JVL
almost home
blake kathryn
YOU ARE THE REASON
i don't do bad sauce passes
❣ Chile in a Photography ❣
Cosimo Galluzzi
Keni
pixel skylines
sheepfilms
Cosmic Funnies
RMH
TVSTRANGERTHINGS
Andulka
Kiana Khansmith
Xuebing Du
No title available
Game of Thrones Daily
No title available
"I'm Dorothy Gale from Kansas"
seen from India
seen from Austria
seen from Belarus
seen from Iraq
seen from Sweden
seen from Germany
seen from Australia
seen from United States
seen from Canada
seen from Japan
seen from China
seen from Türkiye
seen from United States
seen from Syria
seen from Netherlands
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United Kingdom
seen from Australia
seen from Germany
@soosfrasooh
the problem with parents is that they are undiagnosed
My usual shout out to my dad for being the only boomer man in therapy for the last 30 years, over which time he has gotten tangibly more Well. Unfortunately, my mother is the Spider Georg of diagnosis within our family so our average level of undiagnosed disorders is still five each
just marry her in Scotland and don’t tell people you GIANT dork
~ Scalpel: The 1911 Yearbook of the Woman's Medical College of Pennsylvania
Here is the 1911 Detroit Electric automobile being advertised to graduates of the Woman's Medical College: "Ask the lady physicians owning our car in Philadelphia"
It's really cute:
But I really want this other model from the same year (it's friendly looking and red and I'd name it Esther):
When people say things like "Behold the Accursed One!" that doesn't imply any ill intent on their part -- quite often it's meant as a neutral or even helpful statement. But the problem with this sort of language is that, however well-intentioned it may be, it foregrounds the curse at the expense of the person behind it; auguries have shown that this can have a priming effect that subtly reduces empathy. For that reason, experts today encourage people to use one-first language, such as "Behold the One who Bears the Curse," to better emphasize the dignity of the individual.
btw, if you base whether or not you have been Wronged in a situation on how bad you feel? that's bad. hurting other people feels REALLY BAD. FREQUENTLY. you feeling REALLY BAD does not = other people have mistreated you terribly.
experiencing consequences for legitimately bad behavior often feels absolutely terrible. even worse than being punished for something you didn't do, in my experience! if you allow your emotions to dictate whether you think you have been mistreated, you're going to treat the people YOU mistreat like they have harmed you unforgivably.
this is the logic that leads to DARVO. it is imperative to recognize the paths that lead to this behavior. your feelings are real and hard and they're also not telling the truth about every situation. they don't dictate reality.
The AMOUNT of therapy I have been to that never had a satisfying explanation for the behavioral consistency of DARVO across multiple culturally distinct individuals-
it's an empathetic injury, that's why it's *so* fast, so severe, and the "reasoning" can change so much even when the same story is told again; it's not pre-planned, there's no mastermind string-pulling or whatever, it's "Ah fuck, why do I feel so bad, it can't be my fault, so I need to explain why it is your fault".
I wish I could tell past me this. It would have shattered a lot of the illusions of control built into my environment if I had been able to see how many of the lies were just made up on the literal spot and that the people telling them were not expecting their actions to have consequences.
Many thanks, I will be taking this information with me both in terms of "How to not hurt others like I was hurt" and in terms of continuing my knowledge project of "Everyone is a person with their own internal motivations and reasoning"
I really do think that the narrative about ppl who DARVO being intentionally evil mastermind manipulators has fucked with our ability to understand when we are hurting others. hurting people you care about feels bad. being TOLD you have hurt someone you care about feels bad, even if you intellectually knew it. people without skills to tolerate distress experience feeling bad as an Attack and an Emergency which triggers Defense Mode. people can be VERY manipulative and just be acting in blind panic -- they're unthinkingly doing what works! none of this makes it okay! at all! but it's a version of something that we all have an impulse towards, I think, just totally unexamined and Writ Large/taken to the furthest possible level. at its core abusive behavior is about not being able to tolerate or manage your own emotions and believing that people besides you are ultimately responsible for this, I think. it's emotional fragility and usually a lifetime of practicing a specific kind of lashing out in order to get some sort of relief from the Big Bad Feelings. like.
the biggest thing I've learned about people who get into abusive and manipulative behavior patterns is that something can be absolutely terrible and indefensible and also, at its core, DEEPLY pathetic.
we don't want to see people who do that kind of harm as pathetic because there's this feeling that that somehow excuses their behavior. it doesn't. a lot of the time its behavior that they saw Work for people with power over them when they were children, and now they think it's the only behavior that Works when interacting with people over whom they have power. because it connects back to early developmental learning re: interpersonal interactions, this also often explains why people approach these situations like they're the victim -- it's a child headspace, it's a path that was originally trodden during childhood, and childhood is a state defined by a lack of autonomy. which I think also acts as a way to insulate people from the need to consider other people's experiences and feelings -- when you're a kid it's absolutely vital to defensively hyperrocus on your own experience because nobody else will do that for you. no one does that for children, generally. and so, many people learn that prioritizing their feelings = dismissing other people's. anyway I'm rambling now and none of this is like. I don't have citations for it, lol, but this is the best way I have found to conceptualize these dynamics in Learning terms. because I truly do think that so many things in life are about Learning, and how we are initially taught that the world works.
I also think that in general we overestimate how much we understand our own motivations for our behavior; generally people act first, based on emotions, and then come up with intellectual explanations for their decisions after the fact. I think that's important to keep in mind and it's something that's helped me understand people a LOT better.
"at its core abusive behavior is about not being able to tolerate or manage your own emotions and believing that people besides you are ultimately responsible for this" -> I think there is also a counterpart/corollary to this which is "not being able to tolerate or manage your own emotional responses to other people, and so trying to manage those people's actions and emotions into an arrangement that does not cause you distress" - rather than pushing responsibility onto others, it's denying them agency, because anything they try to do or say is subsumed into your meta-narrative of the situation.
Which is maybe distinction without difference, because it plays out the same, more or less. Just, rather than externalizing an emotional response that scolds people around you when they don't act the way you want, it's more... very nicely and kindly explaining to people what they actually think and feel, and why they acted in that way and what it means. Very heartfelt and earnest emotional processing conversations where what happened in what order and who felt what and why are rehashed into mush and reshaped.
In some cases, I think this can result from a failed attempt to mitigate the first type of response. Someone who is aware that they need to learn to analyze their own motivations and how their emotions shape their actions, and that they need to learn how to manage themself to avoid setting themself up to be hurt - but, whose sense-of-self boundary is bad enough that they also apply these tactics to everyone around them in a continuum with themself. Analyzing other people's actions as if your own emotional state was a universal baseline, a fundamental truth which they are at all times aware of. As if they were extensions of you. And trying to manage them into place in your emotional schema, like unruly twitchy limbs.
To have a usable model of someone else's emotional state, you MUST acknowledge that you could be wrong about it. If your model of them operates on the assumption that you know what they really feel, you're modeling them as an extension of you.
For me, one of the worst parts of untangling this was relearning that it IS normal for someone's understanding of a situation to change over time - as their emotional state changes, their intepretation of what happened will also shift. As long as someone is not expecting you to instantly and seamlessly comply with their reinterpretation, this is actually... fine. I had learned such a fear response to someone's interpretation shifting that I felt a need to create a stable understanding of What Actually Happened And Why, and to have that be untouchable. Unfortunately... that's exactly how this behavior propagates forward. My stable understanding wasn't actually intrinsically more stable than anyone else's, and now I was the one trying to force people to comply with the conceit that it was - that is, to edit their understanding seamlessly to match changes in mine that I was willfully unaware of.
To have an understanding of the world that feels steady and reliable, you have to be able to accommodate a bit of a shift back and forth, in your perspective and that of others. It's scary trying to build this when you're used to people completely upending the world on you. But it is possible to build trust that people will shift back and forth but maintain a steady enough overall position that you can work with it. And with an understanding like this, you're able to recognize when someone's perspective is swinging hard due to a strong emotion, and to integrate that with your existing understanding of them, rather than having it totally destroy what you think you know. And, you're able to shift your understanding of them if you find out it's wrong, without feeling like that destabilizes your entire relationship with them, because you didn't build the relationship on the hard assumption of them being exactly a specific type of way.
god yes this is all such an important addition, thank you.
if i had three wishes they would all be to make web 2.0 utterly illegal and go back to normal html
how do we explain to children that all our tech briefly worked perfectly and over time we threw it all away for sleek menus and corporate opacity
"we could give you a link to this mp3 OR we could run it in a proprietary player app that must connect to the internet every time you hit the resume button"
when i upgraded from a flip phone to an iphone and realized i could no longer record and set a custom ringtone because apple wanted me to buy radio pop ringtones, i realized, oh cool new tech isnt made for us it's made to exploit us and we are going to let it happen
ouch
i can literally create replicas of ancient ceramics i want in my house and no one can stop me from doing this
(ancient athenian horsie i made for @captainkaltar :)))))))
and jewelry too, my power is unstoppable
posting more handicrafts on my insta!!
Thought i also post mine ancient replicas!
And one of the most famous bowl of course!
These guys are from tlatollotl's post
when brandon sanderson talks about villains in his famous free youtube writing class video lectures he'll say 'what's the difference between gollum and sauron' and of course he means the villain that's present in the narrative and characterized in a way the audience can potentially relate to or sympathize with vs. the looming threatening anonymous far-off force (among other things). but every time he asks that i think 'well one of those guys tracked down frodo and got his ring back'
Brandon Sanderson: What's the difference between Gollum and Sauron?
OP: Skill issue.
hey so I’m talking with my wife and I just realized she’s never felt an earthquake so uh
have you ever felt an earthquake
yes
no
and pls reblog i need to know!!!!!!!
thinking about when my friend found a book from the 70s in a church office with truly some of the most insane prayers I have ever heard
you have to explain the nearest item on your left side to a mediaeval peasant, can you do it?
yes
no
way too easy
way too hard
they call me a witch
results
just had an amazing sleep paralysis experience wherein i looked above my bed and there was a green prompt box thing that said “reveal ghost” and of course my dumbass clicked on it and scary eyes slowly faded in as i tried to squirm around in fear and couldnt move like. man thats stupid you deserve whatever happens to you at that point
*muttering to self* You can't idiot proof your book. You can't idiot proof your book. You can't idiot proof your book. You c
idk why this is controversial reader should skip anything they don’t care about if there’s not going to be a test. Me reading most military scifi like “and then they ran around and shot stuff and it was all very loud” like guess who gets through a John Scalzi book in thirty minutes
wearing sky-colored shoes to hide from the devil. earth colored hat to hide from god
Iron breastplate to ward off fairies, Fishnet leggings to ward off cod.
You're evil and you know it
good thing they're hidden from god and the devil
The Georgian slave hunters [Knight and Hughes] soon felt the force of this collective resistance all over Boston. They could hardly step from their hotel before street boys pelted them with refuse, screaming obscenities. Others stalked them, throwing stones alongside the boys. The cries went up everywhere: “Slave hunters!” “Thieves!” “Bloodhounds!”
Poster warning of slave hunters searching for Ellen and William Craft. Love the inclusion of a date at the bottom - including the year! - because who knows how long a poster has been up?
They emerged from a courthouse in Boston to behold a vast, multiracial army of men, women, and children — about 2,000 people, by John Knight’s estimate — together shouting the refrain that Knight had come to loathe: “Slave hunters! Slave hunters! There go the slave hunters!” Some called for feathers and tar.
A hackney coach soon drove up with a pair of white horses, wild with excitement. With the sheriff pushing through the crush, Hughes managed to jump inside, but “not without losing his hat and getting somewhat hustled about.” Knight, meanwhile, was caught behind and forced to retreat, as protesters hissed and jeered, and tried to break the carriage doors. Eyewitnesses would vividly recall the scene: The crowd became like one body, single-minded, with long, strong arms, as it covered the coach and rocked it from side to side, intent on taking the passenger. One man, a journalist wrote, smashed open a window, aimed his weapon, and, for a quivering moment, had Hughes within his sights. But another protester pulled him down. The driver raised his whip and cracked it high, and with that, the coach convulsed forward, doors akimbo, people hanging off all sides.
The carriage clattered over the Craigie Bridge, speeding through the toll, driver and rider hoping that the fare would deter the protesters, who clung hard. Above all the others, one “colored man” straddled the roof, riding “in triumph through the streets of Cambridge.” It was protest in motion.
Only many miles later, in a landscape of cattle markets, slaughterhouses, and racetracks, did the carriage at last outrun the protesters, rolling to a stop at Porter’s Tavern in North Cambridge. But the driver, spooked by the ordeal, refused to continue service, leaving Hughes to find his own way back to Boston, where he finally reunited with Knight at the United States Hotel, their Boston headquarters.
(from Ilyon Woo's Master Slave Husband Wife, excerpted in the Boston Globe)
I've been thinking about this description of the popular, well-organized, widespread resistance to the Fugitive Slave Act since I read about it last year. (The article and book have more excerpts, including descriptions of exactly how all this got organized - late night meetings, a lot of legwork, a lot of using every tool available, both bureaucratic and physical. I particularly loved the description of how the slavehunters spent half their time in Boston under arrest, for slander (calling William and Ellen slaves), attempted assault, attempted kidnapping, as well as an assortment of nuisance charges - public smoking, swearing, and, after Hughes' escape to Cambridge, fast driving.)
dialectics
Fellas, is it counter revolutionary to eat.
This is a reminder that any insane extreme position can be couched in progressive sounding language to try and persuade you of its validity, even positions that are totally contrary
