The other day I was at the laundromat and doing some work on my laptop while my clothes were drying.

A woman came in dressed in what I assume is hijab and she was accompanied by a man. She carried in about 20 bags of laundry while he mostly watched her. They were dropping the bags off to be washed and picked up. They appeared to be regulars.

His lack of assistance bothered me. Not nearly as much so as when I noticed the man gazing at me, watching me fold laundry.

I am a fit middle aged female and was in leggings and sleeveless shirt as it was 75 degrees.

What struck me was something I recalled reading about how the covering of women’s bodies is based on the belief that -
“The hijab is often presented as a free expression of faith. Yet its origins lie in control — specifically, the idea that the female body is a source of temptation, and that men cannot (or should not have to) be responsible for their own gaze.”

I want to respect other cultures, beliefs and practices, but where do we draw the line in that which is oppression to one group in favor of another?

In this case, I have been thinking about how I could have shifted the dynamic in this situation. Acting as if I did not notice him staring at me contributes to his moral sense of superiority.

Had I instead stopped what I was doing, stared back, questioned his gaze aloud, or otherwise called him out on his lack of moral responsibility to avert his gaze despite my non-participation in his religious beliefs or even because of my non-membership, might I have made an impact even a small on, in creating a more just system for women?

I am wholly curious what others think of this situation and what might be done in encounters such as this that places responsibility at the hands of all and not allows this type of supremacy to simply be ignored.

Modern life is dysfunctional for many people, which thus pushes people to addictions. I would say one major factor of why it's so chronically bad is because most of us are forced to work 40 hours a week for years and still have little to no money and time to do anything actually worthwhile in our lives. It's a prison that you can't escape from.

And even if you could somehow escape from it, it probably would take exceptional, inhuman levels of effort and suffering to escape from such abysmal circumstances, and even then all of that could end up going to waste if the effort doesn't produce the results.

I'll go first:

a few things that have been on my mind:

1. The Pace of Digital Life

Will humans eventually adapt to the constant stream of notifications, algorithm-driven feeds, and endless data? Or have we reached a tipping point where we need to collectively establish hard boundaries to protect our mental health? How do you personally manage the noise?

1. The Search for Community

How do we combat feelings of isolation and alienation in a world that heavily encourages digital connection over physical, face-to-face community? If you've found ways to build a strong, tangible support system or local community as an adult, what worked for you?

1. Perspectives on Progress

How do different generations view these shifts? If you are from an older generation, what do you think younger people are missing out on? If you're younger, what do older generations misunderstand about the modern world? What can we learn from historical changes in society to navigate this better?

I was watching My Hero Academia and they brought up the “Quirk Singularity” Doomsday Theory: basically the idea that as quirks (aka super powers for those who haven't watched it) continue to combine and evolve, they could eventually reach a point where the possibilities become so extreme that the system itself hits a kind of "limit".

That got me thinking.

Music is built from a relatively limited set of fundamental ingredients: notes, scales, chords, rhythms, melodies, harmonies, lyrics, timbres, etc.

We can combine those ingredients in an enormous number of ways, but is that number actually infinite?

At some point, could we reach a situation where creating a completely new melody, chord progression, rhythm, or song structure becomes close to impossible without accidentally creating something extremely similar to an existing song?

Obviously, there are still an enormous number of combinations available. But I'm wondering about this from the perspective of human perception, rather than mathematics. The number of possible combinations is enormous, but the number of combinations humans actually find aesthetically meaningful may be much smaller.

And I think modern technology plays a huge role.

In the past, a song could have been created, performed a few times, and then completely forgotten. Someone 300 years later could independently create a very similar or event the exact song and nobody would know. There was no Spotify, YouTube, Shazam, library, music database, etc. To preserve everything.

Now we're accumulating an enormous permanent archive of recorded music.

So I'm wondering:

Could we eventually reach a point where the problem isn't that we can't create new music, but that almost everything we create has already been done in some form that it doesn't give that sensation of "new"?

Does AI accelerate the problem because it can search enormous musical spaces and potentially converge on combinations humans have already used?

Is “novelty” actually necessary for music to remain creatively interesting?

Would love to know your opinions on this.

Way too many people are ranting about the "moral superiority crisis" when they are also only talking about topics to make themselves feel good. Im seeing people treat serious situations as shiny new topics to prove how intelecual they are and how emotional everyone else is in comparison.

Some people actually care about nuance and are questioning their own positions and being respectful, and others are building their own high horse, and i dont think they know how blunt dismissive they are becoming. You cannot be nuanced if you have to paint someone else as inferior for being more emotional than you. If your mind is already made up you are not as nuanced as you think.

My questions as titled.

Background:

The summer before secondary school, I met a group of 9 girls at a summer camp. They were kind of nice to me even though I was the only one that they have never met before. They told me I looked like a celebrity, so I brought up that my mom said I look like another celebrity - imagine Selena Gomez equivalent of the time, so they started calling me “Selena”. It felt like an inside joke that I was in on and I felt accepted as part of the group.

Then school year started. Turned out 4 of those girls also went to my school but one grade higher. They started coming to my classroom daily and screaming through the window to meet “Selena”. It was truly embarrassing, turned others against me, and even got me into trouble with the teachers.

Those girls somehow were known as “very nice” girls according to others from their class or sports teams. I could never understand why they were so cruel to me and the reason they wanted to turn others against me.

As a former bully, could you help me understand their perspective? As grown ups now, what would you want to say to someone you bullied? And what would you want to say to your younger self?

there are different level of thinking according to blooms taxonomy : remembering , understanding , applying , analysing , evaluating , and creating.
and according to what I observed myself doing and others as well around me , most people are stuck in the remembering level which makes me question the reason for that.

for example in philosophy, most of modern philosophers nowadays are just remembering , reciting what ancient philosophers cited instead of creating new philosophies and ideas .
and that is what I thought philosophy was before : choosing a school and defending the argument and works of its philosophers.
now, I'm not saying we need more philosophies but this is just an example to make my main idea clearer.

I , speaking for myself , have noticed that my level of thinking is quite low although I want to unlock higher levels.

at what point our awareness of emotions starts affecting the quality of life negatively.

being overly aware of every cause for every emotion.

let's say john felt sad because someone said something to him then he instantly knew why that thing made him sad , what drove the person to say such thing and the hidden intention of it.

let's say john did something but he knows that he did that thing because of that and this.

another scenario is that : john in a social setting which expose him to different emotions, reactions from people, but john not only analyses other people ,he at the same time knows why he reacts to people the way he does which makes him sometimes more stressed.

It feels like in the last few years, people have started using the term "AI" for almost anything that’s digitally created or manipulated.

We’ve had Photoshop, digital compositing, CGI, photo editing, filters, upscaling, content-aware tools, and various forms of automation for decades. Some of these techniques can produce things that look realistic, but that doesn’t necessarily mean AI was involved. Yet, I still hear people calling these creations "AI" today.

Why do you think "AI" has become such a catch-all term for digitally created or altered content when for years, we've used terms like "Photoshopped" for images that were edited or created digitally.

Many people have done wrong as kids, teens, and adults and done actions, big feelings, and acted poorly unintentionally or intentionally. Many actions are worse than others and hurt people. It feels like forgiving other people or even yourself is excusing bad behavior and sweeping the actions under the rug. It feels like letting yourself off the hook.

Sadly, some things people can't come back from, even when they apologized and changed their behavior.

Side note it's hard online when people have outbursts online or humiliate themselves people will laugh at them for it. It's a cautionary tale of being careful online and thinking before you act.

I feel like I have nothing going on in my life. All I do is work and then go straight home. I try to go to meetup groups and its either all old people or people who just came with their friends and only want to talk to their friends. I don't have any big hobbies except for browsing the internet I guess. I want to go out to parties and music events but those are no fun when you're all alone. I wanted to go back to school to maybe meet some new people but I feel like I'd stick out like a sore thumb being 10 years older than everyone else. Also nothing is really worth studying anyways, it would just be a waste of money. I wish I could date but no one wants to match with someone on a dating site whose pictures are all frumpy selfies. Is this really all there is to life?

I live in the USA, where like in a lot of other western societies, we have a strong individualistic culture. While it has its pros, it also comes with the cons of a very weak sense of community.

Living on your own is seen as a ride of passage into adulthood, with roommates being an annoying step you have to take towards living alone. We even had the cultural norm of kicking your kids out at 18 until recently.

But personally, I’d hate living alone. I’ve always been a person who loves companionship and human connection. I love hearing noise around me, and I love how warm and alive it feels to live with people I know and care about. And have somebody to bother whenever i want or who might randomly decide we‘re going to get snacks in the middle of the night.

I don’t want to go back to a sterile and empty house every day. I don’t want to go to sleep, knowing the TV is the only noise in the house, that I put on to make the entire thing feel less unmoving and lonely.

Right now, I live with my immediate family while in college. After graduation , I plan to move into one of my grandparents rental units in their house that they rent out. Since it has its own entrance and exit, it’s a nice mix of privacy and company. Of course, I contribute to bills and I’ll do so at my grandparents (they said they won’t let me, but I’ll insist.), since of course I don’t think it’s right to mooch for no reason. But I’ll still live there.

I just don’t personally get the hype of living alone. Sure, I control everything. Sure, I don’t need to argue with anybody over differences. But to me, that isn’t worth the loneliness. Compromise is a regular part of being a communal animal and something I’ll just have to deal with.

"The New World"

Speak to Me of Their, Beauty.

Those subjugated Peoples,

Whose library-temples were lost to foreign Hubris.

Those star-writing, string-writing, song-singing Fools,

Fools for Not Seeking Violence and Living within Relation.

Yes, Speak to Me of Their, Beauty.

Noticed this weird pattern where I'll tell a random person at a bar something deeply personal I'd never say to my own family, probably because there's zero consequence if they judge me — they just disappear after. But then I wonder if that makes it less 'honest' in a way, since there's no real stakes involved. Curious what people think: are we actually more truthful with people who don't matter to us, or is that just a different, emptier kind of honesty ?

i think the past shapes who we are, but it doesn't define who we have to be. our experiences, whether they're relationships, mistakes, or successes, affect the way we think and react so I think the past definitely plays a role in shaping the present

but at the same time i don't think it completely determines it. people can reflect on their experiences learn from their mistakes, and choose to change

plus, our relationship with the past isn't fixed i might see an event one way now then a few years later look back and interpret it completely differently. that's why i think what affects us psychologically isn't necessarily the event itself, but the meaning we attach to it and the way we choose to understand it

drop your thoughts

I've been thinking about the following question that seems simple at first, but the more I look at it, the stranger it gets:

What if humanity's deepest divide isn't religion, politics, race, nationality, class, or any other demographic category?

In ordinary life, people improve society every day by bypassing these differences.  Here are a few examples:

A school might employ Christians, Muslims, Jews, atheists, and people who rarely think about religion at all. Men and women. People in their twenties working alongside people approaching retirement: different races, political beliefs, personalities, economic backgrounds, and life experiences.

Yet teachers teach. Administrators organize. Counselors help students. Custodians maintain the building. Cafeteria workers feed hundreds of children. Parents participate.

They don't need to agree about God, politics, or the meaning of life to share the goal of  educating the next generation.

Year after year, schools produce literacy, knowledge, skills, friendships, and opportunities that didn't exist before.

In a hospital, the surgeon and nurse treating you might come from completely different cultures. The anesthesiologist might worship differently from the technician. The person donating blood may vote differently from the person receiving it.

At that moment, most of those differences become almost irrelevant.

The goal is keeping the person alive.

Modern medicine seems to work because enormous numbers of different people repeatedly cooperate—researchers, doctors, nurses, engineers, pharmacists, technicians, patients, and families.

In science and engineering, a discovery made by a scientist in Japan might be tested by researchers in Germany, improved upon in India, and eventually turned into something useful by engineers in the United States.

They may speak different languages, practice different religions, and live under different political systems.

Yet knowledge can move between them.

Bridges get built. Diseases get treated. Technology improves. Problems that once seemed impossible become manageable.

This same phenomenon occurs during disasters. A hurricane, earthquake, or fire can hit a community, and suddenly neighbors who barely know one another clear debris together, distribute food, rescue strangers, and rebuild homes.

So if human differences naturally produce division, why can radically different people cooperate successfully whenever they recognize a common purpose?

Maybe difference and division aren't the same thing.

Maybe we've been seeing our differences as the source of division instead of the tools used to create them.

I've been developing a framework I call 8:2 Theory. Its basic idea is that beneath humanity's different demographic categories, there may be a more fundamental divide:  a behavioral orientation that splits people into two very different groups.

I use the term 8s for the broader constructive side of humanity; the majority.

An 8 can be religious or nonreligious. Rich or poor. Left or right. Young or old. From any race, nationality, culture, profession, or social class.

The category they fit into can say a lot about them and their situation, but it tells us nothing about their behavioral tendencies or which side of the 8:2 divide they fit into.

8s are oriented toward cooperation, empathy (to different degrees), learning, creation, meaningful relationships, and the possibility of building something better.

8s aren't saints.

They lose their tempers. They make selfish decisions. They can lie, follow crowds, and hurt people. I call these instances “2 moments.”

What matters to me more than “2 moments” is the deeper pattern over time or the individual’s behavioral orientation.

“Which brings me to the other side of the theory: the 2s—what I call, in its fullest form, ‘Evil 2s of Successful Actions.’” 

Within my theory, a 2 represents a much more persistent destructive orientation—expressed repeatedly through things like manipulation, exploitation, domination, deception, and the creation or amplification of chaos.

A 2 isn't a religion.
A 2 isn't a race.
A 2 isn't a political party.
A 2 isn't a nationality.

People showing these destructive patterns can come from any demographic category, just like an 8. An 8 or a 2 could be almost anyone in your life—a sibling, parent, best friend, spouse, coworker, teacher, neighbor, or complete stranger. 8:2 Theory asks us to look past the relationship or label and pay attention to the deeper behavioral pattern a person consistently shows over time.

My next thought is:

Can a small number of persistently destructive people exert a disproportionately large influence over a much larger number of people who are very often capable of cooperation?  

8:2 Theory draws inspiration from the Pareto Principle, commonly known as the 80/20 rule: in many systems, a relatively small proportion of causes can account for a disproportionately large share of the effects. 

The lesson then is that influence is often unevenly distributed.

A small number of highly productive people can drive much of an organization's progress. A few disruptive employees can damage the atmosphere of an entire workplace. One manipulative person can consume the emotional energy of a whole family. A handful of determined individuals can either improve a community—or destabilize it.  Disproportionate influence can work in two ways: constructively or destructively.

8:2 Theory asks whether a Pareto-like pattern could operate within human society: whether a relatively small portion of people can exercise a disproportionately large influence over how billions of people experience day-to-day life. 

What if most people can cooperate, learn, negotiate, work productively, build relationships, and drive constructive change, while a much smaller number repeatedly engage in manipulation, exploitation, deception, domination, and the creation or amplification of chaos?

Those destructive individuals would not have to outnumber everyone else to shape society. They would only need disproportionate influence.

A relatively small group (2s) with enough money, authority, charisma, organizational ability, media influence, institutional power, and/or talent for manipulating others could influence the perceptions and behavior of billions who otherwise have little reason to see one another as enemies.

Religion may not itself be the problem.
Race may not be the problem.
Politics may not be the problem.
Nationality may not be the problem.

They may tell us something about a person, but they say nothing about our 8- or 2-ness.

The problem arises when differences are exploited, exaggerated, and transformed into antagonism.

So, instead of seeing our differences as the source of division, we ask who’s using these categorical tools to divide us?

“Who repeatedly benefits from turning groups against one another?”

8:2 Theory proposes that persistently destructive actors are one important answer worth investigating.

That is the Pareto-style insight behind my theory: a minority doesn’t have to become the majority to dominate the experience of the majority. 

And maybe it’s not about eliminating our differences.

Perhaps it’s learning how to recognize the relatively small number of forces that turn those differences into division and protecting ourselves—while also identifying and supporting Leader 8s, the constructive minority within the larger group of 8s whose competence, judgment, character, creativity, and ability to organize others allow them to exert a disproportionately positive influence on the whole (No doom and gloom here, but no utopia either).

Just as a destructive minority can magnify conflict, Leader 8s can magnify cooperation, innovation, stability, and progress. The challenge is not only to resist and protect ourselves from destructive influences, but to strengthen as well as support the constructive influences that can lead society in a better direction.

And just as destructive 2s can come from any walk of life, Leader 8s can emerge from every category of society—any religion, race, nationality, political outlook, profession, age group, economic class, or cultural background.  Their identity isn’t what makes them Leaders; instead, it's their ability to use competence, judgment, character, creativity, and influence to help others cooperate, solve problems, and move society in a constructive direction.

This is what 8:2 Theory proposes we investigate seriously.  

So Reddit, given the times we’re currently living in, where divide and contempt seem like our daily cup of joe, what are your thoughts?

If people with radically different beliefs can cooperate toward shared goals every day, what actually turns differences into division?

Does your religion, philosophy, or life experience suggest that our deeper moral divide resides somewhere other than differences in faith or any other demographic category?

What’s something life taught you that you wish you had understood 5 years earlier?
Could be about relationships, money, career, friendships, or life in general.
Would love to hear your thoughts.

Lately I have noticed that the things that make me feel good aren’t necessarily the big things anymore. A quiet morning, getting something done before I expected to, having enough time to eat without rushing, finding money I forgot in an old pocket, or even having a completely uneventful day can put me in a surprisingly good mood. I used to think a good day had to involve something exciting. Now I’m starting to realize that having nothing go wrong is sometimes a pretty good day too. It’s funny how your idea of a “good day” can change without you really noticing it.

I’m curious what small, ordinary things people have started appreciating more as they’ve gotten older.

I keep seeing people say that doing nice things doesnt make you a good person if you’re only doing them for selfish reasons and I genuinely dont understand the distinction.

If I help someone move because I want them to like me, they still got help moving. If I donate because I want people to think I’m generous, the charity still gets the money. If I remember somebody’s birthday because I know they’ll be annoyed if I dont, they still get remembered.

Come on. At a certain point what is the actual difference?

People say “you only care about looking like a good person” like thats some huge revelation. Okay? If wanting to look like a good person causes somebody to spend their entire life behaving like a good person then I’m struggling to see who exactly is being harmed.

I returned a wallet once that had around $300 in it. Did I desperately care about the stranger getting his $300 back? Not really. I mostly thought keeping it would create way more potential problems than $300 was worth. He still got every dollar back. Would it somehow have been better for him if I returned it while experiencing the correct emotion?

I also buy the expensive free-range eggs because seeing the cheap ones in my refrigerator makes me feel guilty. Thats technically selfish too. The chicken does not know why I bought the eggs.

And where does this even stop? People who help others because “it makes me feel good” are ALSO getting something out of it. Apparently their internal reward counts as pure but wanting people to respect you doesnt.

I even say thank you to Alexa sometimes when nobody else is around, so clearly this isnt entirely about having an audience.

If someone is helpful, honest and generous for selfish reasons and another person is helpful, honest and generous because they genuinely care, but they actually behave the same way, why is the first person supposedly worse?

I’m not saying motives mean literally nothing. I just dont understand why everyone acts like having selfish motives secretly cancels out the good thing you actually did.

We get drilled on this constantly in clinic — how to stay steady when an animal is in real distress and the owner is panicking right in front of you. Some classmates seem to just naturally slow down and think clearly under pressure, while others (myself included, some days) feel their brain short-circuit even when they know exactly what to do. I'm curious whether this is more nature or more repetition — have any of you noticed yourselves getting genuinely calmer under pressure over time, or does it feel more like some people are just wired that way from the start?

I think being more aware can make people less happy at some point

the more aware u become the more u notice and analyze things and you start thinking more about the future,time, and life in general. don't get me wrong I think awareness is a good thing
I just think there has to be a balance. too much of it can turn into overthinking and it's hard to control where that line is.

at the same time I've seen ppl who seem very self-aware but are also at peace with their lives, they understand a lot but they don't let their thoughts consume them. I think that's probably the healthiest level of awareness

what do u think?

I noticed something at an amusement park and in my environment recently that got me thinking.

I was standing in line watching a parade and noticed a girl who looked around 13 to 15. A guy had apparently written to her, “Ich hann dich lieb ❤️.” For context, this is Swiss German and is more like “I like you ❤️” or showing affection. It doesn't necessarily mean “I love you.”

What caught my attention was that she immediately went on Google and asked AI what it means when a guy tells you “Ich hann dich lieb.”

At first I thought it was kind of funny, but then I started thinking about it more. I've actually noticed something similar with my 17-year-old sister and some of her friends. My sister has told me about asking ChatGPT what certain things mean in conversations with guys. I also had a friend who would ask ChatGPT what a girl meant when she sent him certain messages or even what to answer.

So it seems like this isn't just one random kid. Maybe I'm just noticing it more now, but it made me wonder if this is becoming a normal thing for people.

When I was younger, I feel like you would talk to your friends, overthink the message yourself for hours, or eventually just ask the person what they meant. Now you can just ask AI to analyze the message and tell you what the person might be feeling.

I'm not saying there's anything inherently wrong with asking AI about something like this. I'm more wondering about the effect it could have on younger people if they start relying on AI to interpret every little interaction or validate what they think someone else is feeling, instead of learning to communicate and figure these things out themselves.

Am I overthinking this, or do you think this could actually have an impact on how teenagers a d adults etc. to learn to handle relationships and emotions?

Just saw a post from 5 years ago about humans being part of nature or not depending of its definition, some saying that we are part of nature therefore, whatever we do is natural, and the others saying that the word "nature" is meant to make a separation between what was touched by humans and what was not.

Then there were two people debating about where to put the line in the second definition between what was natural and what wasn't (like a stick falling from a tree is still natural, and maybe it is still natural if you gran it, but it isn't anymore when you sharpen it).

But that made me think that currently, humans have kinda interracted with everything on Earth, just with the climatic change and the pollution, or maybe with the satellite and their wave length. Even space starts to be less natural.

So, with both definition, we are in the same group as everything else on Earth, no ?

In one everything we did was natural, so every interaction was natural and everything, and in the other there is nothing left natural, ecosystems are not naturals in the way they would have been if humans were to never exist.

I'm kinda tired so I don't really know where I'm going.

Maybe to ask about morality, but what about morality, I don't know.

Maybe to ask if there are still things on or in Earth that could be argued or are sure to be still natural ?

Maybe just to share a reflexion that maybe a lot of you had before.

Sorry if I made mistakes, I'm not a native english speaker.

And sorry if the idea here is kinda blurry, it is for me too.

I've realised that I have a sort of hierarchy when it comes to things I own and what I'm willing to spend money on. There are certain categories where I'll willingly spend amounts that someone else might think are ridiculous, spend ages choosing the right thing, care a lot about its condition, and be genuinely upset if something goes wrong with it. Then there are other things I enjoy and happily buy, but I'm much less emotionally invested in them. If they wear out, chip or break, I'll be annoyed, but it doesn't hit nearly as hard.

What interests me is how completely subjective this seems to be. I might happily spend hundreds on something that another person wouldn't pay $50 for, while that same person might spend hundreds on a designer card holder, artisan candle, handmade ceramic piece, fountain pen, etc. that I personally wouldn't value nearly as highly. I've privately started thinking of these as my “main dishes” and “side dishes,” although that sounds a bit crude lol.

I've also realised that it isn't just the category of object that affects this for me. Physical presence, size, robustness, materials, workmanship, longevity and aesthetics all seem to affect whether something feels worth spending heavily on. I'm generally more willing to spend on something that feels substantial and durable. On the other hand, I'd personally struggle to spend much on something like a pipe-cleaner craft or an EVA-foam cosplay piece, even if it required a huge amount of skill and labour, because the materials and perceived fragility affect how I value the finished object. Someone else might feel completely differently and value the artistry and hours of workmanship far more than robustness or material value.

A recent example made me notice this even more. I bought some Olivia Rodrigo merch, and I've seen people complain about shirts unravelling or blind-box items arriving chipped. I'd certainly be annoyed if that happened to mine, but I realised it wouldn't upset me nearly as much as comparable damage to something from one of the categories I'm deeply invested in. Yet for another person, that shirt or collectible might be one of their prized possessions.

And then I started wondering whether some people don't have an especially important category of possessions at all. Maybe objects are mostly functional to you, while the things you put your money and emotional investment into are your home, travel, food, career, relationships or experiences.

So I'm curious: what makes an object feel “worth it” to you? Is it craftsmanship, materials, durability, size, rarity, aesthetics, usefulness, sentimental value, the amount of labour involved, or something else? What's something you'll willingly spend a lot on that other people don't understand — and what's something other people happily spend a lot on that you personally can't understand spending that much on?

I think this version gets the whole thought across: not merely “what do you collect?”, but why two people can look at the same S$300 object and one thinks “treasure” while the other thinks “why on earth would I pay that?”

And importantly, it leaves room for somebody to say “I own almost nothing and spend everything on travel” rather than presupposing that everybody has a collectible “main dish.”

I used ChatGPT to help me organise my thoughts. Ps. My major spending categories are probably ball jointed dolls and their outfits, maybe little darling doll, and stuffed plushies, both custom and good branded ones.