Living Proof That It Can Get Better

She/her. Age 40, Child abuse survivor who married an artist on the spectrum, had two trans kids, and escaped Mormonism together, got diagnosed with cPTSD and bipolar, then lived ever after… which is actually a huge fucking deal.

[goodold-fashionedloverblog]

🙃🫠

second pic from here x

[bipolar-redhead]

Unpopular nuanced opinion from an actual chronic fawner in response to the statement ‘fawning is not consent’:

I hear you. I do. You’re correct. Technically, I didn’t want it and my yes wasn’t truly enthusiastic. But it’s not necessarily the other person’s fault they didn’t know this. Often, so so so so fucking often, in the moment, even I don’t know this. All my brain cares about just then is getting out alive, so it will force on me a huge enthusiastic smile with loud cries of enjoyment, which may even be accompanied by some real pleasure, confusing everyone involved, and it’s not until much much later that I realize I should have said no.

At what point is the other person supposed to figure this out if I can’t even figure it out myself? How many times do they really have to check in before they’re allowed to just believe me? How responsible should they be for the fact that checking in can actually make me more nervous and more motivated to fawn even more convincingly?

As a chronic fawner, as in not a single relationship/encounter with another human being in my life is completely free of it, I have never felt it fair to completely hold others accountable for my erroneous yesses. I have been taken advantage of by predatory people who didn’t care either way whether or not my yes was very enthusiastic, and they should be held accountable for their part in that. But the majority of people are decent, and my ambiguity is not their fault. It doesn’t make them bad, evil people because they took me at my word. It doesn’t mean it’s my fault either, because I’m like this due to forces completely outside my control. But part of the problem here is this need for there to always be blame.

Just… people are messy, guys. All of us. If you don’t cut them some slack, you’re gonna run into some real, hard lessons about yourself at some point in your life and find yourself either being a huge hypocrite, or have a devil of a time forgiving yourself. And just now, with things as tumultuous as they are, we can’t really afford to be this unforgiving. We need each other so we can fight the actual evil trying to take over the world.

[giant-bean]

What do you think about the blue bracelet movement?

Its cool.

Its pointless.

Its cool because I can show others I'm safe from a distance.

Its pointless because its only performative from distance.

Its a start.

It wont last.

Its a start and I intend to do more not just signal that I'm supportive.

It wont last, its an empty gesture that will make people targets.

Its encouraging.

its an insulting.

Its an encouraging gesture that makes me feel safe around participants.

its an insulting minimum effort and it doesn't make me feel your safe.

Voting ended onNov 16, 2024

Other? Please comment. Please vote leave a note and share your thoughts. (I recommend voting your true thoughts before reading others notes) Is it inclusive enough, is it simply performative, is it encouraging, uplifting, and helpful? What are the next steps to be taken to help people feel safe with one another whether you agree with the blue bracelet movement or not?

[bipolar-redhead]

I am not a person of color, so I can’t speak to that exact experience and how I would feel if I were one, but I am a victim of child abuse causing debilitating PTSD and agoraphobia, so here’s why I will wear a bracelet on the rare occasions I go out.

The people who are most afraid will say nothing, not online and not out in the world, but they will feel the slightest bit safer when they see my blue bracelet and that will make a difference that matters. They will know that I have no intention of hurting them, that they don’t have to watch me closely for signs of danger. They will know they don’t have to be afraid of my rather gruff looking white husband who is usually with me because I have such terrible anxiety when I leave the house. And the more of those bracelets they see, the more they will feel that safety. The more we all will, frankly. Wouldn’t you feel better knowing, as you move through the world, who was on your side? If you needed help, wouldn’t you be more likely in that moment to choose someone with a bracelet rather than one without?

It is anything but an empty gesture to the people it will help. It is small, you’re right, but it is a mistake to think that small things don’t make a big difference. This is not a fucking movie, you are not Katniss Everdeen or Harry Potter, you’re not going to fight Trump in hand to hand combat. But you could wear a bracelet to label yourself as safe. And you can look for other small ways to help, because small things add up.

Do you know why Besos is a billionaire? He makes pennies on each transaction on Amazon, and there are billions of transactions, and they add up to he’s richer than any person should be. The little things add up, don’t turn your nose up against them just because it’s small. In fact, I think it’s pretty fucked up to assume such a small thing is beneath you.

If you get the chance, then sure, fight a bigot in hand to hand combat, but do it wearing a goddamn blue friendship bracelet.

[giant-bean]

What do you think about the blue bracelet movement?

Its cool.

Its pointless.

Its cool because I can show others I'm safe from a distance.

Its pointless because its only performative from distance.

Its a start.

It wont last.

Its a start and I intend to do more not just signal that I'm supportive.

It wont last, its an empty gesture that will make people targets.

Its encouraging.

its an insulting.

Its an encouraging gesture that makes me feel safe around participants.

its an insulting minimum effort and it doesn't make me feel your safe.

Voting ended onNov 16, 2024

Other? Please comment. Please vote leave a note and share your thoughts. (I recommend voting your true thoughts before reading others notes) Is it inclusive enough, is it simply performative, is it encouraging, uplifting, and helpful? What are the next steps to be taken to help people feel safe with one another whether you agree with the blue bracelet movement or not?

[bipolar-redhead]

To those saying they would give up their rights for Gaza:

Giving up your rights is one of the best ways to make everything worse, including for them. Your vote is the only voice the government HAS to listen to. They don’t care how much you yell at each other online. They don’t care about the moral superiority high you’re getting from saying that. They just care that you’re willing to give up your only voice, and they’re excited to get you out of the way so they can do whatever they want.

If you are silent now by not voting, they will make sure you are kept silent forever, and no amount of screaming into the internet void will keep them from doing even worse to Gaza, as well as to us here.

Vote. Vote vote vote. If you really can’t bring yourself to vote for president, then at the VERY LEAST, go vote for Senators and Representatives and your local leaders. They’re actually the ones who make most of the decisions affecting our daily lives. The President does not have as much power as you think, at least not presently. If Trump gets in, that could change and that should scare everyone to their very core.

NEVER give up your rights! They are your only power, your only weapons against the injustices of the world. And the people in power will not be swayed by you giving them up, they’re only too happy to take them from you.

[unprettyextra]

What the heck is "&udm=14"? A new search engine strips AI junk from Google results

It's the work of Ernie Smith, who describes &udm=14 as the "disenshittification Konami code" for Google.

[unpretty]

here’s a direct link to the site:

A quick way to get an AI-free search without any extra work.

here’s his explanation of how it works and ways you can change your browser settings to make the default google search be text only:

How I Made Google’s “Web” View My Default Search

Forget AI. Google just created a version of its search engine free of the extra junk it has added over the past decade-plus. You just need o

[itchy-9884]

[akajustmerry]

rewatching elementary now with the knowledge Jonny Lee Miller had started with his own sobriety and recovery whilst filming is honestly transcendent. He is so GOOD. he is gut-wrenching. The scene where Sherlock explains his sobriety feels like a leaking faucet that requires constant maintenance and offers only not to drip in return - jlm does this thing with his voice where he's on the verge of tears but bored all at once. He's wrecked by a feeling he's utterly sick to death of having. It's such a compassionate performance. On another level it is truly crazy to me that we have so many Sherlock Holmes adaptations so eager to make Sherlock an addict, but Elementary is far and away the only adaptation that does that and takes the addiction seriously. Perhaps in part because of JLM's real life recovery, but we'll never know. On a rewatch, it's a lot :')

[depsidase]

[giant-bean]

1000% Agree. Raising minimum wage pushes inflation in such a way that value actually decreases and companies lay off workers hurting the group it is meant to help. If on the other hand you cap the leaderships income at a percentage above the lowest paid employee the only way for the greedy to make more is to pay more. To keep them from firing people the rate may need to be variable so a small company leadership only gets maybe 10x (150K for a business with 10 or fewer employs being paid $7.25 an hour pay them $15 and you can make $312K annually) and a large company gets say 20x to encourage them to hire more people at high wages so they make 301K for having 10,000+ employees payed $7.25 but if they pay a minimum of $15. to the lowest paid member of staff they get $624,000. Pay more and hire more to make more while the excess profit either gets funneled back into higher wages to increase leadership capital or is used for growth to hire more people. >10 workers 10x, 10 to 1,000 workers 15x 1,000 to 10,000 workers 20x 10,000 to 100,000 25x and more than 100,000 workers at 30x would mean Walmart's CEO could be paid $452,400 if they only paid the federal minimum wage and $936,000 if they paid $15 an hour in every state to every employee instead of making $25 million a year however the cap would also have to find its way into business owners stocks and dividends if you wanted the 7 Walton kids to make less then 448 million a year meaning every employee would need to be given stock in the company they work for and be paid additional dividends from that stock. but lets start small and just cap CEO wages as beverleykendellauther says. It would be a revolution in financial prosperity the likes of which no nation has ever seen.

[worst-of-facebook]

I feel called out!

[escuerzoresucitado]

[sggk]

Here’s to my family’s annual christmas eve tradition of exchanging new pajamas, & to my mother’s parallel tradition of attempting to shame me every year by making into a t-shirt, quote, “The most egregious thing that you, my daughter , thought it was okay to say during a nice family dinner” . This apparently was my worst offence of 2021

[sggk]

Top ten things to panic and blurt out when you answer the door to your neighbour bringing over a box of ethically sourced artisan christmas chocolates, forgetting this is the shirt you’re wearing: Hey how’s it going how’s the wife

[largishcat]

there have been 774664 studies on basic income and the results of every single one have been “wow! we gave people money and literally everything improved! crime rates are down! the actual sky is bluer! my (the researcher’s) wife decided not to leave me after all!” but these have all been short studies, just a couple years. i think what’s really missing from the field is a proper long form study, with a broader, bolder demographic, to really get us those numbers we need. a truly diverse study pool like, say, everyone. forever

[giant-bean]

Evil vs Evil?

Lets break down the comment about not voting because the only choice is evil vs evil. We will look at just a few points but the first one seems to be what people are stuck up on. I want to point out a few other issues and be as unbiased as I can though I know I will fail to be all that unbiased.

Israel-Palestine Issue:

Trump: Pros:

Strongly supported Israel, moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem.

Brokered peace deals between Israel and some Arab states, known as the Abraham Accords. (Mostly about tourism leading to improved relations between multiple nations. Did not include Palestine)

Supported Israel's right to defend itself against Hamas attacks. (Not surprising as a New Yorker who saw what happened on 911 and supported our military response) he Said (paraphrased) in an interview that Israel needs to hurry up and get the job done and should stop filming what they are doing as its bad for PR.

Cons:

Criticized for unilateral support for Israel without adequately addressing Palestinian concerns.

His administration's peace plan heavily favored Israel's interests, neglecting Palestinian aspirations.

Handling of Gaza crisis was seen as one-sided, contributing to heightened tensions.

Biden: Pros:

Reaffirmed commitment to a two-state solution for Israel-Palestine conflict.

Resumed aid to Palestinians, including humanitarian assistance to Gaza.

Expressed support for Israel's right to defend itself while advocating for de-escalation. (Of course he defended their rights how else would we justify our reaction to 911 without being hypocrites)

Cons:

Initially faced criticism for not immediately calling for a ceasefire during the Gaza crisis.

Some argue his approach lacks the assertiveness needed to address the root causes of the conflict. More importantly he has not stopped the flow of US arms into Israel.

Pressure from the progressive wing of the Democratic Party for a more critical stance towards Israel. While being beholden to Congressional decisions made by Republican party members.

War in Ukraine:

Trump: Pros:

Provided lethal aid to Ukraine, including anti-tank missiles, to counter Russian aggression.

Imposed sanctions on Russia for its annexation of Crimea and support for separatists in eastern Ukraine.

Engaged in diplomatic efforts to resolve the conflict, including meetings with Ukrainian leaders.

Cons:

Faced criticism for his relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin, leading to questions about his commitment to countering Russian aggression.

Allegations of withholding aid to Ukraine for personal political gain, leading to his impeachment.

Inconsistencies in his statements regarding U.S. support for Ukraine.

Biden: Pros:

Maintained and expanded sanctions on Russia for its actions in Ukraine.

Provided additional military aid to Ukraine, including anti-tank missiles and fighter jets.

Supported Ukraine's territorial integrity and sovereignty, condemning Russian aggression.

Cons:

Some argue his response to Russian aggression has been insufficiently robust.

Criticism for not taking more aggressive actions against Russia, such as providing fighter jets. (Nuclear war was threatened if he did.)

Concerns about potential concessions to Russia in pursuit of broader diplomatic goals.

Overall Policies and Impact:

Trump: Pros:

Implemented tax cuts and deregulation, which some argue stimulated economic growth.

Appointed conservative judges, including three Supreme Court justices, reshaping the judiciary. (If you see that as a pro. It did lead to the overturning of row v wade and has had continues far right effects on policy that will effect generations.)

Focused on reducing illegal immigration and strengthening border security. (I have a hard time leaving bias alone here as the draconian methods used could also be seen as a con)

Cons:

Polarizing rhetoric and policies exacerbated divisions within American society.

Criticism for mishandling the COVID-19 pandemic, leading to significant loss of life.

Undermined democratic norms and institutions, including attempts to overturn election results.

Biden: Pros:

Prioritized tackling the COVID-19 pandemic, including vaccine distribution and economic relief.

Advocated for infrastructure investment and climate action through initiatives like the Build Back Better plan.

Emphasized unity and bipartisanship in addressing national challenges.

Cons:

Faces challenges in implementing ambitious policy agenda due to partisan gridlock. (Reducing medical costs, reducing prescription costs, forgiving student debt to stimulate the economy, fighting sexism, racism and classism in America have all been fought against while he is criticized for not doing more for other nations.)

Some concerns about the economic impact of proposed spending and taxation policies. (No doubt these policies have lead to inflation a they target the symptom instead of the cause)

Pressure from progressive and conservative factions within the Democratic Party may complicate decision-making. A political parties perceived power does not always mean control and at the moment there is a balance that could be easily tipped as the majority fail to vote locally and in national elections. And we could go on to talk about Trumps Project 2025 and its anti LGBTQA+ stance as well as its anti workers rights laws, government policy for shutting down dissent and conscientious objectors among other plans to destabilize democracy vs Biden's plan to "finish the job" of increasing civil rights, voter protection, child care, community collage and prescription drug access, infrastructure growth and returning jobs such as chip manufacturing to the US. Biden is working within checks and balances to pass what he can while opposed by Congress while Trump wants to destroy checks and balances to accomplish his goals without the oversight of the House Representatives. Look at the supreme court nomination from 2016 compared to 2020 as congress blocked Obama for 7 months and allowed Trump to nominate in his last two months. Even if you still think Biden is equally evil to Trump your not just voting for one man. Your voting for a system of government to remain a democracy or become (at best) an Aristocracy.

[bipolar-redhead]

Just need to shout something into the void for a second.

I was recently in the company of someone who quoted something she saw online where, when asked ‘gun to the head who would you vote for, Biden or Trump’ the person replied ‘the gun would go off’. And then she said how upset she was to have to vote for evil or for evil.

And I just… you guys realize the enormous chasm between those evils, right? Like, if we don’t go out in force and vote against Trump, even with the recent conviction, he could win. He’s still winning primaries. We cannot rely on the legal system to protect us from him. The only thing we have is our vote, our voice. And if we don’t use that voice to keep him out of office, do you really think that’s going to help the situation in Gaza? One week in and he’d be sending troops to actively fight Palestine.

And that’s not even taking into account Project 2025, which could take away that voice for good and put us in evil’s hands for-fucking-ever.

I understand the upset, but we live in an imperfect world and we have imperfect, even agonizing choices. And if we want to protect ourselves, our rights, AND fight against injustices elsewhere in the world, we HAVE to keep Trump and anyone like him out of the White House.

Choosing not to choose is not virtuous, nor is it morally ambiguous. Choosing not to choose is a vote for Trump.

[bipolar-redhead]

Unpopular opinion: It’s not inherently misogynistic to be male and aromantic

[rylandsgrace]

He’s so right actually