to resort to deus ex machina to correct his error. For example, the end of the Enies Lobby arc. Even though it was previously established that the Going Merry cant set sail anymore, they somehow got saved by it during a buster call. Even though the Aqua Laguna was happening. Even though a random pirate ship shouldn't be able to sail directly towards one of the three world government powerhouses. This, as well as other comparable events frequently occur in One Piece.
The conflicts in One Piece are very superficial and cliche. Most of the villains are only evil for the sake of being evil. They pursue things like power and influence, which is extremely superficial and cliche. The conflict is extremely straightforward, as well as black and white. Once you can identify an antagonist as pure evil with no justifications for why he does what he does, that throws any hope of ethical complexity out the window. There is no sort of clashing of ideals in One Piece, and the characters are never placed into any sort of ethical dilemmas. Again, the conflicts are very straightforward, black & white. One side is objectively good, while the other is objectively bad. Because of this, the character dynamic between Luffy and pretty much every villain is relatively simplistic and cliche. The is very evident based on the lack of complex dialogue in the series. Why do you think the only thing Luffy said during Alabasta is "I'm gonna kick Crocodile's ass". Again, if there's no sort of ethical complexity then there's also no room for a clashing of ideals. At least Naruto and Bleach had some sort of ethical complexity regrading Byakuya Kuchigi and Pain. There was an ideological clash between Ichigo & Byakuya, as well as Naruto & Pain. One Piece has none of that. Ethical complexity is also a great way to develop characters, and force them to think more deeply/self reflect. Constantly putting characters in black and white conflicts is one of the main reasons the characters in One Piece never develop.
Next up, the characters. This is probably the worst aspect of this story. Lets take Luffy for starters. Zero character development whatsoever. He has no introspection. He has no psychological or ethical complexity. He has no internal characterization. He has no internal dialogue. Writing a manga for 26 years and not giving a single thought to character development is shockingly sad. Overall, I find Luffy to be an incredibly boring character. Besides all of the problems I just mentioned, he has one aspect about him that I absolutely despise. Almost every conflict he gets embroiled in has complexities that he is completely unaware of. He only gets engaged in conflicts when his friends are hurt, which is extremely superficial and cliche. In certain situations, even minor characters are more relevant to the conflict than him (Waiper, Vivi). I find it very weird how the protagonist, the most important character in the story, barely has any sort of connection to the conflicts of the story. His importance in the conflict is minor or sometimes even non-existent until his final battles, and most of the villains he fights have no idea who he is, or don't know much about him. Because neither of them knows much about the other, this results in a rather uninteresting protagonist/antagonist character dynamic. However, even if Luffy understood the nuances of the conflicts he's involved in, not even that would make him more interesting. This is due to the earlier statement I made about how the conflicts are quite simplistic, clear-cut, and devoid of any ethical complexity. As long as one side is objectively good and the other is objectively bad, the dialogue and character interactions between Luffy and the villains will always be generic. "I'm gonna beat your ass", "You hurt my friends", "You're a bad person". That's all it really boils down to, and that's all that it'll ever be.
All of the conflicts he's engaged in are never because he thinks it's the right thing to do to be engaged in these conflicts. It's never because his ideals differ from the villains ideals. He's always engaged into conflict because he just always happens to make friends with people who are on the morally right side of the conflict, and he makes those friends very quickly. That's bad characterization, and that's bad writing. That's a terrible way to make your main character get involved in conflicts. It's also the reason why we never see Luffy undergo any sort of moral reflection. When you're always placed onto the morally right side of the conflict by coincidence, then that leaves little to no room for moral reflection.
As for the other Straw Hats, all of them remain stagnant throughout the entire series. They are merely given tear bait backstories, and once that's over, they remain the same throughout the rest of the series. They're gimmicks have already gotten stale a long time ago. Brook has been making the same joke since he's been introduced. Same thing with Chopper, Franky, Usopp, Nami, etc. They've been acting the exact same way ever since they introduced. None of them receive any psychological or ethical complexity whatsoever. The lack of character development makes the characters so boring.
I have other reasons, but I'm not in the mood to type them out right now. I'll just summarize them quickly: terrible pacing, straw hats become side characters after the time-skip, ridiculously long arcs full of too many subplots, too many garbage arcs, and a few more I cant remember. Terrible series overall.

So I made this post a while ago about what moves or forms will the other Straw Hats get with a Demon name like Zoro's Asura and Sanji's Ifrit
People brougt up how both Jinbei and Usopp have Demon attacks in Green Devil and Jinbei's Demon Brick Fist but these are a little basic
I was more meaning actual distinc Devils or Demons like I could see Jinbei with an attack named Leviathan Strike
So what would other Straw Hats get in forms or attacks also Robin as well cause hers is just Demon in a diffrent language

One Piece might possibly be the most overrated shounen series of all time. It's complete garbage, and Oda is not a good writer.
First off, the plot. The plot in One Piece is incredibly formulaic. Most of the arcs have the exact same structure to them. Go to an island, meet allies, split up, find out that the island is either being terrorized by a bad guy, or it's about to be taken over by a bad guy. Then, the straw hats have to battle against the bad guys. After saving the day, they feast and proceed to the following island, where the same thing occurs. The entire stretch from the Sabaody Archipelago to Marineford is the only part of this series where the plot deviates from this same formula. Other than that, most arcs adhere to the same pattern. The plot is largely devoid of any originality.
A few arcs in the series have little to no relevance on the overall story, and do little to help the Straw Hats accomplish their goals. Skypiea was almost completely filler, aside from the last part where it's revealed that Gold Roger went up there. The entire conflict with Enels regime and the Shandians was completely filler. Same thing with Fishman Island. The New Fishman Pirates are fodder filler characters, and the entire conflict revolving around them had zero relevance to the story. Given that they aren't even significant characters in the One Piece world, the Straw Hats defeating them didn't progress the story whatsoever. Long Ring Long Land is another irrelevant arc, but that's not even worth talking about. There are probably more than 100 chapters/episodes in all three of these arcs combined. That many chapters with little to none story progression.
Now onto my second reason as to why One Piece sucks. It's terribly cliche and shallow. People frequently criticize Fairy Tail for having the power of friendship, however One Piece does the exact same thing. One Piece has an excessive quantity of plot armor and friendship power-ups. In some cases, the author writes himself into a corner and is forced to resort to deus ex machina to correct his error. For example, the end of the Enies Lobby arc. Even though it was previously established that the Going Merry cant set sail anymore, they somehow got saved by it during a buster call. Even though the Aqua Laguna was happening. Even though a random pirate ship shouldn't be able to sail directly towards one of the three world government powerhouses. This, as well as other comparable events frequently occur in One Piece.
The conflicts in One Piece are very superficial and cliche. Most of the villains are only evil for the sake of being evil. They pursue things like power and influence, which is extremely superficial and cliche. The conflict is extremely straightforward, as well as black and white. Once you can identify an antagonist as pure evil with no justifications for why he does what he does, that throws any hope of ethical complexity out the window. There is no sort of clashing of ideals in One Piece, and the characters are never placed into any sort of ethical dilemmas. Again, the conflicts are very straightforward, black & white. One side is objectively good, while the other is objectively bad. Because of this, the character dynamic between Luffy and pretty much every villain is relatively simplistic and cliche. The is very evident based on the lack of complex dialogue in the series. Why do you think the only thing Luffy said during Alabasta is "I'm gonna kick Crocodile's ass". Again, if there's no sort of ethical complexity then there's also no room for a clashing of ideals. At least Naruto and Bleach had some sort of ethical complexity regrading Byakuya Kuchigi and Pain. There was an ideological clash between Ichigo & Byakuya, as well as Naruto & Pain. One Piece has none of that.
Next up, the characters. This is probably the worst aspect of this story. Lets take Luffy for starters. Zero character development whatsoever. He has no introspection. He has no psychological or ethical complexity/development. He has no internal dialogue. Writing a manga for 26 years and not giving a single thought to character development is shockingly sad. Overall, I find Luffy to be an incredibly boring character. Besides all of the problems I just mentioned, he has one aspect about him that I absolutely despise. Almost every conflict he gets embroiled in has complexities that he is completely unaware of. He only gets engaged in conflicts when his friends are hurt, which is extremely superficial and cliche. In certain situations, even minor characters are more relevant to the conflict than him (Waiper, Vivi). His importance in the conflict is minor until his final battles, and most of the villains he fights have no idea who he is, or don't know much about him. Because neither of them knows much about the other, this results in a rather uninteresting protagonist/antagonist character dynamic. However, even if Luffy understood the nuances of the conflicts he's involved in, not even that would make him more interesting. This is due to the earlier statement I made about how the conflicts are quite simplistic, clear-cut, and devoid of any ethical complexity. As long as one side is objectively good and the other is objectively bad, the dialogue and character interactions between Luffy and the villains will always be generic.
As for the other Straw Hats, all of them remain stagnant throughout the entire series. They are merely given tear bait backstories, and once that's over, they remain the same throughout the rest of the series. They're gimmicks have already gotten stale a long time ago. Brook has been making the same joke since he's been introduced. Same thing with Chopper, Franky, Usopp, Nami, etc. They've been acting the exact same way ever since they introduced. None of them receive any psychological or ethical development. The lack of character development makes the characters so boring.
I have other reasons, but I'm not in the mood to type them out right now. I'll just summarize them quickly: terrible pacing, straw hats become side characters after the time-skip, ridiculously long arcs full of too many subplots, too many garbage arcs, and a few more I cant remember. Terrible series overall.

Preface

Greetings all and good tidings. I am addressing something that has probably been addressed, rehashed, debated and possibly ignored many times over. In fact, this topic has likely been done to death on this sub. So why am I writing this post at all? Well, I hope I can address the topic in a way that does not give you indigestion, and if I do cause you gastrointestinal distress from topics on embodied minds, diachronic universalism and theories on personal identity, then I apologise in advance. There have been some relatively "newish" ideas presented in the literature about FLO and I would like to explore them and discuss what they entail. I understand that this whole topic may be irrelevant to several (many) users of this subreddit, but there are users here that this topic is quite important to, and it is them that I primarily address. All in all though, my effort here would be worthwhile if someone got something out of this.

Introduction

The Future Like Ours (FLO) argument, what is it and what does it necessitate? In its simplest form, it can be written as follows:
​

• Premise 1: It is morally wrong to deprive a being of a FLO.
• Premise 2: Killing a fetus deprives it of a FLO.
• Conclusion: Therefore, killing a fetus is morally wrong.

​
This seemingly simple argument was presented by Don Marquis in 1989. In the literature, it is widely regarded as the strongest argument against the permissibility of abortion, unless you accept some other religious doctrine. The general arguments that are provided as to the strength of Don Marquis' objection to abortion are based on the grounding that it is established on a seemingly uncontroversial view of why it is wrong to kill someone. The above argument is however deceptively simple, and I believe it is worth some time in breaking it down to establish what it means exactly.
The intention of the FLO argument is not about determining a set of conditions that may occur at some time after conception that would make abortion impermissible, but rather, that it would be impermissible in general. To describe how this argument comes about, we have to establish what it is that we mean by a future like ours. Our futures, assuming we live into the future and are able to experience, are futures of experience. In order for a fetus to have a future that is like ours, the future of the fetus must too, be one of experience. This also means that our present experience, right now, is the FLO of the fetus that was once 'us'. To achieve this end, an additional requirement is generated, the very being of the fetus must be the same being as we are now in order for the FLO of the fetus to be our current experience. A concise definition is as follows, as provided by Vogelstein:
FLO Definition: X, at time t, has a FLO if and only if (1) X exists at t, and (2) X exists for some period of time after t, during which X has valuable experiences that make X’s life after t worth living, on the whole. (Where the subject of experience is X)
There is an important distinction that needs to be made here. The future like ours argument of Don Marquis is not about the potential of the fetus to experience a future, but rather, the fetus really does experience a future. This distinction is important, as without it, the argument is open to the obvious rebuttal that a potential something is not as valuable as an actual something. The FLO argument is that the fetus is the same actual something that has future experiences as we actual somethings have future experiences right now.

The Problem of Identity

The general subject of the theory of personal identity is to describe what it is that we refer to when we say "I" and other pronouns. Generally, theories of personal identity posit that it is the thing we refer to as "I" that has experience. As by the definition of FLO above, a fetus can only have a future of experience if the thing that "I" refers to is the same as the fetus: I was once a fetus. The most widely accepted theory of personal identity; the psychological theory of personal identity, corresponds to relating "I" to the psychological connections of continuity, connectedness, similarity and other related concepts. These features correspond to particular functions of the brain. The identity objection, to put it concisely, is that for a fetus to have a FLO and adhere to the definition above, it would need to exhibit psychological traits. Since the fetus has no psychology to speak of, it does not have a FLO.
For the defender of FLO not willing to concede to this point, they are presented with a controversial choice, the rejection of the psychological theory of personal identity! This theory presents a distinction between the biological organism, and what it is that we refer to when we say "I". Under this theory, after conception, the organism existed for a certain time before "we", or "I", came into being, and so the organism before this point in time had no FLO at all. This also implies that the statement, I am my organism is not exactly correct. This point may seem like a possible point of contention by supporters of FLO, but it seems to be uncontroversial to proponents of the psychological theory of personal identity: we are minds that receive stimuli from our bodies. It's this last point that has (supposedly) provided another way out for defenders of FLO, in that they do not necessarily need to reject the psychological theory of personal identity after all, or at least, a particular form of it.

The Embodied Mind

Eric Vogelstein (2016), in his paper titled: Metaphysics and the Future-Like-Ours Argument Against Abortion provided an argument as to how FLO can still survive under Jeff McMahon's view of the embodied mind account of personal identity. The embodied mind account can arguably be traced back to Friedrich Nietzsche's classic Thus Spoke Zarathustra (one of my favourites!). Friedrich Nietzche wrote:
But greater is that in which you do not wish to believe – our body with its great intelligence; it does not say ‘I’, but does ‘I’. What the sense feels, what the spirit knows, never has its end in itself. But sense and spirit would persuade you that they are the end of all things: that is how vain they are. Instruments and toys are sense and spirit: behind them there is still the self. The self also seeks with the eyes of the senses, it also listens with the ears of the spirit. Always the self listens and seeks; it compares, overpowers, conquers, and destroys. It rules, and is also the ruler of the ‘I’. Behind your thoughts and feelings, my brother, stands a mighty ruler, an unknown sage – it is called the subconscious self; it dwells in your body, it is your body*.*
Never can I hope to achieve the level and style of writing of one such as Nietzsche! It is important to point out the very different context that surrounds Nietzsche's writings here. Nietzsche is describing the reluctance of Europeans to fully relinquish concepts of the past after the death of God! One such concept is the idea of the will, more importantly the free will endowed with inherent knowledge of morality. The free will is the end in itself with respect to the spirt of experience. Nietzsche argues to abolish this idea entirely and proclaims that the master behind "I" is our very bodies. The will is therefore no longer free, and no more endowed with knowledge of moral value than the pangs of hunger from the gut, or the... throes of passion from the groin...
In this sense, provided by Nietzsche, a description of the embodied mind account can be presented. The embodied mind is not distinct from the body but integrated within and the subject of the stimuli generated by our bodies. Our thoughts are not free but can be traced back to physiological conditions in the body. Even thoughts seemingly inspired by external stimuli are still thoughts subjugated to the master, the body! External stimulus is nothing more than the reception of outside events by our senses, and so the body is still the real author of all experience. I believe in this description, there is no point delineating the brain from the body, the brain is still your body, and your mind is integrated in your brain, that is, your body. I believe that Friedrich Nietzsche's account of an 'embodied mind' is not the same as the one argued by Jeff McMahon, as Nietzsche's take seems to be purely feed forward (and not particularly helpful to FLO), but nonetheless it still looks like "an" embodied mind account, and possibly one of, if not the earliest such account there is.
Eric Vogelstein has argued that the organism can experience by virtue of one of its parts. The brain is a part of the organism, and so the organism experiences by virtue of having a brain. Vogelstein makes use of Jeff McMahon's example of a car horn. When the horn of a car makes a noise, it does not seem controversial to say that the car made a noise. Similarly, when the brain has an experience, it should be uncontroversial to say that the organism too has an experience. Vogelstein also presents a counter to the argument that the mind itself is the subject of experience and not the brain, through the words of Eric Olson (2003):
The reason for [believing that you think but your animal or organism does not] can only be that the animal can’t think…And if that animal can’t think…then no human animal can. And if no human animal can think, no animal of any sort could….The claim, then, is that animals, including human animals, are no more intelligent or sentient than trees…This is rather hard to believe. Anyone who denies that animals can think…needs to explain why. They can’t. What stops a typical human animal from using its brain to think? Isn’t that what that organ is for?
A personal objection of mine to Olson here (this is not necessary for the argument I build later, and so I present it here) is that thinking, and experience are not the same things. We have the content of experience of thinking, and it is possible that with lesions on particular parts of our brains, our subjective experience persists but our ability to think rationally is impeded. I do not think it makes any sense to replace the word thinking with experience in the quote from Olson, as whether or not an animal or organism can experience is the very thing Olson is trying to conclude here. For example, machine learning techniques can be thought of a process of thinking, but AI has no experience to speak of, yet! Is there really any significant difference in the way we think from the methods applied in machine learning? This is however a digression.
In summary here, Eric Vogelstein has presented an argument as to how an organism itself can experience. This means that the fetus, before developing the constitutive part necessary for experience (the brain) can still experience by virtue of eventually having a brain. If the organism itself can experience, and that we, or "I" are organisms, and that the fetus is the same organism, then the fetus does have a FLO - that is, if you accept all of the required premises!

Reductio ad Absurdum, a Problem for Diachronic Universalism

There is yet another issue that arises from premise one of FLO that I would like to address. Premise one states that it is immoral to deprive a being of its FLO. The reductio of premise one would be that it is immoral to deprive a sperm and an ovum of its FLO through either contraception or abstinence. Don Marquis has responded to such a criticism and has argued that contraception does not deprive a being of a FLO. Eric Vogelstein (2016) has however acknowledged that in order for this claim to succeed, yet another controversial metaphysical stance needs to be adopted - the rejection of diachronic universalism.
In Don Marquis response to the reductio critique, he outlines possible candidates for harm: (1) the sperm (and not the ovum) (2) the ovum (and not the sperm) (3) both the sperm and the ovum (4) the mereological fusion of the sperm and the ovum. Don Marquis argues that options (1) and (2) are both unlikely, as there is no reason to grant either of these candidates a privileged status as being the being with a FLO. Marquis argues that (3) is also unlikely as too many futures are lost, a problem of too many thinkers. Eric Vogelstein however dismisses this argument as both the sperm and the ovum can share the same future. The argument from Marquis that Vogelstein gives greater credit to is that the fusion of the sperm and the ovum does not preserve the existence of the things that have combined. Vogelstein acknowledges however that this argument too can be tricky on a four dimensionalist view of space and time. In such a view, it is not controversial to accept singular identities in a transitive temporal form. In the four dimensionalist view, all of the future, and all of the past exist and stretch out from our current present point in time. When tracing the organism through a four-dimensional space-time, the sperm and the ovum fuse to generate the zygote, it can be said that the sperm, or the ovum are temporal transients leading to the zygote, though it is not necessarily true that both the sperm and the ovum are temporal transients together. This is where a mereological dispute arises, and the success of the FLO argument depends on its resolution.
Diachronic universalism posits that for every set of objects that exists, there also exists an object with the members of the set as it parts. Additionally, the composition of an object comprised of members of a set can occur over time. The example that Vogelstein provides is that there is an object that is composed of both George Washington and Fenway Park, that is, an object that was George Washington and later Fenway Park. Similarly, under diachronic universalism, if there was once a sperm-ovum mereological fusion, and later, the human organism compromised of the components of the set of the sperm and the ovum; then contraception and abstinence would indeed deprive something of a FLO by premise one and would be morally wrong. If diachronic universalism is true, the defender of the FLO argument has a choice. The choice is to either accept that contraception and abstinence are as morally wrong as abortion, or accept that contraception and abstinence are not morally wrong, and so it is not immoral to deprive a fetus of its FLO. The alternative of this is to reject diachronic universalism.
The problem is that diachronic universalism has many strengths and many supporters. For example, at what point does a scattered object stop being a single object, but scattered objects? If one such component of a Macro sized object was to move by a nanometre, would it stop being an object composed of its parts? If it can move by a nanometre, why not 10 nanometres, or even a metre? There are other arguments for diachronic universalism associated with the functionality of the object for instance. The main point here is, and a point that Vogelstein acknowledges, is that success of FLO does indeed require the rejection of diachronic universalism, and this is itself a controversial stance to take. It is controversial, as for an argument to rely on an already contested premise, the argument itself is weakened.

Does the Embodied Mind Account Really Save FLO from the Identity Problem?

In 2018, Skott Brill provided, what I believe to be, a forceful rebuttal to Vogelstein's argument that the embodied mind account means defenders of FLO do not need to take the controversial stance of rejecting the psychological theory of personal identity. Skott Brill presented his arguments in a paper titled: the Identity Objection to the Future Like Ours Argument. In this paper, the embodied mind account of the psychological theory of personal identity is presented by an analogy to an orange fruit tree. The main reason for this analogy is in response to those that do make the controversial rejection of the psychological theory of personal identity in that they argue it resembles a cartesian dualism. Skott Brill demonstrates that there are dualisms, and then there are dualisms, and they can be completely uncontroversial. If we are to take a whip of a fruit tree, it slowly develops and grows branches and starts to produce fruit. The fruit may ripen, and would be juicy, sweet and orange in colour. Eventually the fruit will drop off, and what used to a whip, and now the tree will continue beyond the fruit.
In this analogy, we do not say that the tree is sweet and juicy because it produced ripened oranges. The tree grew a new entity by producing fruit, and the properties of juiciness, sweetness and orangeness are properties of the fruit and not the tree. The tree itself can exist before and after the arrival and demise of the fruit. Similarly, the human organism, as a fetus, can grow a new entity, the brain, which has distinct properties on its own like the fruit, consciousness. The organism can precede the development of consciousness, and just like the tree, in some cases, survive beyond the loss of consciousness. There is nothing particularly controversial here that necessitates an objection based on cartesian dualism.
Skott Brill continues further with a reference to the fallacy of composition. The fallacy of composition is a mistake that we make when we infer that something has an attribute or property based on the fact that one of its parts has a particular property. The simple example that is provided is to make an inference that a car is light in weight because one of its parts is light in weight. Sometimes we are justified in this inference, where for example if one of the parts of the car is heavy, we are justified in saying the car is heavy. Skott Brill does not press this matter further, as he does not need to. A concession is made, and the embodied mind account is taken to be true so that it is assumed Vogelstein has not made a fallacy of composition.
Skott Brill points out an important point that Vogelstein has completely overlooked, that it is possible to have experiences in the way that we have experiences, and it is also possible to have experiences in a way that we do not have them. The beings that we identify as when we say "I" have experiences directly, whereas the organism has experiences derivatively. Skott Brill makes use of Jeff McMahon here to illustrate this point, which is slightly ironic in that it was McMahon's version of the embodied mind that Vogelstein has employed in his own defence of FLO:
My organism is conscious [and has experiences] only in a derivative sense, only by virtue of having a conscious [experiencing] part. Similarly, when I blow the horn of my car, the car makes a noise only in the sense that one of its parts makes a noise. There is only one noise; and there is a clear sense in which there is only one noisemaker: the horn. But we attribute the making of the noise not just to the horn but also, in a derivative way, to the larger whole that contains it. It is clear … that the car is not some additional occult presence that mysteriously joins the horn in producing the honking noise. Nor is the organism as a whole involved in the experience of consciousness except by containing that which is conscious.
Even if the embodied mind account is taken as correct, the experience of the organism is a derivative experience and is different from the direct experience that we have. This means that the non-sentient fetus does not have a future like ours in that it experiences derivatively and not directly. There is no basis that has been established anywhere, by Marquis or by Vogelstein that the transfer of experience from direct to derivative occurs without loss, and so is a highly dubious claim to make. This is not the type of experience that Marquis is referring to in premise one of FLO. The reason it is wrong to kill us is that it deprives us of a future of experience that is an experience that we have directly. This is exactly the kind of experience that the non-sentient fetus does not have, and so the fetus does not have a future like ours at all. Under the psychological theory of personal identity, the FLO argument demonstrates that it is morally permissible to abort a fetus, as it does not have the very thing that is considered to be of value in premise one, a future like ours!

Reductio ad Absurdum Once Again! The Ovum as the Primary Candidate for Harm

I am going to explore the reductio problem of FLO a little further as I believe, even if rejecting diachronic universalism, a case can be made for the ovum as a candidate for harm, and more so, the candidate for harm. Quite recently, in 2023, Tomer Jordi Chaffer published a paper titled: Future‐like ours as a metaphysical reductio ad absurdum argument of personal identity. In this paper, it is argued that the ovum is the non-arbitrary candidate for harm for three reasons:
(1) The ovum exclusively passes down mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) to offspring.
(2) The ovum can turn on paternal gene expression through histone restructuring.
(3) The ovum can undergo parthenogenesis.
If we refer back to the previous reductio section, the first two possible candidates for harm were identified as: (1) the sperm (and not the ovum) (2) the ovum (and not the sperm). Don Marquis argued that these two candidates were unlikely, as neither could be considered non-arbitrarily privileged over the other. It is this point that is contentious.
Chaffer refers to recent scientific findings from mitochondrial epigenetics corresponding to the heritable changes in gene expression of the mtDNA genome. These recent findings show increasing evidence that mitochondrial epigenetic regulators, such as mtDNA-encoded non-coded RNA (ncRNA) can translocate to the nucleus to regulate the expression of nuclear DNA (nDNA) encoded genes, which are the genes that affect identity. This mechanism can only be passed down from the mother, where sperm mitochondria are severely degraded. This establishes the ovum as having a non-arbitrary privileged position in that it has a greater role in identity formation than a sperm, corresponding to point (1) above.
There is a further point of difference between the nDNA carried by the sperm and the ovum. The nDNA carried in the head of a sperm is compacted to avoid damage as the sperm travels. In this compaction, histones are replaced with other nuclear proteins. Histones are complex proteins that regulate the gene expression and provide structural support to chromosomes. The ovum however does possess all of the necessary histones associated with gene expression and chromosome structure, but more than just this. The ovum also provides the sperm with the necessary materials, such as tripeptide antioxidant glutathione, so that the nDNA of the sperm can decondense and restructure. On this basis, epigenetically, the ovum provides the mechanisms necessary to regulate a sperms contribution to life, and so can be considered as the foundation for a new life. This corresponds to point (2) above and provides another case for the non-arbitrary privileged status of the ovum over the sperm.
A third differentiating aspect of the ovum from the sperm is that the ovum demonstrates a self-directing mechanism. The ovum has the capacity to initiate and activate embryo development without fertilization: parthenogenesis. Human parthenotes are not viable in nature, but the significance is that only the ovum can initiate this process and not the sperm, leading to yet another argument for the non-arbitrary privileged position of the ovum over the sperm, corresponding to point (3) above. If a counter to this is argued on the non-viable nature of the parthenote, that is exactly the point. The non-viable parthenote is robbed of a future by abstinence and contraception in that fertilisation did not occur before parthenogenesis was initiated.
The arguments presented above I believe provide a reasonably strong case that the ovum can be considered as a foundational structure of a new life, where a sperm merely deposits the necessary material for the foundation to become a fetus. There is a stronger line of continuity between the ovum and the zygote than there is between the zygote and the sperm. Additionally, the magnitude of the change between the ovum and the zygote is decidedly less than the magnitude of the change between the zygote and the child. I believe this is more than sufficient to argue that the ovum is a non-arbitrary candidate for harm, and possibly more than just this, the candidate for harm; the same candidate as the zygote!

Summary

I believe that the identity objection to FLO on the grounds of the psychological theory of personal identity carries significant force. Even if the embodied mind account is granted to be true, our organism, at best, can be considered to have a derivative experience only, and so the non-sentient fetus does not have a future like ours at all. On the psychological theory of personal identity, Don Marquis' argument does more to demonstrate why abortion is morally permissable rather than the reverse, because the fetus does not have the very thing which is valued, a future like ours.
The defenders of FLO are therefore faced with a controversial metaphysical stance, the rejection of the psychological theory of personal identity. Rejecting this however is not the end of the road, as yet another controversial metaphysical stance is necessary, the rejection of diachronic universalism. With the rejection of diachronic universalism, the reductio problem is still unresolved on the basis of the biology of the ovum: a strong case can be made for the ovum as a non-arbitrary candidate for harm. The defender of FLO then has yet another controversial stance to take, that it is morally impermissible to use contraceptives or abstain from sex!
Don Marquis arguments for FLO are considered to be the best secular argument as to why abortion is morally wrong, but this says nothing about the strength of the argument itself. As described above, if an argument requires two or three contested and controversial stances taken a priori, the argument itself is on more than perilous ground. If this really is the strongest case for the anti abortion argument, the anti-abortion movement itself is on extremely perilous ground! In short however, I believe FLO does achieve something quite valuable, it demonstrates that abortion is not morally wrong at all!
OK, here we are at the end... finally. That was a long post wasn't it. How is your intestinal tract by the way? Excellent! If you have made it this far, then you have my thanks, and I hope you got something out of this.
​
Thank you for your time and effort in getting through this.
​
Perse

Yall please help because its affecting me a lot, I'm writing this as fast as i can on my pc bc he checks my screen time on my phone, warning; its a lot bc I'm not allowed to talk to anyone so I came here to let it out and I need help
short story on how we met, important to the story
my bf and go to the same college and we met once in 2019 in campus but it was just a hello and we forgot about each other. we officially spoke in March 2022, no contact until August 2022 when we actually got to know each other. i spoke to him like how I would normally speak with my other friends, i have a big personality and i made inappropriate jokes like you'd see on social media, totally harmless memes and i didn't hide my personality when I was with him, he didn't like it but was okay with until recent, he says he is disgusted with the person I was before. he is diagnosed with OCD. fast forward to October 2022, he confessed and I accepted it and we were official. we don't live together.
the first day i met him in Aug2022, he told me he was only into virgins like he is but he said he has done everything (not sex) with multiple random people before, went on dates with countless people and had few girlfriends. and i told him my past, I've had 2 bfs and a situationship, I've only made out (kissed and received hickeys), sent half naked pic (bikini pics) to one of the bf. at first he didn't pursue me bc of this, then we started talking and i had no intention to flirt with him, I talked to him like I normally talk. then we got together and it was fine for few months. he did say he takes the past of his gfs seriously and he broke up with a few bc they had a past. he asked me if I was okay with his past and ocd and i said yes, until now it doesn't bother me.
feb2023
the problem started in Feb2023 when ex2 texted me on ig (it gave me a panic attack bc it was a very traumatizing relationship and i ended it) and told my bf and he asked me to give my ig pw to him to handle it. then he started going through my chats and he found a chat with ex2 back in 2021, it was very teenagey and childish, few pics but nothing serious but he got very affected by it. i kept reassuring him I've never met ex2 and it was edating bc quarantine. bf and i had a break for 3 days and he kept wanting to break up and in those 3 days i was begging him to stay bc it's not like i cheated on him, i didn't have a talking stage/situationship/anything with anyone since Feb2022 until him. i told him whatever i could remember bc the ex2 relationship affected me to the point i had ed, but until now he pressures me to tell everything that happened and he is making me relive everything.
ever since this incident I've been anxious and haven't been giving my all for this relationship, i wasn't given any reassurance and anything, which i understand bc it affects him so I've learned to accept that (whenever my past issues come up i cant ask for reassurance/comfort bc the past is my fault that i betrayed him before meeting him. - his words). i put maximum effort before feb2022, no complaints from him. until this issue. this happened again in march2023.
march2023
i said 'don't say vulgar words (like i wanna f*** you) bc it doesn't sound intimate" back in Jan2023 and for awhile he was okay with it but i guess he had it in mind bc in March2023 he asked me why i allowed ex2 to speak like that but not him and made it into a whole issue. i had to reassure him and say bc i didn't feel intimate with ex2 but with my bf i did. he said its affecting him a lot and he wanted to break up with me here, i begged him to stay here as well. but it started to tear me apart bc i had nothing but love for my bf and it hurt me a lot and i had to distract myself constantly to be okay.
other problems
we were somewhat fine after that, we kept meeting and went out to eat and to campus but slowly he started restricting everything, wasn't allowed to go out alone or with friend, wasn't allowed to talk to my girl best friend & few other friends bc they were from my past, wasn't allowed to use twitter and tiktok, these apps are to keep up on games, kpop and the things i like, i told him this and he said doesn't care. had a group of close friends my girlbsf and 2 male bsf, he accused me of having a thing w one of my male bsf from that group. we really didn't, all of us were just close friends like siblings, 4 of us knew each other parents and our parents knew each other. but he still thinks i had a thing with him. i cut him off bc respected my bf. i have no problem cutting contact with any male if it makes my bf uncomfy bc its basic respect. but he gives me tests to see if i will pass the test, like will i listen to everything he says, if i don't it will turn into a big fight and i have to beg for his forgiveness and still do it if it makes me anxious or uncomfy. when i asked him to unfollow his ex gfs he would say he wants to keep them so they can see how well he was doing. he would say they are harmless and start a fight with me for even bringing that up. he doesn't like my big personality (para 1) and hes been trying to 'correct my mindset' and 'prohibit me from being wrong'. he always asks about the timeline (para 1) to make sure i didn't 'cheat' on him despite only meeting him for a day and didn't speak for months until Aug2022.
he doesn't allow me to ask questions like, why he can do certain things while he restricts me from doing but it will end up in an argument for asking unnecessary questions. he gets verbally abusive when he is mad about my past and would say he will break my face and will use vulgar language. it hurts me terribly, im not the person to get angry and be verbally abusive, i speak very calmly and wont raise my voice but he will raise his voice and threaten me. we have other problems in the relationship, he has access to my ig and would ask me what i spoke to A(for example) and im required to remember everything that i spoke to A if not he will flip out and say im hiding and lying. i don't think of random people all the time and im always under pressure to remember every convo if not he accuses me of lying or hiding. i honestly have nothing to hide, he reads my old chats with platonic friends and twists it to make it seem like there is something. i admit when we had my past issue in Feb2023, ive deleted few chats because i know he will twist it and i shouldn't have done that and hes very upset about it until now, but I'm glad i did bc it saved me alot of problems, not because i was doing smth wrong but he doesn't understand my humor said 'does everyone know youre a wh*re bc you spoke like that with everyone?' i spoke like how a normal genz that watches tiktok would (step on me for example) i didn't flirt with anyone.
the reason why im writing this is because im scared very scared and tired.
i still love him even after everything, he made me question myself. Am i a narcist or do i have bpd or have any mental issues. be honest you guys. am i the wrong one here? there's so much more and i could see hes a very insecure person and I've been trying to reassure him as much as i can, but its affecting my social life, its nonexistent now. i got an internship at a place i love and he wants to join the place as well, its not a problem for me but he said if i have to work alone he will break up with me because hes worried about me and wouldn't be there to protect me if i get assaulted. im really unhappy, im required to let go of any job offers if he not selected with him, he does the same but i want independence and freedom. i spoke to him about this and he reacted very badly and i had to give in. i feel like i lost myself trying to be the person he wants. he is aware of retroactive jealousy but he takes it out on me in the worst possible way and im left alone to heal by myself. yesterday he wanted to leave me for changing my ig pw without his permission. and he asked for my snap pw and he went through all my snaps from 2020 to present and he is forcing me to tell him which pics ive sent to ex2 as I'm writing this right now. i cant keep doing this. im always under pressure and im stressed all the time, its not enjoyable talking to him anymore. its taking a toll on me, i have other worries other than this relationship but this is 95% of my problems and it affecting my life.
he can be very nice and sweet and he says he loves me but whenever hes hurt hes verbally abusive and might be physically abusive bc he punches walls and breaks things but whenever im hurt and i express it, he will either turn it into a joke or turn it into an argument saying i should've thought about him and how it would make him feel before expressing my hurt. end of the day i must be the one to apologize if im right or wrong, he does apologize as well but only when we have a big fight for him to understand. im on birth control pills for the first time and its making my hair fall and have mood swings but he not there, he doesn't care and said don't blame the pills. i might be neurodivergent and im trying to get diagnosed for Asperger's soon bc i think its one of the factors affecting the relationship and my social skills but that's a whole different discussion. there so much more but i dont have time.
i really dont want to lose him bc we really a genuine good time before the retroactive jealousy and all the relationship problems, i wanted to help him through the ocd, but now i dont what to do i dont think im strong enough for this, right this moment i received a guilt trip message saying he can't eat even when the food is good when he chose to go through my snap (which had only pics of me) to overthink and twist everything and blame it on me. now i have to go admit my mistakes and beg for forgiveness. hes been saying he wants to leave but its a test to see if i will fight for him to come back, when he blocked me yesterday he wanted me to text him on other apps and got mad when i didnt.
to be clear, i have never cheated/flirted with anyone and dont have a reason to hide anything, objectively i didn't do anything wrong while i was in this relationship, ive been very faithful but now i feel like i should delete everything because i cant stand the constant abuse and harassment, id rather be accused of hiding and lying even when im not than explain what each word meant and this happened during my finals as well, i wasted alot of time and im tired. help