[Image description: a world map with two points marked in America and Iran and a line showing the distance between them is 6170 miles. A speech bubble from the American point says "I'm using humor as a coping mechanism." End ID.]
some of y’all bout to be real mad at me. but it must be said. some of the shit u call corny/cringy is actually just genuine/cute/sweet and y’all r just afraid of expressing any type of positive emotion
i work with youth and they loooooooove to go “ew that’s so cringe” the moment anything earnest even grazes their orbit.
my general line that i send back to them is “hm. not sure i really believe in ‘cringe.’ it kind of sounds like you’re choosing to be embarrassed right now.”
Something everyone should know either as an authority or as a person labouring under an authority, being anywhere from a babysitter to a parent to a government entity, is that establishing a rule of any kind is incredibly labour-intensive and difficult to enforce.
So if you're going to make something into a rule, it HAS to be something you can both Verify and Enforce- if you can Verify but not Enforce, it's essentially just a suggestion. If it's something you can Enforce but not Verify, you're going to waste a lot of energy and time becoming an authoritarian dictator that nobody likes.
And because the process of Verification and Enforcement BOTH take a LOT of work, it makes no sense to waste all that work on establishing a Rule which has no Function.
For this reason, every Rule you set must perform a Function which gives you a return that is, if not greater, then at least EQUAL to the energy it takes to maintain, in one way or another. Otherwise, the whole system collapses.
Any authority that exists has limited time and limited resources, so it must prioritize rules that minimize the MOST HARM, that are EASIEST TO VERIFY, and are MOST ENFORCEABLE.
So, before you CREATE a rule, you must ask yourself:
What does this rule accomplish?
Is the reward of this rule greater than the expense of establishing it?
Can I verify when this rule has been violated?
Can I feasibly discipline one to violates this rule?
And, what I would argue is almost MOST important after all that,
5. How do I explain this rule in a way that people will want to follow it?
As a parent, for example, "do not set a campfire in the living room" is a good rule, because it is easily explained as a risk to personal safety and property, it's a rare enough situation to come up, it's easy to tell when it's happened, and a consequence like "you will not be left unsupervised for an extended period of time" or "you will write a report on house fires" could be implemented as discipline.
But as a parent, "no eating outside of meal times" is not a great rule in most circumstances. For one, food is easy to access, the harm that can come from snacking between meals is almost zero, it's almost impossible to prove, and there is no feasible way to stop someone from doing it OR make them WANT to follow it without lowering yourself to abuse.
So, if there is a behaviour an authority wants you to follow, it must first ask itself Why. Then decide if that is reasonable. Then decide if it should be a Rule or a Suggestion.
If the desired rule is not verifiable, or enforceable, then the authority must make peace with the fact that it will be taken as a suggestion. It has no other choice but to become an enemy, and slowly lose all respect and credibility.
You cannot make "no snacking" into a rule. But you CAN say, "this is how you keep a balanced diet, this is how you stay healthy, please don't take more than you'll eat at dinner, save leftovers for later".
You CAN make "no fire pits indoors" into a rule, and you can remain vigilant that it doesn't happen and give it your full focus when it does.
This is where laws based on social or religious judgement fail.
You cannot Verify or Enforce against drugs, crossdressing, homosexuality, sodomy, satanism, tattoos, prostitution, oral sex, or abortion. Not in any way that matters. Not in any way that Protects more than it Harms. It's difficult to prove, difficult to enforce, and it happens too much and too consensually to universally oppose. You can only expend energy and cultivate a population that distrusts you in trying.
You CAN Verify and Enforce against violence, abuse, theft, fraud, embezzlement, discrimination, and murder. Because it DOES Protect more than it Harms, and you can justify the expenses. Because these are things that happen nonconsentually, and can be prioritized, because there are Victims who experience Harm. Enforcing these rules can cultivate safety and trust instead of suspicion, cooperation instead of opposition within a populace.
Which is why laws against anything that does not cause harm, in my opinion, is doomed.
Because I've been raised and raised kids and seen kids raised in both ways, and I know that "because I said so" does nothing.
If you cannot Verify or Enforce, then the best you can do is Educate, provide safe options, and build a system to heal and recover for any potential fallout.
Yesterday my sister was going to complain about how things could have been different with our parents but stopped herself and said "No use treading through the multiverse"
Sooo true bestie that's going straight into my lexicon
Advanced guide to getting in the loop. Supplementary to "Civilization Essentials." If a movie is on this list, then it has one of these: -Po
Not all these movies are necessarily good, but the ones that gave me small pop culture epiphanies. It made me realize that 30%-40% of the jokes from modern sitcoms are references/parodies- and these movies are their source material.
^^ This is also true for socializing. So many people I thought were naturally funny were just doing movie bits.
[I actually do have a job, I am just a big fan of lists and graphs and flow charts etc.]
>First, we’ve discovered that about a quarter of all the internet connection in or out of the house were ad related. In a few hours, that’s about 10,000 out of 40,000 processed.
>We also discovered that every link on Twitter was blocked. This was solved by whitelisting the https://t.co domain.
>Once out browsing the Web, everything is loading pretty much instantly. It turns out most of that Page Loading malarkey we’ve been accustomed to is related to sites running auctions to sell Ad space to show you before the page loads. All gone now.
>We then found that the Samsung TV (which I really like) is very fond of yapping all about itself to Samsung HQ. All stopped now. No sign of any breakages in its function, so I’m happy enough with that.
>The primary source of distress came from the habitual Lemmings player in the house, who found they could no longer watch ads to build up their in-app gold. A workaround is being considered for this.
>The next ambition is to advance the Ad blocking so that it seamlessly removed YouTube Ads. This is the subject of ongoing research, and tinkering continues. All in all, a very successful experiment.
>Certainly this exceeds my equivalent childhood project of disassembling and assembling our rotary dial telephone. A project whose only utility was finding out how to make the phone ring when nobody was calling.
>Update: All4 on the telly appears not to have any ads any more. Goodbye Arnold Clarke!
>Lemmings problem now solved.
>Can confirm, after small tests, that RTÉ Player ads are now gone and the player on the phone is now just delivering swift, ad free streams at first click.
>Some queries along the lines of “Are you not stealing the internet?” Firstly, this is my network, so I may set it up as I please (or, you know, my son can do it and I can give him a stupid thumbs up in response). But there is a wider question, based on the ads=internet model.
>I’m afraid I passed the You Wouldn’t Download A Car point back when I first installed ad-blocking plug-ins on a browser. But consider my chatty TV. Individual consumer choice is not the method of addressing pervasive commercial surveillance.
>Should I feel morally obliged not to mute the TV when the ads come on? No, this is a standing tension- a clash of interests. But I think my interest in my family not being under intrusive or covert surveillance at home is superior to the ad company’s wish to profile them.
>Aside: 24 hours of Pi Hole stats suggests that Samsung TVs are very chatty. 14,170 chats a day.
>YouTube blocking seems difficult, as the ads usually come from the same domain as the videos. Haven’t tried it, but all of the content can also be delivered from a no-cookies version of the YouTube domain, which doesn’t have the ads. I have asked my son to poke at that idea.
Seriously, get and run PiHole if you can. It changes your internet experience so much for the better. I get shocked when I visit a website when I'm someone else's network, by just how many ads the internet is flooded with now. Take back control.
I...tried to make a meme and got carried away and made A Thing that is like partially unfinished because i spent like 3 hours on it and then got tired.
I think this is mostly scientifically accurate but truth be told, there seems to be relatively little research on succession in regards to lawns specifically (as opposed to like, pastures). I am not exaggerating how bad they are for biodiversity though—recent research has referred to them as "ecological deserts."
romaincrisis
blakekathryn
turnnoffyourmind
stormborns
gummygunk
tangentwithtanner
