u/paras_nimi and u/tankpotential9306 are in band practice booping eachother on the nose and telling eachother "I love you"
(paras commented this 42 days ago)

Hello. I've been talking to this guy for a few months now. I really like him but I'm scared to give him a chance. We haven't met yet because I've had horrible relationships in the past and 9 months ago I lost my dad and I'n scared to let any man into my life. He's been very passionate and patient with me and he's the first man that brought calmness into my life. He always wants to talk on the phone and text less because according to him you can't form a healthy connection and can judge emotions differently thru text than what they truly are. Now my concern is that he's divorced and has a daughter. The previous wife cheated on him multiple times and lied and even physicaly abused him. I do not have an issues that with that I'm just scared that he will use me just like the ones before, especially because I'm younger. If anyone could give me any advice on this I'd apprrciate it. Thank u

As-salaamu alaykum,
This is my first Reddit post and I am new to this subreddit community.
I am seeking your advice regarding my role in the rebuilding process for Gaza and the long-term outlook. Please direct me to the relevant subreddit if applicable.
When Palestine is free, inshaAllah I want to go to Gaza, and spend time physically rebuilding and helping in any way I can. If I couldn’t help much in preventing the genocide, at least I could go to alleviate their situation.
About me: I’m a fairly recent college grad who studied computer science. No related work experience yet but I am looking into a career in healthcare tech, and possibly even a Masters in Public Health. I also have a background in Islamic studies and have a passion for community work (youth group coordination, teaching/tutoring kids, etc).
I wonder how I could use my skillset to alleviate the aftermath of this humanitarian crisis and help uplift the people? And any suggestions for organizations I could join for this work? As of now, I’m open to both short-term and long-term opportunities.
I am open to any career advice as well. I know for sure that physicians/medical staff, engineers, educators, etc. will be needed, but from a long-term perspective, what other careers/skills (related to my background) would be needed to rebuild a city and society?
And once I’m back in the US, inshaAllah, I want to continue caring for underserved populations and combat injustice built into our societal systems (through my work and/or individual activism), so this would all be related experience for me.
Appreciate any advice from this community. JazakAllahu khayran!

freepalestine 🇵🇸🇵🇸🇵🇸

Rn I’m studying for my literature essay but am desperately looking for a distraction.. I’m into music rn I’ve been listening to billie eilish’s new album and bitches brew by miles Davis but I’ll happily rant to u about all the other music I like. Or just about anything I’m truly an open book - as long as you’re not super old and creepy :p

Bitcoin dipped on Friday, giving back some of the gains from the last two days. Federal Reserve officials issued warnings that cooled hopes for interest rate cuts this year.
Bitcoin stayed in a tight $60,000 to $70,000 range for the past two months, lacking catalysts due to weak capital flows and low risk appetite.
By 01:30 ET (05:30 GMT), Bitcoin was down 0.5% at $65,473.3.
Despite the rangebound trading, Bitcoin saw strong gains over the past week, recovering from a dip to $60,000 last Friday. The token was up around 8% from those lows, mainly due to a weaker dollar and signs of easing U.S. inflation.
Traders began betting on a higher chance of Fed rate cuts in September, which is good news for speculative assets like Bitcoin and other cryptos. But Friday's enthusiasm waned after several Fed officials said they needed more evidence of decreasing inflation before committing to rate cuts.
Their comments led to a sharp dollar recovery and stalled rallies in most risk-driven assets.

First off I wanna say I can provide the receipt and pictures of the box for anyone who'll assume it's stolen as it's valid assumption to make.
So my sister just found her old iPad mini again and wants my help unlocking it even though she's reached the password attempts limit.
I've been using apple products long enough to know there's no way to keep the data without a backup but she sent me this which gave me a bit of hope, anyone know how I can recreate it at home? I live in a third world country and sending the iPad to the guy in the video isn't an option.

before all the comments come with you should've thought about your actions just keep scrolling i got a shoplifting charge at 13 i got told my record would clear at 16, im now 16 and was lied to about it being cleared and can't get a job because of it. if anyone else was in this situation what did you do to and did u manage to get a job.

First off I wanna say I can provide the receipt and pictures of the box for anyone who'll assume it's stolen as it's valid assumption to make.
So my sister just found her old iPad mini again and wants my help unlocking it even though she's reached the password attempts limit.
I've been using apple products long enough to know there's no way to keep the data without a backup but she sent me this which gave me a bit of hope, anyone know how I can recreate it at home? I live in a third world country and sending the iPad to the guy in the video isn't an option.

Honor Violence: And why nobody should demand respect

Honor violence is a sort of violence committed where the perpetrator's goal is to regain his tribe's honor, his family's honor, and his own honor. In most cases it’s planned by a family, and committed by one or more men of that family, to a woman of the family who has done or suspected to have done something against cultural or religious norms like rejecting an arranged marriage, or adopting a Western lifestyle. What's worse is that the family helps the perpetrators avoid justice by helping them flee the country. It’s a huge problem in Islamic communities[1], among others, and it’s something that doesn’t exist at all in so many other communities.
Now before I talk about the kind of thinking that is causing these behaviors, I want to clarify some things. First of all, Islam, at least according to the Quran, does not advocate honor violence. Second, honor violence is a tradition that existed in the deserts of today's Saudi Arabia long before Islam. Third, Arab Muslims spread Islam along with their traditions (including honor violence) to a huge proportion of the world (although, I don't doubt that other cultures already had the tradition of honor violence).
What kind of thinking causes a person to commit honor violence?
There are three flaws to discuss here. The main flaw is violent intolerance of dissenters -- the idea that it's best for a person to initiate violence on another person because he has dissenting ideas or actions. A second flaw is the idea that a person's social status is important and should be sought after and preserved. And a third flaw is that a person's social status should be, in any way, linked with his family's, and tribe's social status. An important thing to note here is that these flaws are connected. To clarify, I'm not talking about which flaw is more or less to blame for a person committing honor violence. What I'm talking about is that all of these flaws must be there, in order for a person to think it's best for him to commit honor violence (i.e. for him to want to commit honor violence).
The least bad of these flaws can be explained by answering the question, why do some people care about having respect from their peers? What's the point of it? What problem is it intended to solve? One way to approach this problem is to think about why some people get offended. Consider that when somebody perceives that he has been disrespected, he gets offended, and he may respond in a way to regain respect.
Fallibility and first impressions
One problem with thinking in terms of being respected, is that people are often wrong in their interpretations of other people’s actions and intentions. Often people perceive that they’ve been disrespected, when the person had no intention of disrespecting anybody. Most of the time it’s a case of jumping to conclusions. In other words, the person is not thinking terms of innocent until proven guilty. The thing is that we’re all fallible, meaning that it’s possible, and very common, that we are wrong about our ideas. But a lot of people are not familiar with the idea of checking for other possible interpretations and critically questioning them as a means of avoiding jumping to conclusions, as a means of finding the correct interpretation.
One common first interpretation that people make is that someone wants to hurt them, or to make them lose in some way. But this is a bad way to think about people’s actions because some people don’t want to hurt anyone or make anyone lose anything. So assuming that there is always malicious intent is a mistake because it ignores all the cases where there isn’t malicious intent. So it's not giving the person the benefit of the doubt.
This way of thinking, of always assuming that there is malicious intent, sees human interactions as win/lose. But this is a mistake. It’s entirely possible, and desirable, for human interactions to be win/win, for everybody to get what they want and nobody loses anything they want -- there is no law of nature preventing it from happening.[2] This is a special case of the idea that 'all problems are soluble'.[3]
So the better way to think about human interactions is that win/win situations are possible, where the people involved share the same primary goal of everybody winning, of everybody getting what they want. Now it is true that sometimes a person is trying to make you lose something, or otherwise hurt you, so it’s important to try to look out for this as a means of protecting yourself from harm.
One common misinterpretation people make is to treat a criticism of an idea or an action as a personal attack. But this is a mistake because a criticism is an explanation of a flaw in an idea, so criticizing the idea does not make the holder of the idea lose anything. In fact, criticism helps a person go from wrong to right. It helps him change his mind. It helps him find the truth, which is a great thing! So why perceive it as an attack? The person loses nothing. He only stands to gain (the truth!).
So consider a situation where you're presented with a criticism of your idea. If you agree with it, you stand to gain the truth, and if you disagree with it, you stand to lose nothing. So with criticism you have everything to gain and nothing to lose. So giving and receiving criticism is win/win.
Some common responses people make to criticism is to say "that hurts my feelings," "I'm offended by that," and "that's insulting!" These people respond in this way to communicate that the other person is wrong in some way. But that's not a valid argument -- it's not objective. A person's feelings can't be used as a standard for judging the truth. What's needed is an explanation, one that doesn't depend on a person's feelings. And on a related note, if your feelings are hurt by the truth, then what you can do is ignore the truth (not something I advise), or you can change your feelings about the truth. But what you shouldn't be doing is pressuring people to hide the truth.
Now some people mistake personal attacks for criticism. But calling somebody stupid because he believes an idea does not constitute a criticism. It’s not an explanation of a flaw in an idea. Instead it's an attack on the holder of the idea. And it’s designed for only one purpose, to hurt. People who make personal attacks instead of arguments see human interactions as win/lose. And this is where the idea of respect comes in. The personal attacks are about disrespecting the person. But why would anybody want to do that? What’s the point? What problem does it solve?
Truth-seeking vs Status-seeking
Something closely connected to the win/lose attitude is the status-seeking attitude. People with this attitude think in terms of people having social status, and getting more of it, or keeping the amount they currently have, is something they want. So if a person with the status-seeking attitude tries to disrespect another person, they perceive it as raising their own status while necessarily lowering the other person’s status, hence win/lose. The rest of us, who see human interaction as win/win, see the world in terms of truth. We are truth-seekers instead of status-seekers. We seek cooperative interactions instead of adversarial ones.
To get a better understanding of the difference between truth-seeking and status-seeking, let's consider how they differ in the way they work. Status-based thinking means judging ideas by figuring out how much status the ideas have. In contrast, truth-based thinking means judging ideas by their merit. As I explained in _Atheism: The faith of intellectuals?_, judging ideas by status means believing ideas by looking for confirmation, while judging by merit means believing ideas only after they have survived all known criticism.
As an example, imagine a guy hearing that somebody said something that he perceived as an insult to his parent, and he felt hurt by it. This means he's thinking with the status-seeking attitude instead of the truth-seeking attitude. So he is caring about having social status, and one extra flaw is that he thinks his social status is connected to the status of his parents. And so if he perceives that somebody has insulted his parent, he perceives this as a lowering of his parent’s status, which he also perceives as his own status being lowered. So he is hurt (feels disrespected) by this. He thinks that the "insulter" intentionally did it to try to hurt him, or otherwise make him lose something. But it's a mistake to make such an assumption because the "insulter" may have had no such intention -- maybe he was a truth-seeker not a status-seeker. The truth-seeking attitude does not cause this problem. A truth-seeker thinks like this: "Hmm. Somebody has said something bad about my mom. I wonder if the thing he said is truthful, or not. If it’s truthful, then my mom is bad, and I should talk to her about fixing her error so that she can improve, so I'm glad that he said it because it revealed an opportunity to improve, YAY!! And if it’s not truthful, then maybe this guy is a fool and I don't care what fools think, or maybe he's just mistaken so there's no reason to mind it because mistakes are common." So the truth-seeking attitude doesn’t produce the feeling of being insulted/disrespected. Only the status-seeking attitude does that.
The status-based attitude is one that is shared by many cultures. In gang culture, individuals each have an amount of status that they intend to keep. For this reason, if a gang member perceives that somebody has disrespected him, he sees this as his status being lowered while the other guy’s status being raised. And in an effort to regain his status, he may retaliate with physical violence. So here the gang member is committing two flaws -- demanding respect, and violent intolerance of dissenters.
There are lots of other examples of this. In tribal cultures, an individual’s status is partly determined by how much status his tribe has. For this reason, if a tribesman perceives that somebody has disrespected a member of his tribe, he sees this as his own status being lowered because he sees his tribe’s status being lowered. Now imagine a situation where somebody perceives that the king of his tribe (like Prophet Mohamed) has been disrespected. He would be very offended by this. And if he also has the violent-intolerant attitude too, and if the circumstances were opportune, then he would initiate violence in his misguided attempt to regain respect for his family, and by association, for himself.
Another example is honor violence within a family, or community. If a man thinks that his status is lowered if his daughter does something against his community’s religious norms, and if he also has the violent-intolerant attitude, then he may initiate violence if she commits such an act, as a means to preserve his family's status in the community, and by association, his own status. I should clarify that what usually happens is the family plans this together, where one person does the murder, and then the family helps him avoid the police, say by helping him leave the country.
What's interesting about the status-based idea is that it denies that respect should be earned. A person thinking like this may be in the wrong, and know it, and still demand to be treated as though he is in the right. Street thugs do it when they violently demand respect. Authoritative parents do it when they say 'Don't argue with me' to their kids. Some husbands do it when they expect their wives to side with them in social situations even when they are in the wrong. And some Muslim men do it when they commit honor violence.
The status-based attitude rears it’s ugly head in people’s politics too. These people align themselves politically by their tribal origin (status), rather than by their ideas (merit). It’s ugly because it’s not based on the truth, and because it means the person is unwilling to consider changing his mind about his politics -- because you can’t change your tribal origin. Judging ideas by status means that if you find out that you’re wrong, you’re going to deny it and claim that you’re right, and demand respect too. This way of thinking means no possibility of changing your political affiliation even if you were given devastating criticism of your political ideas. In contrast, judging ideas by merit means that you're willing to change your mind if you find out that you’re wrong. And this way of thinking means the possibility of changing your political affiliation.
Another way to describe the truth-seeking and status-seeking attitudes is like this. Truth-seeking means approaching problems as though the person does not yet have the truth, which is why he is seeking the truth. Status-seeking means approaching problems as though the person already has the truth, which is why he isn't seeking the truth, and instead he is seeking confirmation of what he already believes to be true. Note how the truth-seeking attitude accounts for the fact that it's possible one's ideas are in error, while the status-seeking attitude does not account for that fact. So somebody who is applying the status-seeking attitude is acting like he is infallible/omniscient. He's acting like he thinks he's God.
Rational people vs irrational people
Another way to describe the truth-seeking attitude is to describe the people who have it, rational people. As Elliot Temple explained [4]:

So a rational person sees criticism as win/win because it's part of his truth-seeking attitude. So when he gets criticism of his ideas, actions, or feelings, he doesn't interpret it as a personal attack (win/lose) and instead he tries to judge the criticism in order to try to extract value from it. He sees criticism as a good thing because he knows that criticism leads to further evolution of his knowledge. He sees criticism as necessary to improve himself, so he willingly seeks it out and enjoys thinking about it.
As I mentioned before, a common mistake people make is in how they interpret criticism of ideas. They see it as their person being criticized, rather than the idea alone being criticized. They misinterpret this because they consider some of their ideas to be static -- they are attached to them. They consider these ideas to be part of their identity -- something they refuse to even consider changing. And if you criticize one of these ideas they are attached to, since they consider that idea as part of their identify, they interpret your actions as an attack on their person. And in retaliation, they may call you out to be arrogant and condescending, or cuss you out, or initiate violence, as an attack back at you, in their misguided attempt at self-defense.
So the status-based attitude is what causes people to care about honor (i.e. social status). They have an intense desire for status, and it can pervade practically all of their thinking. Now in tribal cultures, another flaw they have aside from this status-seeking attitude, is that a person's social status should be linked to his family and tribe. And in some tribal cultures, especially the ones where Islam is dominant, they have a strong tradition linking their status with the women of their tribe. Now, combine this status-seeking attitude and these other flaws, together with the attitude that it's morally right to initiate violence in response to a dissenter, and what you have is somebody willing to commit honor violence (including honor killings) against his daughters, sisters, and other female members of his community, and on anybody who he perceives to be lowering his status/respect/honor.
On a final note, I should clarify something about the relationship between the individual and the community. It is true that a man who commits honor violence is being pressured by his family to commit the violence as a means of preserving their social status, but whether or not he acts on that pressure, or even feels that pressure, depends on his ideas. Will he care what his family and community thinks? Well, in those communities a lot of the opportunities for a man, like getting married or having a good job, depends on the status of his family and his tribe. So if a woman taints his family's status, and if he doesn't remove that taint by killing her, then he'll lose those opportunities. But so what? He could forego all of those "opportunities" by fleeing the country with his daughter. If he doesn't do that, it's because of his evil ideas. Pressure from society is not a defense! Individuals are responsible for their actions regardless of the "pressures" from their communities.
——————————————————————
[1] _Honor Killings Go Beyond Mere Homocide_, by Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Also see The AHA Foundation on Honor Violence.
[2] See _The Beginning of Infinity_, Chapter 9: Optimism, by David Deutsch.
[3] See _All problems are soluble_, by Elliot Temple. Also see [2].
[4] _Rational People_, by Elliot Temple.
^{Originally published in 2014}

he refuses and suppresses his real preference and covers it with the "i want arab wife" facade. ☝🏻

I just want to confirm what I've experienced is common or not.
So, I play NAE and NAW both, and here are BIGGGGGGGGGGG differences.

1. NAE : high possibly matched with a supp. commonly 4-7mins run. quite a lot cheapos that are not throwing battle items, like u see at least one cheapo in a day or two.
2. NAW : Literally zero supp, met only one supp for last two weeks. ZERO battle item cheapos, kindda feeling that we fail if we are being cheapo, bunch of dark bomb throwers, min 2-3 destros going out at each destruction mech, ppl refill pots multiple times. ppl are being super passive very slow dps, without any carriers, its guaranteed fail or 9~15mins run. 5-7mins run if there is a minimum 35~60% dpsing carrier in a 4 dps party.

How's ur experience? Am I too biased?

I'm not sure how helpful it will be to post here because I think my issue goes far beyond the usual conflicts one might find in a traditional dnd campaign. So before anyone reads this I wants to emphasise that 1. this was my very first dnd campaign and I joined it without any prior knowledge, and 2. this campaign was never intended to be a traditional "we're heroes and trying to save the world while fighting monsters left and right" campaign. I hope this answers any questions along the lines of "Well, why did you create this kind of character in the first place?" and "Why do your characters spend so much time talking about stuff, don't you have some beholders to fight?". I also cannot explain the whole situation without writing a literal 20 page long essay, so I'll try to keep it as short as possible and only give two examples. I'm definitely leaving a lot of details out here, so please let me know if clarifications or futher information is needed.
To preface what this is all about: I was a player in a very roleplay focused campaign and my character basically turned into the problem child of this campaign. I never intended for my character to be the focus, was never interested in him being the focus, but nothing I ever did suceeded in solving the issues at hand and taking the focus away from him. I constantly got accused of "making my character suffer", whereas from my perspective I was constantly trying to keep this character safe from the constant attacks he had to endure. It was like no matter what I did, no matter what I let this character do, it was never right. I think everyone in this group makes an effort to play their characters realistically, I defininitely do. And yet it was never me going "I know exactly what my character has to do to fix this but I'll REFUSE to do it because I don't like it" but me literally having no clue what people wanted from this character. The dm repeatedly said that nothing they tried to fix this character was helping. Whereas from my perspective these things that were supposed to "help" my character were the exact things that my character was struggling with. So it turned into a constant stream of something happening, my character then feeling bad, then everyone focusing on my character feeling bad, then my character trying to fix things, everyone telling him that he's doing it wrong, my character feeling even worse.... and me wondering why my character cannot just exist in peace, why we constantly have to focus on him instead of the "plot". I don't think anyone was interested in constantly discussing my character's mental state, I definitely wasn't interested in doing that, and yet we kept doing it. But I also did not know how to have him react differently to the constant shit getting thrown at him.
______
So, basically:
Around three years ago a friend of mine told me about this new dnd campaign they were starting and asked me to join. I've known this friend for half my life but we never lived close to each other, maintaining loose contact over Twitter and me visisting them every two or three years. I had never played dnd before, which they didn't think would be a problem, calling the campaign "very beginner friendly". The whole point behind this campaign was that both this friend (the dm) and two of the players from the main campaign they were playing wanted to play more regularly, so my friend/dm came up with this campaign which was basically a prequel to that main campaign. That main campaign was a more "traditional" dnd campaign with a quest to save the world and regular combat. Meanwhile this new campaign was supposed to be focused on roleplay. There was no overarching plot or quest and the setting was an arcane school and our characters were supposed to be students at said school, just starting their first semester.
When creating our characters the dm asked us to include at least one character in the backstory that was important for our character, and also an objective for our character, something they wanted to achieve. The character I came up with was a young half-elf wizard specialising in abjuration. The gist of his story was that his parents had been arrested and executed for high treason when he was very young and that he grew up rather isolated with his older brother in a place they were not allowed to leave before coming off age. When my character was 14 he woke up one morning to find his brother gone. He had left him only a cryptic letter, hinting at wanting to find out what had really happened to their parents, telling my character that he was sorry and that he would come back. When his brother had not come back after several months, my character too ran away and made his way to Candlekeep, which he had visited many times with his parents (who had been scholars) as a child. He tried to find answers in Candlekeep and spent the following three years hiding in the library before something prompted him to leave and travel to the aforementioned arcane school in order to study there. His objective was to find out why his parents had to die, what happened to his brother, and adjusting to normal life after years of isolation.
Personality wise this character was supposed to be very kind, very gentle, quite naive, honest, and at the beginning of the campaign rather anxious. My assumption was that after growing up in isolation he would need some time to get acclimatised and would be anxious and overwhelmed in the beginning but would loosen up with time and become more self-confident. Some bad stuff happened early on in the campaign and he reacted to it in a rather not healthy way (withdrawing, refusing to eat, but also not talking about what was going on because he didn't want to put the focus on himself). I messed up here, I realised that later. I assumed the other characters would sit him down and ask him what was going on, leading to some kind of cathartic conversation, my character then revealing his past, and him becoming more confident and positive through it, completely resolving this issue. I didn't realise that introducing these kind of psychological issues into the story would be an issue, simply because I wasn't planning on making it a big thing. I thought it would be realistic for him to react this way and I thought it was something that could easily be resolved. Nowadays I would approach this completely differently: if I were to play this character now I would make this whole "accepting his past, becoming more self-confident and open" thing part of his backstory and would start him off as being confident and in tune with his emotions, instead of trying to quickly get through this development at the start of the campaign. So I think I know what I SHOULD have done to prevent this from escalating. What I am trying to figure out is what I could have done to fix it AFTER realising my mistake. Because we spent months and months trying to resolve this issue and never really got anywhere. Despite me trying my best to keep the focus away from my character, despite me trying to turn him into someone more confident and happy, despite me NOT WANTING him to be the focus of the story and doing my best to keep him out of the spotlight.
______
Here is an example of the things going on in the story, to which my character reacted badly and me not knowing how else I could have had him react that would not have caused further conflict:
Over the course of the campaign L. figured out what his brother was up to after him and his friends getting intro trouble and a mysterious stranger helping them get out of there and that stranger then revealing himself to be A.'s husband (and therefore my character's brother-in-law). L. had a lenghty discussion with this person and after that I basically viewed L.'s conflict as resolved: he now knew why his brother had left, he knew that it had not been his fault, and he knew that his brother had found someone who loved him and was not alone. L. still hoped to be able to see his brother again to get to say goodbye properly. Because in L.'s mind there was no other possibility but this being a goodbye: his brother had a new life now that he, L., was not part of anymore. And L. accepted that. There was no anger, no resentment, only relief knowing that his brother was not alone, had someone by his side who loved him, and that he still cared about L. and that L. had not - as he had feared - done anything that had caused his brother to not want to be near him anymore. He had finally gotten the closure he had needed, he was feeling okay and I viewed this whole conflict as resolved.
Fast forward a few weeks: A. finally suceeded in doing what he had been working on these past few years and returned to L., just like he had promised in the letter he had left him all that time ago. When talking to him, L. realised that A. was not actually planning on leaving, like L. had assumed. Instead A. told him that he and his husband would stay and look for a new home near L.'s school. L. was very surprised by this but of course he was also happy. He hadn't even considered that his brother would stay. His biggest hope had been that his brother would occasionally send him a letter from whereever he was. Him actually wanting to stay was very unexpected for L. but of course he was very happy about it. They also had some good conversations during that time, which not only brought L. further closure but also revealed connections between several past plot points.
About a week after A.'s return L. went to visit him. He just wanted to spend some time with his brother and also ask him for advice. The semester was coming to an end and everyone was busy preparing for the final exams and L. also still needed to find an internship placement for the summer break. L. wanted to do his internship in Candlekeep but was unsure on how to approach this, who to contact, how to phrase his request, so he thought asking his eloquent and knowledgable brother for advice would be a good idea. This conversation quickly went downhill with A. accusing L. of not respecting the people working at Candlekeep enough to do proper research beforehand and L. ending up feeling like he didn't deserve doing an internship there and ending up feeling even more stressed out about the whole thing than he had already been beforehand. They changed the topic and at some point A. started to jokingly fighting L. and putting him in a headlock. L. had no interest in fighting his brother, even as a joke, and reacted by going limp so he could slip away. A. then asked something along the lines of "So that's how you react in a fight? You just give up?" and L. said "Well, I know you would never intentionally hurt me with no good reason". The next second L. was falling. He was up in the sky, the ground many meters below him, and he was falling. L. immediately deduced that this must be some kind of enchantment and tried to fight it, but neither acknowledging that this wasn't real nor trying to shake it off did anything. He did not know any flying or hovering spells, nothing that would help him stop the fall, and ended up crashing into the ground. The next moment he was in some kind of water pool inside a cave that he struggled to get out of. A. was waiting by the cave entrance and offered L. his hand when he got out. L. refused to take it. A. then left and L. eventually followed, finding himself back in the room they had been in before. Either in the cave or shortly afterwards A. asked L. why he hadn't just used a spell to stop his fall, being surprised by L.'s statement that he had not yet learned an appropriate spell. L. eventually sat down at the table and did some exam preparation. A. made some food and put some in front of L. which L. ignored. Eventually L. looked up and asked A. what his biggest fear was. A. had just put L. through several of his biggest fears - falling, drowning, not being able to trust the ones he loves, and getting his control taken away - so he wanted to know what A. was scared of most. A. the told L. that his biggest fear was someone using his abilities to do something bad. And then he explained to L. that he had come to the conclusion that he would not be able to stay after all. That while he was able to defend himself, L. was not, and anyone wanting to get to A. would have an easy time doing so through L. who was evidently not able to defend himself. L. did not take that well and asked A. why he couldn't just train L. so he would get better at defending himself but A. refused. A. then said he would take a walk and allowed L. to come with him. They walked for several hours without talking, ending up in the middle of a forest where some ancient creature appeared that A. had helped several years ago and that was now nearing the end of its life and had called A. there to say goodbye. A. also explained to L. that he did not actually want to stay. That he - A. - had been naive in thinking that he could just live a normal life and that it had been nothing but a dream and that he simply wasn't made for that kind of life. Some time during that conversation A. also told L. that he was convinced that he would end up in the Nine Hells for the things he had done. They spent the night in the woods and the next morning L. realised that all his things had been stolen by some fey creatures, including his spell book. After searching for several hours they were able to find his spellbook, which had been smeared with insults. A. managed to clean it up and they returned back home and L. was reuinted with the rest of the group. Before L. left A. also gifted him an undestructable spellbook. A few days after these events L. went to the temple and addressed Mystra, telling her how lost he was feeling and how worried he was about his brother. He told her that he wanted nothing more than to protect the ones around him but how he was constantly failing in doing so. And how he just wanted his brother to be safe and how he was worried he would really eventually end up in the Nine Hells and how he didn't think A. deserved that but that he didn't know how to prevent that from happening. The next morning L. found some strange piece of cloth on his face which after some examination was revealed to be an item belonging to Mystra which she had used to hide something in the past. The very condensed explanation of what that item does is that whe attuned to it one cannot be found through any kind of traditional divination magic, making one basically undetectable. The next time L. saw A. he told him about this item and A. was basically like "Oh cool, well in that case we can actually stay here". L.'s reaction was to start crying and A. asked him why he was so upset and why everything was always the end of the world to him.
The way I see this whole situation: I simply wanted L. to spend some time with his brother, hopefully get some advice from him regarding that internship and then going back to the rest of the group. Instead what happened was that A. first called him disrespectful for wanting to do an internship at a place and not having done enough research beforehand. Then taking L.'s statement "you wouldn't hurt me with no good reason" to assault L. Then telling L. that he would not stay after all due to L. apparently not being able to defend himself. Then explaining to him that "actually, I didn't want to stay in the first place", and then a few days later telling him he WILL stay after all. So basically, L. had accepted that his brother would not come back to him for good, he had accepted this and had found closure. Then his brother told him he WOULD stay and L. was of course happy about this surprising turn of events. Then his brother told him that due to L. he CANNOT stay. Then he tells him he doesn't WANT to stay anyway, confirming the exact reasoning behind L.'s initial assumption that A. would not stay. And then after realising the threat was eliminated, decided to stay afterall, despite having it made very clear that he did not actually WANT to stay... and apparently only staying because he thought that's what L. wants, despite L. repeatedly explaining that his priority is for A. to be happy and that he does not want A. to stay if that's not what makes him happy and A. just completely ignoring that? Am I really the only person who thinks that it's understandable why L. is confused and upset in this situation? Plus the constant "What do you mean, you don't know [this one simple thing]?" when L. is already barely able to get a regular long rest in between trying to keep up with school work and all the stuff that's going on at the side, like a literal war for example, and constantly feeling that no matter what he decides it's always wrong and he never has enough time to do the things he is supposed to do, let alone the things he wants to do? Plus him wanting to spend the afternoon with his brother turning into a 36 hour long event and him having to spend half a day looking for his spellbook, only to find it smeared with insults?
Am I being dense for not understanding what the whole point of this was? Trying to make it clear to L. that his brother is a powerful and dangerous person? He was already very aware of that and did not need a reminder. Proving to L. that he shouldn't trust his brother? Why even associate with him in the first place if you don't want him to trust you? Giving him the undestructable spellbook was nice. But was having some fey creatures steal his original one and smear insults all over it and him having to spend hours searching for it really necessary?
Whatever the hell it is the dm was trying to do here, I think a simple, calm conversation between those two would have been a lot more effective.
But maybe it's clearer from the outside, so if someone else understands what happened here, please help me understand.
______
Another situation was that due to his struggles early on in the campaign my character was supposed to see the school's healer once a week so she could make sure that he was okay. My character went there once a week, feeling more or less okay when entering her office, and coming out feeling confused and upset after having his mental state analysed and picked apart. Neither did my character enjoy this nor did I think that any of the players (including myself) had any interest in listening to my character discuss his emotions every week. So eventually I had my character write a letter to the headmistress, explaning that he wanted to stop doing these weekly check-ins. Upon being asked why, he explained that these appointments actively made him feel bad and that he would do a lot better if he didn't constantly feel pressured into talking about things he didn't want to talk about. The reaction was that he was told that if he cannot handle simply being asked how he was doing once a week, then he wasn't stable enough to go to school, and consequently got kicked out. Leading to us spending two sessions trying to resolve this and my character eventually being allowed back into the school. ______
The situations I described are the kind of thing that constantly happened to my character.
We had a calendar where we wrote down short descriptions of what happened each day. I once went through this calendar with a friend (who does not play dnd) and it basically went like this: "So that day this traumatic thing happened to L., and the next day this happened, and two days later this happened, then the next day he almost died, then three days later he discovered this, the next day this other thing happened,....", and my friend just went "Holy shit, it's no surprise that this kid is losing his marmbles."
So I keep alternating between "I messed up this whole campaign by creating a problematic character" and the feeling that the dm had it out for specifically my character and it didn't matter what I did, nothing could have solved this.
Some constructive ideas on what I did wrong and what I could have done to fix things would be appreciated. (And yes, we did talk about this in the group. I eventually got tired of talking about it because it never lead anywhere.)

To make a long story short, I recently changed schools. I'm in the eleventh grade. The problem is that I don't have any friends here, so it feels like I'm in a new place every day. For your information, the school I attend is a boarding school with a high prestige in the nation. It's the greatest school and the hardest to get into, with only a select few allowed in and required to pass a few tests before entering. I've never been distant from my parents and then everything changed. Being far from my family, I have a lot on my plate.
Should I transfer this school and return to my former school? I've lost my mental health and feel incredibly alone here. I always gaze at it the moment I wake up in the morning. I lost a friend who cared about me, who would support me through difficult times, and who would listen to all of my experiences. and right now?
Yes, this place is undoubtedly superior, but I find it impossible to concentrate in class when I'm thinking about it all ☹️