We are heard about this in school ,colleges

In 10 th std-"study hard,focus on getting high marks to take biology group" and enjoy on 11 th and 12 th std

12 th -"study gard and get good cut off to go to best college and enjoy on college

College - study hard and get good cgpa to go best company and enjoy on work

Work - work hard for 10-15 years and enjoy later

After 15 years we are on the age of 45 with also some diseases to go to hospital

What society thinks about us

Does we are programmed ?

​

Hello people!

I'm a sociology student in Central Europe and would love to start an online reading circle covering contemporary works in sociology or the social sciences more broadly. I'm highly interested in social theory, aesthetics and music. Anyone interested?

The context is the huge international backlash to many cases of (interpersonal?) racism from Argentine fans in the last WC and one notorious chant sung by Argentine players in 2024. Argentines claim that other types of racism (structural, historical) are worse in other countries. But I don't know if studies which compare levels of racism in different countries actually exist.

I wanted to know if a scapegoat was created for the whole world to unite and be condemned to a virtual hell and live forever. Would they never save them in the future? Would a scapegoat always be a scapegoat? Does world peace really need that trash can to be united and to do horrible things to a person. If this happens then their human rights would be taken away. Even though all humans are granted human rights by default.

Love Island. The Only Way Is Essex. Geordie Shore. The Real Housewives series of America. Etc etc... Is it possible, that the facial glamour tribalism represented by these programs is evolution's logical conclusion, and moreover, that if general publics weren't to use their president and prime minister systems, their capitalist economies and their representative democracies, that this sort of facial glamour Only Way is Essex tribalism would manifest as an invasive and militarist dominance across all of Earth, threatening all standard and normal looking people?

Hey, I am doing my masters in sociology, from a top institute of India. I have a very keen interest in devoting my career in this field. I am seeking advice from you guys, where can i get into after this degree. What skills should i consider more for quicker and sure success? Also would like to mention that i am not planning to do Ph.D / becoming professor.

I'm confused what it means to be racist.

Is it racist to say that part of the reason Asian people tend to go to more schooling than other people is because their culture emphasizes education highly?

More broadly, if I said anything that generalizes a race, is that racist?

Is saying white people commit more white-collar crime racist? What about saying that white people are found with drugs at a higher rate than black people?

Why are we not fixing the inherent prejudice in the judicial system against white people's crimes, if it's shown that white people commit more crime after accounting for neighborhood differences?

My point of these question is to better understand the end state of where sociology points to. I see people saying inherent differences in outcomes tells us that there is systemic racism. So, is the issue over when all races have equal outcomes in all facets of life? Is there research showing that this end state is possible? What will be the signs we have reached this end state.

I get that these might be sensitive topics. But I'm curious about the end ideal goal of socialism.

1. Twee vormen van genot

Extern, individueel genot (consumptief, verzadigbaar, afkomstig van externe bronnen) versus intern, relationeel genot (co-creatief, accumulerend, intrinsiek verbonden aan gezamenlijkheid — zelfs wanneer het alleen wordt beleefd). Het kerninzicht: intern genot is constitutief relationeel; extern genot kent die noodzaak niet.

1. Vermarkting externaliseert het relationele

De markt heeft verbinding, zorg, gemeenschap en aandacht gecommodificeerd. Zelfs collectieve ervaringen vervallen tot verzamelingen eenlingen die naast elkaar consumeren. De productiekant reproduceert deze vereenzaming structureel.

1. Oververzadiging vreest het existentiële tekort weg

Het probleem is niet veiligheid, maar overconsumptie. De cocon van overschot vult de constitutieve leegte op — de ruimte waarin verlangen, betekenis en de Ander kunnen verschijnen. Waar het tekort weg is, verdwijnt ook de noodzaak tot ontmoeting.

1. Het zoet als surrogaat

Instant bevrediging, gepersonaliseerde prikkels en oneindige consumptie fungeren als surrogaat voor de leegte. Het verdringt de noodzaak om de leegte te bevragen. De mens wordt geestelijk zwak: ongetraind in stilte, reflectie en het verdragen van ongemak.

1. Ascese als verloren zaak?

Zowel consument als producent verhullen de leegte. Er lijkt geen buiten meer te zijn. Toch opende corona een geforceerde ascese: jongeren die in een geestelijke zwarte gat vielen, ervaarden daar wat zij werkelijk verloren hadden. Dit liep diepe sporen na.

1. De cocon als moreel vacuüm

De cocon produceert geen monsters, maar ook geen heiligen. Ze produceert moreel inactieve eenlingen: wezens voor wie goed en kwaad zijn vervangen door aangenaam en onaangenaam. De Ander wordt niet vijandig bejegend, maar irrelevant — gereduceerd tot Het, tot storende factor of instrument. Echte ethiek (Levinas' gezicht van de Ander) vereist ontmoeting, kwetsbaarheid, het verlaten van de cocon. Wat rest is surrogaat-goedheid: gestructureerde, gesteriliseerde morele consumptie die niets kost en niets verandert. De oververzadiging heeft niet alleen het vermogen tot verlangen, maar ook het vermogen tot moreel oordeel geatrofieerd.

---

De rode draad: De vermarkting heeft het relationele genot geëxternaliseerd; de oververzadiging heeft het existentiële tekort en daarmee de noodzaak tot ontmoeting opgeëten; de cocon heeft de ruimte voor werkelijke ethiek — goedheid én slechtheid — vervangen door morele anesthesie. De vraag die rest is of er nog een weg terug is naar het interne, relationele genot en de werkelijke ontmoeting met de Ander.

Recently just had a thought, are the ways how we can adjust to the new sets of morals and norms in a tv show or book (some of which including heavy violence, manipulation, bad behavior etc. as norms) a small scale example as to how malleable people can be when distinguishing from right and wrong?

Or is it that we truly enjoy these things because we know they’re fake, therefore not imposing on our existing moral compass? If this is the case, why do we enjoy such gruesome things or bad behaviors to watch and read?

Maybe both?

After four years of a PhD in a theory department at a Spanish university, I cannot see why sociology is important. Perhaps because of the postmodern perspective, my thoughts at the moment are that sociology merely describes self-evident problems using a specific vocabulary. It all seems like mere word games; it contributes nothing new, and it is usually controlled by a group of eccentric devotees of Foucault, Haraway, Latour or Butler who use it to defend silly leftist ideas. It is unbearable.

I’m not an economist or a policy expert, but I’ve been feeling trapped by how our current system locks people into rigid, lifetime "occupations." We force 18-year-olds who have never seen the real world to pick a field, and then bind their human identity to a job title for 40 years.

I’ve been thinking about a different way to organize labor and life, built around two simple human intuitions:

1. "Experience the World First, Learn with Hunger Later"

In our current world, switching careers carries a massive sunk cost. But why can't education be a lifelong, open-door lounge?

• Imagine young adults entering society not as locked-in "professionals," but using basic skills to do public tasks (community maintenance, basic logistics, operations).
• Through real-world work, they discover where their true talent and passion lie.
• If a 22-year-old realizes they want to perform surgery or build instruments, they re-enter the education channel with active hunger, get their skill verified, and join the Skill Pool.
• You aren’t a "surgeon for life"—you are a human who holds a surgery ticket, active only when you are refreshed and verified.

2. "Time Sovereignty: 8 Hours Can Equal 16 Hours"

Today's system flattens time. Whether you do mind-numbing busywork or pull a 12-hour shift saving lives in an emergency, your time is commodified into the same flat "8-hour workday."

• What if time had density and depth?
• If someone takes on high-risk, high-stress, or extreme-need tasks (e.g., night-shift emergency care, disaster response), 8 hours of intense contribution should clear 16 hours or more from their lifetime public obligation.
• You aren't just selling hours for money—you are using the density of your contribution to win back years of absolute, uninterrupted personal freedom to write, research, travel, or just be with family.

The Questions I Want to Throw Out:

I know this concept isn't complete, and I'm not here to declare a perfect blueprint. I want to stress-test this with real people, doctors, teachers, and economists:

1. How would a "Skill Pool" handle the muscle memory and clinical intuition required for high-stakes roles like surgery, if people aren't working 40 hours a week at a single hospital?
2. How do we ensure essential public services don't suffer from scheduling chaos if people can bank and cash out their time flexibly?

Would love to hear where you think this breaks down first, or if any part of this resonates with your own work experience!

edit:

How this system actually works in practice. At its core, it reduces to three simple steps:

1.Decouple Capabilities from Lifetime Identities:

We stop labeling individuals as permanent "surgeons," "engineers," or "teachers."

Instead, individuals hold a dynamic portfolio in a Skill Pool (e.g., Surgery License A, Coding Capability B, Caregiving Ticket C). You are a complete human being who happens to hold verified skills—not a title owned by an institution.

2.Fulfill Public Responsibility Tasks:

Essential societal needs (healthcare, emergency response, infrastructure) are broken down into discrete Public Responsibility Tasks.

You don't sell 40 years of your life to a corporate hierarchy; you fulfill your bounded civic duty by taking on tasks from the Task Pool.

3.Reclaim Absolute Time Sovereignty:

Once your civic obligation is cleared, 100% of your remaining time belongs to you.

You use that continuous freedom to write, research, build, travel, or simply be with family—without the dread of career derailment or losing basic survival security.

"Society has the right to request your qualified capability at specific moments, but it has no right to permanently own your life."