this post was submitted on 05 May 2025
1465 points (98.1% liked)

Microblog Memes

7583 readers
3045 users here now

A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.

Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.

Rules:

  1. Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
  2. Be nice.
  3. No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
  4. Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.

Related communities:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

SOURCE - https://brightwanderer.tumblr.com/post/681806049845608448

Alt-text:
I think a lot about how we as a culture have turned “forever” into the only acceptable definition of success.

Like... if you open a coffee shop and run it for a while and it makes you happy but then stuff gets too expensive and stressful and you want to do something else so you close it, it’s a “failed” business. If you write a book or two, then decide that you don’t actually want to keep doing that, you're a “failed” writer. If you marry someone, and that marriage is good for a while, and then stops working and you get divorced, it’s a “failed” marriage.

The only acceptable “win condition” is “you keep doing that thing forever”. A friendship that lasts for a few years but then its time is done and you move on is considered less valuable or not a “real” friendship. A hobby that you do for a while and then are done with is a “phase” - or, alternatively, a “pity” that you don’t do that thing any more. A fandom is “dying” because people have had a lot of fun with it but are now moving on to other things.

| just think that something can be good, and also end, and that thing was still good. And it’s okay to be sad that it ended, too. But the idea that anything that ends is automatically less than this hypothetical eternal state of success... I don’t think that’s doing us any good at all.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] medgremlin@midwest.social 31 points 3 days ago (3 children)

Working in medicine, especially emergency medicine, I have to hold on to this kind of mindset very tightly. I see death frequently. I have had infants die in my care, and there is nothing I could have done to save them. I have had frail, miserable, elderly people in my care that have been kept alive through titanic and terrible measures, and their lives would have been so much better overall if they had been allowed to pass peacefully a few years earlier.

I saw another post yesterday about the old and infirm lying in nursing homes, staring at the ceiling, coding, then being dragged back to life by the heroic efforts of the staff and the ER....just to go back to staring at the ceiling for another year.

It seems counterintuitive as a physician (in training), particularly in emergency medicine where our whole job is to steal from the reaper, to advocate for sooner, more peaceful, more autonomous deaths. I have always been a proponent of physician-assisted suicide because I have seen too many people whose lives would have been better if they had been shorter.

[–] AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world 20 points 3 days ago (1 children)

saw another post yesterday about the old and infirm lying in nursing homes, staring at the ceiling, coding, then being dragged back to life by the heroic efforts of the staff and the ER....just to go back to staring at the ceiling for another year.

That explains a lot about the state of software these days.

[–] medgremlin@midwest.social 9 points 2 days ago

I believe you are making a joke, but I realize that I should explain the terminology.

Someone "coding" means that their heart or breathing stopped and "calling a code" means getting all the relevant equipment and personnel to do CPR to make them not dead anymore. (CPR is quite literally necromancy and you cannot convince me otherwise.)

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] SkyezOpen@lemmy.world 107 points 4 days ago (15 children)

Agree with most of these I guess, but marriage specifically is the one thing that's intended to be forever. Til death do us part and all that jazz.

[–] RadicalEagle@lemmy.world 64 points 4 days ago

There’s nothing wrong with forever, but it shouldn’t be some sort of “standard” we hold everything to.

[–] minnow@lemmy.world 53 points 4 days ago

The "death do us part" thing is a tradition, but marriage is a legal status. Not everyone is going to follow that tradition, and surely you wouldn't argue this ought to bar them from the legal status

[–] TheBluePillock@lemmy.world 40 points 4 days ago (12 children)

I think it definitely applies to relationships. It does you and any of your partners a disservice to say your relationship was only a success if one of you died.

A person isn't a thing you possess. They have needs that grow and change with them. If those needs ever stop being compatible with the relationship, then the relationship should end. That's not failure. It's wanting the person you love to be happy.

load more comments (12 replies)
[–] AFKBRBChocolate@lemmy.world 26 points 3 days ago (10 children)

My wife just moved out after 30 years of marriage, and it sure feels like a failure to me. Maybe some people get to the point where it's not working, and they aren't invested in the marriage so much that walking away is painful. I think most people would say they shouldn't have been married if they weren't that invested in making it work though.

A lot of people have suggested that we should have marriage contracts that have a renewable time limit. Like, "Hey, let's get married for ten years and see how that goes." I could see that being a good thing, but I also think it's fundamentally a different mindset than the traditional expectation of forever.

load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments (11 replies)
[–] Ironfist79@lemmy.world 11 points 2 days ago

Very good perspective and this is actually similar to some of the ideas of Buddhism. Everything in this life is temporary, enjoy it while it lasts.

[–] theacharnian@lemmy.ca 11 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

At the hill's foot foot Frodo found Aragorn, standing still and silent as a tree; but in his hand was a small golden bloom of elanor, and a light was in his eyes. He was wrapped in some fair memory: and as Frodo looked at him he knew that he beheld things as they once had been in this same place. For the grim years were removed from the face of Aragorn, and he seemed clothed in white, a young lord tall and fair; and he spoke words in the Elvish tongue to one whom Frodo would not see. Arwen vanimelda, namarië! he said, and then he drew a breath, and returning out of his thought he looked at Frodo and smiled.

'Here is the heart of Elvendom on earth,' he said, 'and here my heart dwells ever, unless there be a light beyond the dark roads that we still must tread, you and I. Come with me!' And taking Frodo's hand in his, he left the hill of Cerin Amroth and came there never again as living man.

J.R.R. Tolkien, The Lord of The Rings, The Fellowship of the Ring, Book 2, last paragraph of Chapter VI: Lothlórien. I bolded the last 8 words.

Aragorn knows to let go, while deeply, profoundly, cherishing what was. Be like Aragorn.

[–] HappySkullsplitter@lemmy.world 71 points 4 days ago
[–] moakley@lemmy.world 60 points 4 days ago (8 children)

Reminds me of last week when everyone was talking about how Bluesky is worthless because it's just going to go the way of Twitter. And I'm like, Twitter was a good thing for like 15 years.

If Bluesky follows that same pattern, great.

[–] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago

I don't like the pattern of having to pay a search cost, then finally getting everything set up, and then they gradually enshittify until the process repeats. I'd rather just have stable infrastructure, like email.

[–] AnarchistArtificer@slrpnk.net 37 points 3 days ago (7 children)

I feel an adjacent thing about Lemmy — The conversations I most value are ones I used to have on Reddit, but dwindled over the years, as Reddit discourse degraded. Something that's notable is that, on Reddit, the last bastions of meaningful discussion were the little niche subs, indicating that quality of discussion may be inversely correlated with the size of a community.

The federated nature of Lemmy makes it far more resistant to Reddit's fate, but I still feel a sense of inevitability that there is a timer on how long this can last. (Speaking as an aging punk), it reminds me of what happened to Punk: it went mainstream, and thus less punk. Some people have the instinct of gatekeeping a thing to preserve it, but everything needs fresh blood, and some of the people who discover punk via the mainstream are have a heart as punk as anyone I've met — we can't exclude the masses of "normies" without excluding these people too. In the end, I see that punk is probably dead, but the "true punk spirit" is alive and well, having moved into spaces that were less visible to the mainstream. Similarly, I expect that I'll always be able to find online clusters of cool nerds to have meaningful conversations with, because even if Lemmy dies a slow death, they will find (or build) a new space.

Ultimately, the inevitable temporariness of Lemmy (and other platforms like Bluesky) is quite a beautiful thing for me, because it forces me to be more mindful of the moment I'm in, and how, despite the world being shit in many ways, here is something that I am really glad I get to be a part of

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] Mr_Dr_Oink@lemmy.world 15 points 3 days ago (1 children)

This translates to tv shows too to prove the point.

Tv shows that only have a few seasons that are high quality start to finish are so much better than tv shows that go on and on and on and on.

For example, the simpsons, whilst an excellent show, should have ended many seasons ago. It's 30 odd seasons in, and it's stale. It's a little funnier recently, but i dont think it will ever be as big as it was.

I would consider it a failed show now but a successful show back when it was popular.

So it's pretty much proof of the point that forever is not the definition of success.

[–] derpgon@programming.dev 9 points 3 days ago (5 children)

Open ended and no another season planned? Fuck em.

Great TV show that ended well? Sign me up.

This post wasn't sponsored by Good Place (seriously, go watch it, and watch The Selection right after).

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] jcs@lemmy.world 17 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Don't be afraid to enter the water knowing that you are not going to swim forever.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 10 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

I think the fear isn't simply exiting the pool, its drowning.

The "coffee shop" analogy breaks down when you look at the before - assuming debt, developing skills, building business relationships - and after - owing more than you earn, filling for bankruptcy, hemorrhaging staff, going back to being a wage earner rather than an owner-operator.

Same with marriage. You get older and slower and tireder, you have this shared history that doesn't exist between anyone else, you have shared assets that can't easily be divided up, you have a shared family.

These aren't just whims, they're economic events and deeply psychological ones, too. Bad ones. They are describing a material decline in your quality of life.

Yeah, the fixation on nostalgia and fandoms is bad for us as a society. No, you shouldn't feel leashed to your hobbies... or your job or your relationships. But there's also feelings of stability and reliability and security that comes with an enduring institution in your life. Knowing you can substitute experience for raw energy and you don't have to relearn a trade or another person or rules to a new game from scratch has value. It pays dividends.

You don't want to get into the water and find out you need to relearn how to swim. Especially when you've so far from shore.

[–] Hupf@feddit.org 18 points 3 days ago (12 children)

About marriage: the whole concept reside in the mutual promise of a "forever after". If that's not your thing, totally fine. But then you wouldn't engage in it in the first place? In that sense, the marriage would indeed have failed (to deliver on its core premise).

[–] KombatWombat@lemmy.world 6 points 3 days ago

Putting aside an afterlife, common wedding vows have "for better, for worse, ... in sickness and in health, until death do us part." So at least for people using those vows, they are committing to stay together until one of them dies. A divorce would mean a failure to follow through with that commitment.

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] magnetosphere@fedia.io 51 points 4 days ago (15 children)

This reminds me of a friend who opened a bakery. The business was successful, and the food was good, but she decided to give it up after a few years when she and her husband started a family.

I don’t consider that a “failure” by any definition. For her, it was a great experience that had run its course.

load more comments (15 replies)
[–] Default_Defect@midwest.social 4 points 2 days ago

We also don't need to see failure as a wholly bad thing. If your hypothetical business closes down because you couldn't afford to keep it open, it DID fail, but if it ended up making your mental health better to not have all that stress, then it lead to a good thing.

Maybe I'm too realist and literal.

[–] Kolanaki@pawb.social 25 points 3 days ago

Happily Ever After only exists if you happen to die at the happiest moment of your life.

[–] Whelks_chance@lemmy.world 43 points 4 days ago (9 children)

Isn't this more about things falling apart when the person wanted to continue doing it? If I want to run a shop but it doesn't work financially, then my plan has failed.

[–] AFKBRBChocolate@lemmy.world 21 points 3 days ago

Yeah, I think you're right here: it's all about intent. If someone starts a business, it does well, but then they end it because they want to do something else, is not a failure. If they wanted the business to keep going, but people weren't buying enough of their product to keep the doors open, that's a failure.

You could do the same with any of the examples. It's not a failure if the people are happy to stop or it lasted as long as could reasonably be expected, but if it ends before the people wanted it to, that's a failure. The rocket that lifts its payload to orbit, then shuts off and falls back to earth is a success. But no one says "Well, the rocket ran great halfway to the planned orbit, so even though it and the payload fell back to earth, it was successful."

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca 6 points 2 days ago (3 children)

This is actually rather poignant.

By this standard, "successful" companies simply haven't failed yet.

It's standard that in human experience, we will fail at things. It happens, it happens often, and it will continue to happen. Failing at something is the first step. Without failure, how would we ever know how to "succeed"?

This doesn't, and shouldn't, imply that we are bad at a thing, or that we can't become good at it, or that we should give up and stop trying. It also doesn't and shouldn't imply that we should continue to try. "Failure" is just an outcome, whether that is good or bad is entirely up to the viewer to decide.

I would argue that failure is simply a mental/social concept. Things simply happen. "Success" or "failure" is entirely dependent on those who had some interest in what specifically happened. Even if you're trying to achieve a specific outcome, whether you do or not is entirely inconsequential. You tried to achieve an outcome by doing x, y, or z, and then a, b, and c occurred. Whether a, b, and c are the outcome that was desired or not is not a consequence that the universe cares about.

So much of this is simply social constructs.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] VampirePenguin@midwest.social 18 points 3 days ago (4 children)

A core Buddhist concept is impermanence, the idea of constant change in our world, and letting go of fixed ideas and outcomes.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] exasperation@lemm.ee 28 points 4 days ago (4 children)

we as a culture have turned “forever” into the only acceptable definition of success.

I really don't agree with the premise, and would encourage others to reject that worldview if it starts creeping into how they think about things.

In the sports world, everything is always changing, and careers are very short. But what people do will be recorded forever, so those snapshots in time are part of one's legacy after they're done with their careers. We can look back fondly at certain athletes or coaches or specific games or plays, even if (or especially if) that was just a particular moment in time that the sport has since moved on from. Longevity is regarded as valuable, and maybe relevant to greatness in the sport, but it is by no means necessary or even expected. Michael Jordan isn't a failed basketball player just because he wasn't able to stay in the league, or even that his last few years in the league weren't as legendary as his prime years. Barry Sanders isn't a failed American football player just because he retired young, either.

Same with entertainment. Nobody really treats past stars as "failed" artists.

If you write a book or two, then decide that you don’t actually want to keep doing that, you're a “failed” writer.

That is a foreign concept to me, and I question the extent to which this happens. I don't know anyone who treats these authors (or actors or directors or musicians) as failures, just because they've moved onto something else. Take, for example, young actors who just don't continue in the career. Jack Gleeson, famous for playing Joffrey in the Game of Thrones series, is an actor who took a hiatus, might not come back to full time acting. And that's fine, and it doesn't take away from his amazing performance in that role.

The circumstances of how things end matter. Sometimes the ending actually does indicate failure. But ending, in itself, doesn't change the value of that thing's run when it was going on.

| just think that something can be good, and also end, and that thing was still good.

Exactly. I would think that most people agree, and question the extent to which people feel that the culture values permanence. If anything, I'd argue that modern culture values the opposite, that we tend to want new things always changing, with new fresh faces and trends taking over for the old guard.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] DicJacobus@lemmy.world 7 points 3 days ago

"If you're not growing. You're dying "

[–] Etterra@discuss.online 22 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Seems to me a logical extension from our capitalist (line must go up) and Christian (stay in line or go to hell) cultural shit pile of a country.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] ApollosCreed@lemmy.dbzer0.com 21 points 3 days ago

The best definition of success I heard was from Earl Nightingale -

Success is the progressive realization of a worthwhile goal.

Doing something because you want to do it--and it betters yourself, your family, or your community--makes you successful.

[–] DrFistington@lemmy.world 28 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Yup. And god forbid you start a small business that's successful and decide to pay your employees a good wage and set aside a fair amount of profit for yourself. That's loser talk. You need to go public or sell the business for a giant payout at the expense of your employees, and then you have to keep making more money every year for shareholders, or else they'll consider you a failure and jump ship

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Rooskie91@discuss.online 27 points 4 days ago (7 children)

Idk, being sad about and grappling with the impermanent nature of things is kinda a fundamental part of being human.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] Echolynx@lemmy.zip 8 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

I do think it betrays society's lack of present-focused mindfulness. I've had a handful of friendships that I thought would go on to be quite strong and longlasting, but they fizzled out after a while. That's not to say they were bad or failed friendships. I'm grateful for the time I experienced with them.

[–] trslim@pawb.social 6 points 3 days ago

"Something isn's beautiful because it lasts forever." - some robot

[–] piefood@feddit.online 18 points 3 days ago

This reminds me of Sand Mandala

Once complete, the sand mandala's ritualistic dismantling is accompanied by ceremonies and viewing to symbolize Buddhist doctrinal belief in the transitory nature of material life.

load more comments
view more: next ›