在美国监狱中被判终身监禁的男子辩称，为什么几十年后，他们对社会没有构成威胁。父亲在乌克兰战争中丧生的孩子们向我们展示了战争的惊人代价。贝鲁特的银行劫匪颠覆了我们对是非的理解。一位喜欢皱巴巴的电视侦探科伦坡(Columbo)的英国学者告诉我们，“一切的答案”可能就在我们面前。
2023年，《纽约时报》的观点视频团队带领世界各地的观众进入了社会上一些最激烈的辩论。我们制作了几十部短片和视频——以独特的方式说服和捕捉人类体验的强大、情感作品。
下面是10个将在2023年之后陪伴我们的视频。
VideoVideo成绩单
每天都有乌克兰孩子在普京的战争中失去父亲。一个悲伤营正在努力保护他们的青春。
-
这些孩子中的每一个都在乌克兰战争中失去了父亲。乌克兰正在为生存而战。医药、基础设施、武器——这些是优先事项。但不是在这里。这是一个悲伤训练营。它的首要任务是情感愈合。在两周的时间里，近50名乌克兰孩子从全国各地聚集在一起。他们参加由治疗师设计的活动，指导孩子们走出创伤。我们与治疗师密切合作，仔细挑选面试对象。这是来自基辅的13岁女孩Liza。表面上，汉娜似乎是一个快乐的青少年。弗拉德很有同情心。这是许多孩子第一次有机会敞开心扉。但并非所有人都准备好了。有个孩子经常孤僻。他的名字叫Yura。他来自布查，在那里俄国人的暴行被详细记录下来。他和父亲骑着自行车，被俄罗斯士兵近距离射杀。尤拉装死，活了下来。孩子们的任务是建造一个梦想的家。当你所有的梦想都破灭了，你怎么能创造一个梦想中的房子呢?当你周围的一切都还在被摧毁的时候，你有可能开始重建情感吗?这些孩子不仅失去了父亲，还失去了家园、朋友、学校、宠物、书籍、玩具，所有构成他们日常生活的大大小小的东西。还记得莉莎吗，她还没准备好去看她父亲的坟墓?她允许我们录下她的治疗过程。她觉得她没有从妈妈那里得到她需要的支持。莉莎得到了战争夺走的东西，悲伤的空间。这个营地里有50个孩子试图抓住他们仅剩的一点童年时光。但每天都有多达50个孩子失去了他们的父亲。明天，还有50个孩子，后天也是。现在，乌克兰需要武器方面的帮助。它也需要帮助愈合。夏令营的结束总是很困难的。这是再见。又回到了现实世界。对这些孩子来说更是如此。他们把青春留在身后，回到战场。
成绩单
这些人的整个成年生活都在监狱里度过。多少惩罚才够?
-
This thing? “Yeah.” It’s just, it’s a camera. It also takes film. “Oh, all right, OK.” It’s a digital camera. “Yeah.” And this is a microphone. “Oh, OK. You know, I’ve been locked up for 40-some years. I didn’t know.” Go back to your time before coming here. “What is this?” That is — “Peach? Sparkling water, they don’t sell stuff like this here, never.” “When I got locked up, my twins were 8 months old. Whew, and that was the last time I saw them. I wrote them letters every week for the first 20 years I was here. And by this time, now they’re all adults. So I figure it’s time for me to stop trying.” “How could you take a 19-year-old person and just take the worst decision he ever made and hold him responsible for it for the rest of his entire life and not even consider that he may have changed?” “He was the thug on the streets 24, 25 years ago, and we’re angry at that person, not realizing that that person no longer exists. He actually hasn’t existed for, like, over 20 years.” These men are serving life sentences at Angola prison in Louisiana. They don’t have the possibility of parole. “I’m serving a life sentence for second-degree murder.” “First-degree murder.” “Second-degree murder and armed robbery.” “I’m serving a life sentence.” “A life sentence without parole.” “I was 18 when this crime happened.” “I was 17 years old.” “I was 18 at the time.” “I come here when I’m 17. I’m 80 years old now.” People who commit crimes should be held responsible. But how much punishment is enough for justice? As you listen to these men, ask yourself: Do they deserve a chance at redemption? “I had time to reflect and what my life would be if I had to stay here. And then I started noticing the need here of the people that was illiterate. So I said, OK, well, I could do some good here. So I started tutoring guys, and I started feeling a self-worth. I said, well, I could give something back like that, all the while still dealing with the fact that I took a life, an innocent life.” “If I happen to die here in prison, that’s not something that I want. But I have to think about and take under consideration I took another human’s life, a young man, Damian. I went to school with him. He still was somebody’s son. If I could go back in time and redo that, that would have never happened. It shouldn’t have happened.” In the U.S., there are more than 50,000 people serving life without parole, 70 percent of whom are Black. “If you come here young, well, prison provides. So you never have to be responsible if you don’t want to. It’s hard to mature in prison because prisons aren’t set up for you to bear the stress of responsibility and to grow from that. So you have to kind of seek it out your own.” With so many long sentences, America’s prison population is aging. Taxpayers spend about $70,000 to keep every elderly prisoner locked up every year. So Angola created a hospice program. Prisoners volunteer to take care of other prisoners, basically people convicted of murder caring for the dying. “It gave me a purpose. It gave me a purpose and showed me a different side, yeah, a compassionate side. And I probably sat with over 50 people to their death.” “Man, you know, I ain’t been to no man. But my first patient was a guy dying of AIDS. When I’m looking at him — a man weighing 60-something pounds, like, man, he can’t do nothing. So I have to pick him out of the bed, put him in the wheelchair. Bring him to the bathroom, help him, bathe him up, tease him, mess with him. But when I first was able to help a person, I just felt different.” “Excuse the expression, but they wash all up the crack of another man’s ass, all up under his nuts and all. It doesn’t care what nationality or race he is. Is that man faking? Hasn’t that man changed? He might have been a character when he got here. But this man has developed character. This man has developed compassion. It comes down to not so much what you have done. But what have you become?” Volunteering, mentoring, education, new experiences gave these men new purpose. “I got a diploma from Culinary Arts School from Baton Rouge Community College and three certifications from the National Center for Construction Education and Research. In the event that I ever went home, I could be an asset to society and not a liability. I prepare as if I’m going home tomorrow. Even though I have a life without parole, I try to prepare as if I’m going home tomorrow because who knows what might happen. I’d rather go prepared than go unprepared.” Do we really want to be a country where there’s no amount of growth that will ever give someone even a chance to leave prison, a country that’s fine with endless punishment but never with mercy? “That’s the worst part, knowing that I’m a changed man, knowing that I have the skills to go be a better person in society, knowing that I want to do better in society, and knowing that I can do better in society, and not having the opportunity to do that because I have a life sentence without parole. It’s hard. It’s hard.” But we have a solution. Second-look reforms would offer a chance at parole for those who have transformed themselves and who’ve already served a significant portion of their sentence. To be fair, there may be lifers who haven’t grown. But for the many who have, they deserve a second chance. “Ask yourself when you were 16, 17 years old, are you the same person? Do you even think the same way you do now? No, that’s human nature. People change.” “If rehabilitation is a process, there should be an end to it. There’s no, you get to a certain grade level, and there’s not high school, then college, and you can pursue undergraduate and then graduate studies. There’s none of that. It’s just a life sentence.” A few states have implemented changes in the criminal justice system, including second-look reforms. And some of these men have actually gotten out. But they are only a small fraction of those serving life without parole. Now if you’re concerned they might harm someone else, less than 3 percent of lifers who are released are rearrested. And when they are, it’s frequently for a technicality, not a violent crime. In other words, lengthy prison sentences don’t improve public safety. Over time, Americans could save billions of dollars if some of these older reformed men are set free. “I’ve been here longer than I’ve been with my family. So sometimes I question where I’m from. I’d be tempting to write my mama and them and say, if I die, leave me here. Don’t come get me. Don’t leave me with them. I don’t know them no more. Bury me with my friends.” “I know without a doubt I’m going home. If I die here, whether it’s tomorrow or, God forbid, 25 years from now, my body will not stay here. I’m leaving Angola. I’m not going to be buried here. Somebody who says, I want to be buried at Angola, that’s the saddest part of what a life sentence does to you.” “I make sure that my life is very purposeful. Every time I invest myself into someone else, I free a part of myself. A part of me will leave here with you. I’m going to love people so passionately until a part of me will always live outside of the gates of Angola.” “I’ve caught plenty of hell in this penitentiary.” [LAUGHING] “Whether or not, I hope I’ll be lucky enough to get out. I’d go somewhere and make me a living and start all over again. Yeah. They say, the older you get, the more you learn. Well, I’ve learned a lot of things, you understand, so.” [MUSIC PLAYING]
成绩单
两个兄弟姐妹学会平衡爱和自我保护。
-
“嗨，凯特琳，这是我妹妹——”“嗨。”“娜塔莉。“(音乐播放)我们一直很亲密。很多姐妹为了衣服吵架。我们穿着相配的衣服。我们做什么都在一起。我很爱凯特琳，但在她最黑暗的时刻，在她最需要我的时候，我抛弃了她。那我算什么姐姐啊?凯特琳，我姐姐。“嗨。(叹气)她是一个播客女王，一个音频艺术家。她记录了一切。她有点名气。外表上，她令人印象深刻，迷人，风趣。但在内心深处，她是一个残缺的人，前一刻还兴高采烈;啜泣，下一个。在一瞬间如此相爱;切割，下一个。它有点怕她。日常生活是一种侵犯，刚刚醒来。我恨我自己。在收件箱里看到错误的名字可能会让我陷入三个小时的恶性循环。我处于人生的最低谷。“给你，豆子。”我决心要救凯特琳。“这是给你的。”每天早上，我都会和她一起坐在床上几个小时，听她滔滔不绝地讲。“我不能和射手座成为最好的朋友。”等等。“你已经尽力了，凯特琳。“你是我的乐器，但从来没有人把我当妈妈看，因为——我疯了。”看我的眼球。”我失去了自我，开始怨恨她。然后她说她想结束自己的生命。我又冷又麻木。我给了她一个自杀求助热线。我告诉她我得走了。“我没有坚持到底。不是我干的，但那通电话之后确实发生了一些事。”“从本质上讲，患有B.P.D.的人往往有非常强烈、不稳定的情绪。他们来得很快——“我被诊断出患有边缘型人格障碍。患有B.P.D.意味着我经常会在一天内体验到人类所有的情绪，每种情绪都是100分贝。一切都像是紧急事件。因为我不知道如何自己扑灭大火，我希望娜塔莉能。诊断给了我一张地图，我可以用它来导航我自己可怕的内心世界。我开发了一些工具，让我知道自己什么时候处于糟糕的境地，并照顾好自己。有时，这意味着，在和娜塔莉出去玩的过程中，我不得不尴尬地说，我需要离开。我得一个人撑过去。随着凯特琳的进步，我意识到我对她并不公平。我责怪凯特琳接管了我的生活，但我从来没有花时间去弄清楚我的极限是什么。有时，这意味着在她崩溃的时候打断她说，凯特琳，我现在没有这个能力。(音乐播放)当然，这真的很可怕，我在想凯特琳会不会没事?然后不得不接受"我不知道"的答案承担别人的痛苦并不总是爱他们的最好方式。亲密并不意味着分享一切。现在，我们经常计划分开，就像我们经常计划在一起一样。在一起，我们发现距离可以是一件好事，这让我们更加亲密。
成绩单
追逐信用卡积分是一场人人都输的游戏。
-
This is a story about you and your favorite credit card, the one that earns you points. You use your card for everything. You pay off your balance every month. And you watch with glee as your rewards grow and grow and grow. And when it’s time to cash in, you announce that you’re going to get a family gift. And each member will get one vote. And then your daughter argues that the family needs another iPad. And your son has fallen in love with the ugliest garden gnome that you’ve ever seen. And so to break up the skirmish, you decide that you’ll be getting the frying pan. Because what brings the family together more than food? Marty is the answer. But let’s keep him out of this. And when they complain and say, “But that’s not what I wanted,” you look them in the eye and say, “This was never about you.” “It’s about us, all of us.” And then two weeks later your frying pan arrives. And you can’t help but smile because you kind of did get this for yourself, though you’ll never admit it. And you’re looking at the frying pan. And it’s staring at you and you at it and it at you and you at it. And you just have this split second where you think to yourself: Who actually paid for this? Who pays for all of this? Well, if you love your rewards card, then you’re probably not going to like the answer. Because you try to be a good person, you shop locally. And each week you buy, let’s say, $100 in groceries from MJ. When you swipe your card, that $100 doesn’t go straight to MJ. Instead, store owners are charged a series of fees, the largest of which is called the swipe fee. It’s set by the card network, usually Visa or Mastercard. And your bank uses it to pay for your rewards. The swipe fee is usually between 1.5 percent and 3.5 percent of your total. The more premium your credit card, the more that MJ is charged. Now, that might not sound like much. But it can add up. For small businesses like MJ’s, swipe fees can be one of their biggest expenses. And small stores like hers get charged higher rates than big-box competitors. In order to cope, store owners like MJ raised their prices. That means that all of us are paying more. But only those who have special cards are getting rewards. And here’s the catch: The wealthiest Americans tend to have the best cards that give them the most rewards, while poorer Americans are more likely to pay in cash or debit with no rewards or benefits. So what we really have is a system that forces everyone to pay higher prices in order to subsidize rewards that primarily go to the wealthy. So this rewards card, it’s really a screw-over-poor- people card. Every time you use it, you’re contributing to inequality, helping to drive up prices and further squeeze the most cash-strapped Americans, all so that you can get that free frying pan. You’re probably not benefiting from rewards as much as you thought. In 2020, the Federal Reserve found that the average American at every income level loses more to swipe fee price hikes than they earn in rewards. And of course, the poorest Americans are still getting handed the worst deal. On average, they pay five times more in price mark-ups than they’ll ever receive in rewards. Why are we stuck in this system? Why are swipe fees in the U.S. nine times higher than they are in Europe? Why do we have to pay so much just to pay? Well, it’s largely thanks to two companies, Visa and Mastercard. This system is their core business. It’s what they do for a living. And, sure, they’re providing a service and deserve to earn a profit. But these two companies control over 80 percent of the credit card market. With scant competition, Visa and Mastercard have faced little pressure to rein in swipe fees. The truth is for the vast majority of Americans, the best deal might not come in the form of a new piece of plastic but instead a new piece of legislation. That’s because Congress has the power to regulate swipe fees. In fact, in 2010, they did just that for debit cards. Remember the swipe fee on that $100 grocery purchase? If you paid with a debit card, it would have only cost MJ 26 cents. Dick Durbin, the senator who helped crack down on swipe fees for debit cards, has authored a bipartisan bill that would use competition to drive down credit card swipe fees. But the banks and credit card companies are, of course, pushing back. Right now, there are two things that you can do. First, call your senator and encourage them to support this bill. You can go to this website to find their number. Second, if you’re shopping at a small business that you want to support, remember that how you pay can make a difference. Using your debit card can save small businesses a lot in swipe fees. But the best solution might be elsewhere in your wallet. Increasingly, small businesses are offering discounts for cash payers. Avoiding this predatory system can be a win for both of you. And if those rewards are just too good to say goodbye to, well, then at least don’t go around telling people that you’ve never taken a handout, because you have. And the working class is paying for it. [MUSIC PLAYING]
成绩单
社交媒体要求你要么支持我们，要么反对我们。
-
“如果你是一个人，却没有对此感到愤怒，这是一个严重的问题。“你的人性在哪里?””“你得选边站。”“这是毫无疑问的。”“你的沉默令人震耳欲聋。”“你得选边站。你最好选边站。“我不知道你怎么能坐在那里说，‘我不支持任何一方。“你对中东战争有什么看法?”[音乐播放]恐怕我得坚持要一个答案。今天，战争在我们小小的星球上肆虐，但今天你只需要对其中一个采取立场。“我与以色列站在一起，并为以色列祈祷。“我一直并将永远全力支持巴勒斯坦。”你的沉默不仅仅是可疑。“嗯。我该怎么对待我那些沉默的、虚伪的、清醒的、自由的、非犹太人的朋友呢?”它帮助敌人。“你的沉默已经非常清楚地表明了你的立场。”《怪奇物语》里的小孩说:“要么支持以色列，要么支持恐怖主义。”不知道如何处理这种冲突的细微差别?你可以从著名的中东专家——金·卡戴珊、勒布朗·詹姆斯、摇滚、贾斯汀·比伯、阿玛雷·斯塔德迈尔那里得到提示。“黑人的命也是命，你们什么都不说:你们。”不听名人的命令吗?企业呢?美国之鹰把他们在时代广场的广告牌换成了以色列国旗。nfl、AccuWeather、大众、巴里训练营——大都会站在以色列一边。去他们的Instagram主页看看。查看任何公开声明，如果他们有社交媒体。看看他们为黑人社区做了什么。看看他们为亚洲社区做了什么。向他们展示他们为其他社区所做的事情的证据，并要求他们为犹太人做这件事。”同情人类是一件好事。那么，尼日利亚有30多万人死亡，墨西哥有大约6万人失踪，这是怎么回事呢?岩石对罗兴亚人有什么看法?贾斯汀·比伯为解决也门危机做了什么?大都会队对刚果战争持什么立场?[蟋蟀鸣叫][音乐播放]当你选择站在哪一边时，一定要用词正确。责备以色列人，但不要反犹太。“你在让这个国家的反犹主义永久化。”责备巴勒斯坦人，但不要仇视伊斯兰教。“我就假设你有伊斯兰恐惧症。”站在历史正确的一边。“历史正确的一面。”改变你的头像。很容易。“容易的事情”。和无害的。(唱)“曾经有一个——”就是这么简单。“简单点。”信息图表，模因，解释器。“教育你”——三分钟版本——“女孩解释者”。“系好安全带，姑娘们。我们说的是以色列和巴勒斯坦。”选择立场也是提升自己的好时机。“这是我生命中的一天——我们处于战争版。”嗯，大多数时候。“我意识到，我通常的傻帽喜剧模式可能不太适合这个时候。“这是一场带来巨大痛苦的战争。“不要试图扮演受害者。“任何支持以色列的人都不是我想要交往的人。”这场冲突令人困惑，令人难以言喻。思想警察的欺凌只会让事情变得更糟。律师事务所已经从批评以色列的学生那里撤回了工作机会。”“关于美国反犹事件的报道激增。”“一名巴勒斯坦裔美国男孩和他的母亲在家中被刺死。“你应该被强奸，然后在你孩子面前被拖着穿过街道。”“你(咒骂)犹太人仇恨者，你。”社交媒体是消除细微差别的地方。“以色列的母亲——”“你别管!“(尖叫)[音乐播放]当它消失时，我们都有可能忽视真正重要的东西。(播放音乐)
成绩单
nhs是英国最值得骄傲的成就之一，但它正在瓦解。
-
Decades ago, the leaders of Britain launched a, frankly, incredible plan, to provide every kind of medical treatment to everyone free of charge. It had never been done on this scale under capitalism before, and Britain was broke. But with courage and vision, these politicians pulled it off. [INSTRUMENTAL MUSIC PLAYING] The National Health Service was born, and overnight, every medical treatment, from blood tests to brain surgery, became available to millions who could previously never afford it — no deductibles, no co-pays. Here in Britain, we are fiercely proud of the N.H.S. It’s this towering monument to social generosity, rooted in the belief that health care is a human right, not a luxury. We love it more than the royal family and football. I mean, even ISIS thought it was worth copying. [INSTRUMENTAL MUSIC PLAYING] We Brits haven’t had much to brag about of late, but the N.H.S. was one of them. Not anymore. “The worst crisis ever to face the NHS —” “— departments are described as war zones.” “N.H.S. trusts have canceled half of their elective surgeries.” “We don’t have enough beds.” “Staff are striking.” “Up to 500 people are dying each week because of delays.” It’s an absolute mess. Millions are waiting months to get treatment. People are pulling out their own teeth — all of it compounded by wave after wave of strikes. It all feels like we’re at the end of a badly played game of Jenga, and we’re all anxiously wondering: Is the best thing we’ve ever created about to collapse? [INSTRUMENTAL MUSIC PLAYING] I was brought into the world by N.H.S. doctors, in this hospital right here, and I’ve grown up, like many Brits, kind of taking the service for granted, so this whole situation is really confusing. How has such an incredible institution been brought so close to the edge of ruin? Now, talk to some politicians and pundits around here, and they’ll give you two explanations, firstly, that universal health care just no longer works and, secondly, that it’s too expensive. After all, the N.H.S. was built for a 1950s world, and a lot’s changed since then. Britain’s population has ballooned. We all live a lot longer. But this doesn’t really hold water. Throughout most of its history, the N.H.S. has largely grown to meet the nation’s needs. Until recently, it frequently ranked as one of the best health care systems in the developed world. And as for the cost, well, Britain spends just one, two, three, four, five and a half thousand dollars a year per person on health care. That’s less than almost all other European countries and way less than the U.S. Its efficiency makes it one of the best-value health care systems in the developed world. It’s not perfect, but universal health care works just fine, thank you very much. So what’s really going on? There’s clearly more to this. So my colleagues and I spoke with doctors and health experts around the U.K., and they told us a different story, one that should worry all of us, really, of a long, slow undermining of a public institution by the governments who are supposed to be protecting it. All right, let’s start with something really basic. If you want to run a health service, you need doctors, nurses, paramedics — Well, not only that. You need enough of the right kinds of doctors and nurses, right? You need to plan ahead, forecast your medical needs and replenish the pipeline accordingly. Well, for decades, the U.K. government’s failed to do any of that. And so holes appeared in our work force. We used to fill them by hiring medics from other countries, but Brexit put a squeeze on all that. The N.H.S. is now short of more than 150,000 staff. The British government finally put together a long-term plan to train new staff, but it takes 15 years to train a doctor, by which point our needs will have changed again. This kind of short-term thinking and incompetence, frankly, isn’t isolated. It’s part of a pattern that’s done a lot of damage to the N.H.S. To show you what I mean, I need to tell you a different story, one that begins more than 30 years ago. [INSTRUMENTAL MUSIC PLAYING] 1990: Margaret Thatcher passes legislation requiring hospitals to compete against each other for patients. 1997: Tony Blair forces the N.H.S. to take expensive loans to build new hospitals. 2012: David Cameron gives private contractors access to even more of the N.H.S. And then 2022: Yet another bill gives corporations more control of N.H.S. spending. Brick by brick, parts of this public institution are being handed over to the private sector. And look, privatization isn’t necessarily bad. It encourages innovation and efficiency, perhaps. But here, it’s had a destabilizing effect, draining the N.H.S. of its own doctors and nurses and burdening it with debt, all the while skimming what should be public money into the pockets of American health care corporations. Now, we’re not anywhere near the two-tier U.S. health system yet. But today, some N.H.S. hospitals, including this one right here, have whole floors reserved for private patients. Those GoFundMe campaigns for medical costs you see all over the U.S., well, they happen here, too, now as well. How rich we are is beginning to determine how quickly and how well we get treated, and that’s a violation of those core ideals at the foundation of the N.H.S. Now, there are a whole bunch of other things I could tell you about, from the, frankly, embarrassing failure to digitize patient records to the woeful underfunding of home health care. But I really want to tell you about this last one, because it’s a doozy. It’s the thing few in government will mention, but it’s critical in explaining this whole mess. [INSTRUMENTAL MUSIC PLAYING] Britain’s leaders always understood that the N.H.S. budget had to grow a little each year if it’s to work. And for its whole history, even the most conservative governments obliged. That is, until this guy. After the 2008 financial crisis, David Cameron effectively froze the N.H.S. budget. The systems lost $50 billion of investments each year for most of the last 13 years. It’s one of the main reasons these doctors keep striking. Their salaries have effectively fallen more than 10 percent in that time. And don’t forget, this is in one of the most cost-effective health systems in the world. Weakened by privatization, gutted of staff and money, the N.H.S. was in a bad way in 2019. And then, right on cue, Covid. “I don’t think the model of the N.H.S., as it was set up some 70 years ago, is sustainable for the future.” “And I think we should privatize the N.H.S. I don’t think it’s fit for purpose as it stands.” “The N.H.S. should be stripped down to providing emergency care, and all the hospitals should be privatized.” We don’t need a different health care service. We need to rebuild the one we already have, brick by brick, from the foundation up. But the political will, the courage and the vision required to do that, is evaporating. We’re at risk of abandoning the idea of universal health care itself, and if we do, we’ll all lose the world’s most famous example of an ideal: that health care is a human right and a public responsibility. [INSTRUMENTAL MUSIC PLAYING]
成绩单
年龄在16岁到93岁之间的时报读者打开了一个布特孤独。
-
“我感到内心的孤独。”“只是你背上的一个重物。”“我的事业使我与世隔绝。”“我没有舞伴。我没有孩子。“我刚结婚，人们就离我而去。””“作为一个单亲妈妈，有这些——”“然后我退休了。”“我最大的恐惧是孤独终老。”“这是一种奇怪的孤独。这是个坏主意。“我感到孤独和孤立的感觉源于我12岁时失去了自杀的父亲。”“我觉得我一直都很孤独。我做了什么把其他人都吓跑了?我觉得我只是某种让人们分散的东西。”“我觉得如果我不努力去成功，我会永远后悔没有去尝试。我的孤独最终成了对我的惩罚。“每个人都有这样的感觉吗?”我一定是出了什么问题。”“周围都是人，但你仍然觉得自己没有和任何人在一起。“我在婚礼上，下意识地打开手机。”我打开一个约会软件，然后开始滑动。然后我环顾四周，周围有很多人在笑，玩得很开心，彼此相爱。是啊，那一刻我感到深深的孤独。“你可能会想尽一切办法去寻找一个终身伴侣，但你可能会永远单身。”“人们无法想象你会如此孤独，以至于害怕感恩节，想着‘天哪，真希望有人邀请我。’”’”“作为一个单亲妈妈，我觉得这是我一生中做过的最重要、最重要的事情。我只是把它藏在心里，因为没有人可以分享。”“我故意决定不要孩子，而我所有的好朋友都相反。当他们把越来越多的时间花在家庭生活上时，我变得不那么重要了。“我从来没有告诉过你，我会工作这么长时间，而且身边没有一群朋友。”“当我的配偶回家时”“她就躲到角落里去了。”她是我第一个想说话的人，而我是她最不想说话的人。“我当了快14年的单身妈妈了。”我只是有时候觉得我希望有人能伸出手来照顾我。“朋友们不想听我说我有多孤独。””“负担太重了。”“你不想增加他们的负担吧。——对别人。“八年来，我一直想和我的一个同事一起去学校吃午饭，但还是没有机会。”“我以为我正在建立一个亲密的家庭，一起做事，但这并没有发生。””“我很重要，对吧?我对人们很重要。我想我知道。然后我就退休了。这种孤立感震耳欲聋。”“我被诊断出患有一种非常罕见的骨髓癌。我的一些朋友和家人从我的生活中消失了。对那些抛弃你的人如此深深的失望。“变装的经历和保守秘密让我一生都感到孤独。”“你看了看时间，然后说，‘已经3点了’，而你一天中有那么多事情要做，电话却没有响。”没有人与你联系，你想知道你如何度过这一天。对于退休，他们会告诉你这是黄金岁月。如果里面没人，怎么会是金色的呢?“我开始觉得这好像是我没有孩子的惩罚。”我想当你看到艾伦的时候——从某种意义上说，我发现自己在说，‘这是你自找的。’”“她说，‘鲍勃，我们结婚66年了，我们有很多话要对彼此说。你觉得其他结婚这么久的人会有这么多话要说吗?第二天晚上，她就走了。(音乐播放)“记得接电话。你不知道一个意想不到的电话会如何改变他们的一天。“是孩子们在说，‘爸爸，我爱你’和‘你好吗?’这也是一个好朋友在说:‘鲍勃，我不喜欢你说话的声音。我马上过来。我们要谈谈。’”“如果我能让自己拿起电话给别人打电话，别人就会说，‘我也有同样的感觉。“然后——噗!”-你又成为人类的一员了。[音乐播放]
《纽约时报》致力于发表给编辑的各种信件。我们想听听你对这篇文章或我们的任何文章的看法。这里有一些建议。这是我们的电子邮件:letters@nytimestgd。
在Facebook、Instagram、TikTok、X和Threads上关注《纽约时报》的观点版块。