tilting at windmills and playing with fire

Here be the tumbled loves of me; this pixie singing and dancing, flitting, plummeting.

[themmfatale]

2020 gothic

- you join a zoom call. everyone’s mic is muted, but no one is talking anyway. you stare at the squares with faces in them. which is your face? you can’t be sure.

- the news is full of numbers. you try to learn what they mean, but the articles are full of jargon from fields you have no experience in, and you swear the numbers change when you blink. 

- you wake up. you sleep. you wake up. you sleep. how many days was that? you have no idea.

- you go for a walk. a shadow follows you down the street, moving when you move, stopping when you stop. always the recommended six feet away.

- every day you get several emails from corporations you’ve never heard of. each company name sounds fake, too vague, too optimistic. “Stay healthy! :)” they say. “We’re committed to keeping you safe! You must stay healthy! We love you very much! We learned everything about you so we can keep you safe! Please believe us we love you so much we’ r e  , s 0Rry:):)):))”  You try to unsubscribe, but the link just takes you to a blank black webpage. Suddenly, you can make out your reflection in the screen. What’s that over your shoulder?

- you’ve been wearing the same clothes for days, but somehow there is laundry.

[homunculus-argument]

Okay but consider:

they have enough resemblance to you and your kin that you can tell that this is the same type of creature as you - that's not an animal, that is clearly A Guy

but at the same time, the way they look and act is so different from you that you can also tell that That Guy Ain't Right

they look so fragile and small that rationally you're pretty sure that you could just yeet one, or snap one in half, but you also know you're better off never, ever trying to fight one unless they get physical first

not because they're strong, but they clearly have no natural caution against getting injured

you have no idea how they survive but evidently they do, even if you're always mildly surprised to see the same one twice

they're all unpredictable to some measure, but if you're familiar with one and on what you could call 'friendly' terms, you can somewhat trust this one over one you've never seen before

still don't recommend turning your back on one, as spindly and frail as they seem you never know if the one you've seen around a lot and even greeted in passing might flip on you

in-fighting between them is some complex bullshit beyond your comprehension, do not get mixed up in it

In conclusion, from the perspective of gorillas, humans are like the crackheads of ape world.

[paranormaltheatrekid]

fucked up hurt/comfort. the person who stabbed you tends to your wound. the person who killed your loved one helps you grieve.

[shoepixie]

Ysabeau is that you?

[charlesoberonn]

America has a weird relationship with cults where they’re terrified of small cults (or organizations they think are cults) but completely normalized massive cults that hurt many more people (eg: LDS Church, Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Amish, Scientology, most Megachurches)

[charlesoberonn]

To anybody asking if the Amish are a cult, the answer is yes, very much so.

They’re a high control group that isolate you from society. The cult decides how you dress, how you behave, who you marry and how. They control what you know, blocking all information from the outside world. They control how you feel and what you’re allowed to think with threats of both social and supernatural harm. They’re a cult.

[charlesoberonn]

The best method to determine if a group is a cult, in my opinion, is Steven Hassan’s (cult expert and former cult member himself) BITE model.

BITE stands for Behavior Control, Information Control, Thought Control, and Emotional Control.

The more points a group “scores” on the model, the more of a cult it is.

I think this model is the best one for several reasons:

It’s more nuanced than “cult” or “not cult” and doesn’t make false equivalences between groups

It’s versatile, applying to groups big and small, and cults of all kinds, religious, political, financial, etc.

It focuses on what’s important, which is what the cult does to its members, and those members’ experiences, and not on irrelevant details like how uncommon their doctrines are or whether they have a charismatic leader

[charlesoberonn]

This is a great example of Thought Control used by cults whenever they’re confronted with criticism.

[saxifraga-x-urbium]

#you might notice that there are a lot of similarities between cult techniques and those of abusive partners#and that is an important thing to be aware of

yah that goes in the post

[charlesoberonn]

The creator of the BITE Model considers abusive relationships to be two-person cults.

[natalieironside]

My boyfriend was showing me his cat and I leaned over to kiss the cat on his soft little baby head and he went "meow" and scrambled away because I'd been wearing my headphones and I accidentally jabbed him with the microphone.

And I said "Damn, this is exactly like in the Iliad"

[rebels-cairn]

#explanation: this references the scene where Hektor the prince of troy goes to his wife after a battle and leans in to kiss his son #(who is still a baby and being held in andromache's arms) #but his son cringes away in fear of his father's battle helmet #it's a gut wrenching scene about how war dehumanizes you and separates you from the people you love #this interpretation implies that being a gamer is analogous

[parkchanwoohoo]

[appendingfic]

when a cultural activity easily allows you to let small children participate

alternatively, a child dragon being greeted by the clan

[etriva]

[abiteofhoney-deactivated2025030]

using emdashes and a semi colon in the same line. this sentence will end when i do

[weltenwellen]

L. A. Johnson, from "Birthmark"

[inkskinned]

it's extremely critical that you see the photo of the perp walk for luigi mangione as being propaganda. i've seen so many people wave it off and instead fawn over his looks. and trust me, i know it ended up being kind of pathetic and weird - but please don't brush it off as a "modelling opportunity" for him. it's a fucking terrifying message the police are sending.

i want to make a few comparisons here, in case you're not from the US or familiar with why the perp walk thing is something to pay attention to. just to set the groundwork for why this is a purposeful, unusual, and cruel act by the nyc police - for why this is not a common occurrence and for why that matters.

the prosecution alleges the show of force is due to the charge of "terrorism." for comparison, in june 2015, tsarnaev was found guilty for the boston marathon bombing, which killed 3 people and injured hundreds. his actions are considered to be an act of domestic terrorism. i have spent the last hour looking through google for pictures of similar to mangione's perp walk - and so far, i have found zero. i also just do not personally remember a moment like that, despite living in boston at the time.

they allege that luigi is a stone-cold killer who carried out a longterm plan, making him particularly dangerous. again for comparison: in nyc, recently cory martin was found guilty of the killing of brandy odom. the murder was planned and premeditated to steal insurance money. and yet no staged perp walk. why didn't her life matter enough for a "show of force"?

but mangione gets paraded by a veritable army of police officers as if he is a rabid animal. for a single citizen who allegedly killed one other single citizen, the "largest perp walk ever" occurs.

so what is the "strong message" that the mayor and the police were trying to send here? the mayor speaks as if mangione is already convicted of terrorism. there is a very thin number of people who feel threatened by the CEO's death. none of us felt like mangione needs to be under massive armed guard.

the message is that you shouldn't resist. they are trying to "make an example" of him - that if you behave badly and kill a single rich person, you'll be treated as if you killed hundreds of people. you will be treated worse than a man who was found guilty of terrorism. you will be considered guilty without trial. the message is that the rich are a protected class, and you cannot touch them without massive punishment. they are trying to prevent a revolution by showing dominance and force against you.

the message is that the police are a puppet of the wealthy and that the law is not equally applied across class disparity. it is "some are more equal than others." it is "one life is more precious than another."

the show of force wasn't for luigi. it was for us. it was a warning. they are trying to remind us who is really in control.

[prismatic-bell]

Just to make this clear as crystal:

This is Timothy McVeigh's perp walk.

If you're not old enough or not American enough to know that name, he blew up a federal building in Oklahoma City in the mid-90s. 169 people died in the initial blast, 19 of them children and three of them pregnant women. A rescue worker, not counted in the previous number, was killed by falling debris while evacuating those inside. Close to 700 people were injured, over 300 other buildings were severely damaged, and McVeigh explicitly agreed that what he'd done was terrorism, and stated it was in direct retaliation for the Waco, TX and Ruby Ridge standoffs. It is important to note that McVeigh freely admitted his guilt; what you are seeing is the perp walk of a man who happily admitted to committing the largest act of domestic terrorism in the history of the United States. He wasn't yet convicted, but he himself said he was guilty. Also of note is that over 100 of his victims worked for the federal government, including six Secret Service agents. This is important because it adds additional charges; in the eyes of the law, killing a federal agent is worse than killing some random member of Joe Q. Public.

This is Luigi Mangione's perp walk.

He is alleged to have killed one adult civilian man in a direct and targeted shooting that did not endanger anyone else or cause any property damage.

He has pleaded not guilty and under United States law is considered innocent until determined otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt in a fair trial held by a jury of his peers.

My opinion of a politician has never fallen so far, so fast, as it has with Kathy Hochul and the way she's just shitting herself to console a bunch of rich spoiled white men by throwing this young man under the bus. I need you to understand it does not matter if Luigi Mangione is guilty or not. This is a violation of multiple of his constitutional rights and it makes an absolute mockery out of what's left of our justice system. They could already have a signed confession and this would still be a violation of his constitutional rights.

Do not let them get away with this. This is deliberate and it should lead to a mistrial.

[headspace-hotel]

I think sometimes people think eugenics is bad but its still true, like thinking that if people with certain traits have children it will change society for better or worse based upon what traits are promoted. I think its important to emphasize that eugenics is not only wrong morally it's also fake and stupid bullshit

Like eugenics was supposed to be based on the idea that "If it works with animals to select only the best ones to breed, why wouldn't it work with humans?"

well it doesn't work with animals, that's the thing. applying the eugenics ideas to domestic breeds of animals hasn't made better animals it's just made animals with more extreme expression of certain traits. turns out that when you decide which traits are the "best" and become obsessed with the genetic purity of the animals that have the "best" traits, you might well end up with some sad suffering creature like a Pug, or the Persian cats with the smashed faces that are in constant pain because their teeth and airways and brains are getting crushed by their skulls, or those meat chickens that grow so fast they can hardly even stand up after a few weeks old, or inbred race horses with tiny feet and fragile toothpick legs

like almost all traits are neither "good" or "bad" they're way more complex than that. a long tail or a long snout or a stubborn, independent personality can be good or bad depending on the situation. Who gets to decide what is a "good" trait or a "bad" trait? It's arbitrary and selecting for traits that are "good" in your opinion will often have both "good" and "bad" outcomes because the "good" and "bad" are part of each other and not separate its just part of being alive

Obviously oversimplifying everything but you get it. we did eugenics with dogs and how did that go? not very well

[headspace-hotel]

Here is an Internet Archive link to a compilation of eugenicist writings, which was published in 1934. I recommend going to page 193 (approx 40% of the way through) to read the short essay, "Is the Abnormal to become Normal?" by Lena K. Sadler

Read this essay carefully taking note of her reasoning and the types of support she uses for her argument.

Then see if you can think of examples of similar arguments and reasoning in the world today.

[headspace-hotel]

Thoughtful selective breeding is obviously part of agriculture with both plants and animals. It is the responsible thing to do to not breed animals with known genetic diseases. Is this the same thing as eugenics in humans? After all, the same thing was suggested with humans that have genetic diseases.

I say that it is not, but before discussing that, I also say that most things eugenicists were concerned with, were not completely genetically determined, or genetically determined at all. Out of the things that were actually genetically determined, it was usually because of too many different genes for selection to be possible, and out of traits that did have simplistic associations with genes, it was arbitrary and biased to judge them as "good" or bad" traits.

The eugenics movement happened before we knew what DNA was. The exact mechanisms of how heredity worked were unknown. It was not possible to link a trait to a certain gene that could be detected in a person's DNA.

Eugenicists thought entire individuals were inferior or superior to others, and thought that an "inferior" individual would produce "inferior" children. In reality, children inherit thousands of distinct genes that each may or may not be expressed based upon the impacts of other genes and environmental factors. If genes truly were either "good" or "bad," each individual would have a combination of "good" and "bad" genes. But it would be impossible to tell by looking at outward characteristics whether an individual had certain "good" or "bad" genes, because not all of the genes would be expressed.

Even worse, if you selected an elite group of individuals you thought had "good" genes and made them reproduce only within themselves, "bad" genes you didn't know about would begin expressing, due to the gene pool becoming more similar. A smaller gene pool makes it more likely to inherit two copies of the same gene. With recessive genes, they are only expressed when there are two copies, meaning that generations of individuals can have ("carry") the gene without ever showing any effects. Until suddenly, two carriers have a child and that child happens to inherit the recessive copy from both parents, and out of nowhere, the gene starts having an effect. A lot of genetic diseases are like this.

(In this way, eugenics type thinking ironically contributes to genetic diseases, by assuming that restricted gene pools of only individuals that appear "superior" will reliably create offspring expressing the same "superior" traits.)

Of course, in all except a few scenarios (a high chance of breast cancer is probably bad), genes aren't inherently good or bad at all. Let's say you decided that tall people were genetically superior, and organized a club for tall people to get together and have tall kids. If you did this for generations and generations, your descendants might be able to become consistently extremely tall, but you would probably also find that being extremely tall could have negative effects in many situations. Tallness might be genetically linked to some positive things, but it would be just as likely to be genetically linked to negative things. If the tall people club was restricted from having children with people outside the club, eventually you would likely see a high incidence of genetic diseases being expressed due to inbreeding.

Animal breeding has been going on for millennia, but the preoccupation with "pure" breeds is much newer. Inbreeding has been practiced widely in development of breeds because that is basically the only way to quickly make sure the traits you want are consistently expressed in the offspring, but since there is no such thing as a "superior" animal, it's also a good way to accidentally perpetuate "bad" traits (such as a high risk of cancer) throughout an entire gene pool.

There is also the fact that whether genes are "good" or "bad" usually depends on the situation. There has been a MASSIVE loss of genetic diversity among livestock since the beginning of industrial farming, and this has been very bad because whenever something changes about farming--whether it's a new disease popping up, effects of climate change, or improved practices--genes that are helpful in the new state of affairs are hard to find, because so much diversity has been eliminated. You just don't know what impact a gene might have in the future. Imagine some kind of new virus emerges that cattle with a certain gene are particularly susceptible to. If your herd is genetically diverse, the incidence of the gene might be small, so you might only lose one or two cows. But if your herd is genetically similar, you might be losing half of your herd. Five minutes ago, those cows were the "best" cows! Not anymore.

Imagine how much more complicated it is with humans! Even within our lifetimes, different body types have become fashionable and "ideal" and different personality traits have become favored for the workplace. And we still haven't cracked the genetic basis of body type or personality, let alone the array of environmental factors that might contribute.

Ultimately the problem of eugenics is assuming that any entity "knows better" about whether someone should pass on their genes than the person themselves. Humans have the ability to understand genetic diseases and heredity for themselves, and choose to have children or not based upon their own judgment. Furthermore, humans have the ability to communicate their needs to other humans, understand disability in themselves and others, and care for disabled members of their own species, therefore optimal quality of life is possible.

It is hard to apply the concept of personal choice to other animals, since we can't give animals education on what actions can lead to or prevent reproduction or the ability to exercise choice in whether to reproduce. The reproductive biology of many of our domesticated species is such that they have an estrus cycle where they are driven to mate during the period of time when fertilization is possible. Humans do not have an estrus cycle and can engage or not engage in sex regardless of fertility. It is not a very good comparison.

[benndragon]

Eugenics is very specifically why cows are so inbred in the US, to the point where when there were 9 million cows in the US, the genetic diversity was equivalent to 50 natural cows. Here's an amazing 10-minute podcast episode that explains the extremely wacky way farmers across the US were convinced to engage in that level of inbreeding:

Lost Bulls - the memory palace

This episode was originally produced for an episode of Radiolab from WNYC, released in August of 2019. Music Cul-de-Sac from Krzysztof Komed

[headspace-hotel]

FIFTY?

[shoepixie]

HI! So I'm a human example of this! No, not the *result* of eugenics, but definitely the sort of person eugenics assholes got excited about, and something they probably would create if they got their way. See, a lot of eugenics-obsessed assholes in the 80s got excited about brains like mine in and had a variety of names for them and I don't remember a *lot* about that time but there were lots of tests and poking at me and a few really boring clubs that were supposed to be prestigious only they didn't even have a damn soda machine so how cool could they honestly have been? Turns out you gotta have a better metric for 'paragon human' than 'BRAIN GO VROOM' cos, guess what, that doesn't actually make a realiably excellent human! Turns out brains aren't actually computers, and one that's overclocked just overheats, and yes it goes *faster* but it doesn't actually think *better* without training it to do that, also. That's education. And it still makes decisions based on emotion, because that's what they do. Also being smart doesn't actually get you far if you happen to be in a culture that's suspicious of intellect, and being really creative doesn't do you a lot of good if you happen to be in a culture that doesn't value creativity, and neither does you any good if you don't have good support and a stable environment and good medical access and...you know, all the things that let ANY person make the most of themselves. And maybe, like maybe, people are just like animals, and having some really exceptional trait also makes you sort of weird and fragile in really weird and unpredictable and often debilitating ways. It's so so so hard to live this way. I can't imagine why anyone would want to do that on purpose.

[psychotic-gerard]

sorry i will never understand cis grief. your daughter is living her best life and going around with friends and feeling like a human being. your son doesn’t feel like he needs to crawl out of his skin anymore and can actually smile. your children are happy and no longer see their existence as the worst thing in the world. why are you grieving this lmao. grow up.

[shoepixie]

this makes a lot of sense if we go in with the premise that the emotions make sense, but they don't. and it's not about the kid, really, it's about the parent's experience *of* the kid, and what the parent thought they knew about the kid, and a little bit about what the parent thought they knew about the world and the world they thought they were living in, and perhaps their simpler and more compressed ideas about gender and themselves. so none of that has to do with the child themselves at all. so with that context, it makes a lot of sense, if you think about it. and if you mean, it's a little self-focused, sure. but lots of feelings are, and feelings aren't really logical at all.

when i work with these parents, I try to give them a place to do these feelings, and just not make them the kids job. cos the kids really shouldn't have to worry about it, I don't think. but if the parent don't feel like there is a home for their experience, they're going to get all weird and twisted up and be resistance to the process, and we don't want that either. So. anyway, you're right, it isn't logical, but feelings aren't. so.

[the-mechanisms-system]

not to commie-post on main sideblog, but the "ouaohhgh if everybody could afford to live without working nobody would do anything ever" people are so funny to me. I was just thinking about what I'd do in this ideal commie utopia and like. I'd work at a daycare some days. I'd shelve books at the library. I'd help pick up litter. I'd make clothes. I'd help serve food at a community kitchen. I'd help in a community garden. I'd work at an animal shelter.

Like obviously some of those things I wouldnt do all the time because chronic fatigue is a thing and so some days I wouldn't do anything except rest. But if I could do whatever I wanted without worrying about survival, I would still do things that are considered "work." More so than I do now, actually, because I would have more time and more energy.

[shoepixie]

Hey I live on disability so I literally am the proof of this. I don't have to do anything but I do. I make art and I write and I help out at a local soup kitchen and I run errands for neighbours and I help my neighbours out and I can be available to offer no-notice childcare to folks in my building, which I'm sure is of incredible value to them.

[maureen2musings]

Wildflowers and fog

jhamilbader

[only-tiktoks]

[only-tiktoks]

[solarpunkani]

Hey, I saw a lot of people in the notes asking. I follow these people on tiktok and A: the seeds they use are all native to their region (California) and B: they sell native seed mixes, so far primarily for California but they’re making more mixes every so often. They also share the ‘After’ results as they start sprouting so yeah it does work, they rarely get ripped out from what they show.

[flipocrite]

The Shirley Exception

[alex51324]

A Pregnant Teenager Died After Trying to Get Care in Three Visits to Texas Emergency Rooms

It took three ER visits and 20 hours before a hospital admitted Nevaeh Crain, 18, as her condition worsened. Doctors insisted on two ultraso

So I read this article a few days ago, and I have been haunted by it ever since.

This young woman, Nevaeh, had an "oops" pregnancy. As you may have already guessed, she was from a Christian background--her name, "Heaven," spelled backwards, is popular in Evangelical circles. She, "believed abortion was morally wrong," and "didn’t care whether the government banned it," since she wouldn't have chosen to have one anyway.

Instead, she decided to carry the pregnancy to term and raise the baby, with the support of her mother and her boyfriend, the baby's father. Her boyfriend, the baby's father, gave her a diamond promise ring, and she picked out a name--Lillian--and planned a baby shower.

On the day of the baby shower, she felt unwell, then developed a fever and began vomiting. Her mother took to her to the ER, where she was given a prescription for antibiotics and sent home. A few hours later, she felt even worse, and her mother took her to the other hospital in their town, which had an obstetric emergency room. They did some tests, including checking the fetal heart rate, and told her the baby was fine. The gave her IV fluids and antibiotics, recorded her increasing fever, fast pulse, and high fetal heart rate, and sent her home again. She had to be taken out to the car in a wheelchair, because her pain was so bad.

A few hours later, she started bleeding, and they went back to the hospital with the obstetric emergency department. There, a different doctor did an ultrasound and was unable to find a fetal heartbeat.

Under Texas law, a medical practitioner faces up to 99 years in prison for performing any intervention that ends a fetal heartbeat. So, at this point, the doctors were free to treat her like a seriously ill human being, and not an ambulatory vessel for a life more valuable than her own--however, they hadn't recorded the first ultrasound. To ensure they could demonstrate compliance with the law, the doctor ordered a second one.

Somehow, that ended up taking about an hour and a half, during which time Neveah's condition got worse. By the time the second ultrasound was done, and the doctor was able to order a D&C to remove the deceased fetus, she was too weak to sign the release forms--her mother had to sign for her.

Before they got her into the operating room, she was dead.

If they were going to make an exception for anybody, they would have made one for her: a pro-life, Christian girl, who responded to her unplanned pregnancy by getting excited about becoming a mom. Who was not just unwell, not just in danger, but actually dying when she was refused care.

The Texas fetal heartbeat law does have an exception when the mother's life is at immediate risk. However, the Texas Attorney General has made clear--and several Trump-appointed judges have backed him up--to Texas doctors that they will be charged with homicide if he, who has no medical credentials whatsoever, disagrees with their professional judgment that a procedure which ended a fetal heartbeat was necessary to safe the life of the mother. That's why the doctor needed that second ultrasound.

That's probably why the other two doctors sent Nevaeh home: they couldn't be accused of an intervention that ended the fetal heartbeat, if they didn't intervene.

The leopards that eat people's faces, like all predators, go for the most vulnerable members of the herd. The guy up front on the podium, getting rich off bloviating about how leopards just have to eat a person's face from time to time, he's safe--not because of any loyalty on the part of the leopards, but because others in the group are softer targets.

Like I said, I'd been haunting me.

[headspace-hotel]

There are an uncomfortable amount of situations that are decided on a case by case basis this way, and I am horribly aware these days that this is how racism and other such deeply-infecting prejudices work oftentimes...

[followerofmercy]

Networking/Knowing A Guy: A Guide

This is the autism website. Now, as an extension of the power of love and friendship, there are few things more useful than Knowing A Guy. Knowing A Guy means you have a support network. Knowing a plumber, or a tax accountant, or just that one dude that's really fucking good at finding the information you need when you're really overwhelmed, can be the difference between being able to pay rent and having a fun party with friends to fix your shit.

How does one end up Knowing A Guy? It's a skill you can develop called Networking and it is one of the foundations of society. Unfortunately making those connections with people is fucking hard and nobody makes a tutorial for it. So, here you go:

The golden rule is you scratch my back and I scratch yours

It is necessary for survival to seek out useful people

Great news! Everyone is useful in some form or fashion - including you! When given the opportunity to learn about someone, do it! Extroversion does not come naturally to some people and that's okay. Just take whatever falls in your lap.

Types of usefulness: trade skills, connections of their own, personality you jive with, pleasant to talk to, niche interest in shared hobby, security - the list is pretty much endless. I know a guy that lives in the metro area - no job, no major hobbies, inoffensively annoying to me personally, kinda ignorant, not attractive to me, but you know what? He knows how the fuck to get around the city by foot. My rural-raised ass APPRECIATES the guide.

Remember important information: general personality, background, skillset, likes and dislikes. You can find this information by making smalltalk about their life. There is no such thing as pointless conversation. (Yes, even the annoying smalltalk)

The more people you know, the higher the likelihood that one of them will be useful in a given situation - or will know someone who is.

It is overwhelming. In a given clique/community/workspace/whatever, there is A Guy Who Knows The Other Guys. This Guy is a shortcut. Find them. They're often elderly, extroverted, a little bit annoying, a secretary or in some otherwise forward-facing position. Look for people that are gossipy/talk about other people a lot but not in negative ways. If they constantly talk shit, they'll talk shit about you too. They're still useful but be careful with the information you share

You do not have to like someone for them to be useful.

You do not have to like someone for them to be useful.*

If you have low self esteem, you're going to feel like you're using people. You're not. That's the devil talking. People like feeling valued and the connections you are making are the threads holding community together. Recognize people for their talents. It's only a problem when you're taking advantage of people

So: don't feel scummy about it. You're an animal. You have to claw out your right to survive and people will respect you more for it.

Luckily mutualism is the name of the game in the animal kingdom. Offer something back. The foundation of a Know A Guy relationship is Mutual Benefit

Sometimes that Mutual Benefit is just spreading news of the The Guy far and wide. My plumber friend is my actual friend and I love her to death, but I'm maintaining our backscratch relationship by pimping out her plumbing business to anyone that'll listen

Food is a good Mutual Benefit. People across cultures for all of human history have bonded over food. I have good success asking people for a favor and then offering to buy them lunch in return **

General compensation is also good. Offer a service in return and always do your best to offer financial compensation as appropriate. Having your plumber friend take a look at your drain: doable with a case of beer. Having your plumber friend redo the pipes in your entire house? You need to pay for that.

Being transactional is not necessarily a bad thing. I would advise against keeping an itemized list of things owed, but fish don't seek out cleaner shrimp just because they enjoy their company. Everyone gets something

Unfortunately being extroverted and generally personable is a huge benefit here, but that's the value of the Guy That Knows A Guy. There's someone out there that has consolidated All The Guys so you don't have to be the local expert. Always remember nobody can do everything and you don't need to master every skill

* This is the foundation of a functioning community. I have many acquaintances that I find incredibly annoying. They include doctors, welders, artists, social workers, lawyers, construction crew and random fuckers at the grocery store. I do not hang out with them. I do not have to in order to maintain a civil Know A Guy relationship. I can drop them useful tidbits and fuck right off so I don't have to spend any more time than necessary with them

** People may assume romantic intent. Be prepared for that. I generally denote that it's a friendly/work lunch by calling them bro at some point if they're my age. Otherwise my general demeanor is sufficient to show that I do this with everyone

Source: personal experience, mother's teachings of crime, booth vending and poverty

[headspace-hotel]

The power of Knowing a Guy will get you far.