#free thought

[secularsasquatch]

[umi-no-onnanoko]

'Sei troppo sensibile".Chi si è sentito rivolgere questa frase almeno una volta nella vita sa bene che raramente viene pronunciata come un complimento. Più spesso suona come una diagnosi medica o, peggio, come una condanna: un modo elegante per dirti che non sei abbastanza forte, abbastanza cinico o abbastanza "corazzato" per affrontare il mondo fuori dalle mure domestiche.

Se nella vita privata l'ipersensibilità può essere tollerata (e talvolta persino apprezzata nelle relazioni intime), è nel mondo del lavoro che si trasforma nel nemico numero uno. L'ambiente aziendale medio è ancora tarato su vecchi standard competitivi: vince chi grida più forte, chi mostra meno emozioni e chi riesce a farsi scivolare tutto addosso.

In questo contesto, la persona sensibile viene spesso vista come una palla al piede, colui o colori che deve essere stimolato al fine che renda al meglio. (Parlo per recente esperienza diretta)

Confondere la sensibilità con la debolezza è l'errore più comune,nonché quello in cui mi sono imbattuta io,infatti se tu dipendente ci rimani male per un feedback espresso con troppa durezza, o se mostri empatia verso un collega in difficoltà, vieni subito etichettato come "problematico" o instabile.

Chi è molto sensibile nota tutto: il tono di voce del capo, la tensione silenziosa tra i colleghi, l'ingiustizia di una decisione. Questo costante assorbimento di stimoli può portare a un sovraccarico emotivo, che i superiori spesso scambiano per scarsa resistenza allo stress o mancanza di leadership portando gli stessi a dirti quell'irritante "sei troppo sensibile".

Il vero paradosso è che le aziende che penalizzano la sensibilità stanno rinunciando a una delle risorse più preziose sul mercato,almeno secondo il mio personale pensiero e secondo diverse ricerche.

Quella che viene definita "troppa sensibilità" è, in realtà, un pacchetto di competenze straordinarie (le famose soft skills), quali:

Intelligenza emotiva

Creatività e intuito

Ascolto profondo

Certo, vivere con i sensori sempre accesi non è facile. Chi ha questa caratteristica deve imparare a mettere dei confini sani per evitare che l'empatia si trasformi in spugna emotiva, assorbendo anche la tossicità altrui.

In conclusione, se vi dicono che siete "troppo sensibili", la risposta corretta non è scusarsi come in tanti, io compresa, abbiamo fatto.

La sensibilità non inficia il valore di una persona; sono semmai gli ambienti di lavoro troppo rigidi a non saperla valorizzare. In un mondo che viaggia a colpi di algoritmi e fredda efficienza, restare umani e capaci di emozionarsi non è un limite: è un atto di resistenza.

-umi-no-onnanoko ( @umi-no-onnanoko)

[commonsensecommentary]

“We like to believe that we are teaching this open-mindedness in our schools and colleges, but the mounting evidence is that we are graduating a great many bat-blind ideologues who have no interest in thinking—except when thinking of new ways of enforcing unquestioning obedience to their preferred beliefs. We see this demonstrated daily in the campus speech codes, mandated diversity pledges, stilted classroom discussions, and intrusive armies of DEI bureaucrats that are all enforcing a hive mind conformity which is antithetical to the thoughtful and unfettered conversations we must have regarding the many pressing problems facing America today.”

(I wrote this roughly three years ago. The academic extremists have slithered into the shadows in the face of the bright light shined upon them by the Trump administration, but tenure and civil service protections mean they are still spreading their poison in our nation’s classrooms—and we all pay the price.)

Thinking About Thinking

Being educated has many components: a broad base of factual knowledge, the ability to extract and use pertinent information from written or

[tamsiblings]

so I've always wondered this in the back of my mind but your reblog recently brought it back to the forefront

this line especially, but also the vibe you get throughout the entire show that Simon is habitually caring for and protecting river since that what he's always done. And I've been wondering: protecting her from what? The show never shows us what Simon Protecting River looked like before he broke her out of the fucked up lab. I have a pretty good idea that it may have been a form of emotional neglect from their parents. They don't notice River's distress in her letters and basically disown Simon when he goes off to save her so maybe they were the type to never listen to their children or believe them when they expressed their needs. Or care more about how their children's behavior made their family appear socially and less about how their children were actually doing. I also wonder if River didn't have a bit of the Gifted Child syndrome going on and their parents treated her more as a prodigy than a daughter. And Simon had to stand up for her and try to get their parents to see her as a girl first and a genius second.

It would have been really cool to see this actually in the show as a flashback or something, but I bet you've thought about it loads and want to hear your take.

warning: this got reallly tangenty and long as i am wont to do oops <3 putting most of it under a cut

warnings for discussion of emotional neglect and a variety of other factors i think could reasonably be labelled as emotional and psychological abuse. emotional neglect on its own is to my understanding a form of emotional abuse, but i think there are other layers here as well.

anyway heyyyy bestie talking about the tams (including the parents tbh, the little we get of this family structure is fascinating to me) (we do actually get more on simon and river's background than anyone else! bc it's so connected to the current story anyway) is my favorite thing as you may have guessed so thank you for sending this.

and YES i have thought about this a lot <3

simon said he "always has" taken care of river and while i think on a literal level this is likely a Slight exaggeration (even if their parents weren't around physically for that whole aspect of taking care of, i think their material needs were always met and they likely had the means for a nanny or some other kind of support) but on an emotional level, i think this is very true.

i think you are 100 percent spot on with the emotional neglect and other unhealthy dynamics. here's some of what we know on that front:

the tam parents could be affectionate and even indulgent when it was easy and suited their own ends. ie. getting the source box for simon and assuring him he's worth it, calling them "you two geniuses" etc. this could be a very sweet moment and in some ways it is, because i truly believe the tams both believe in the worth and specialness of their children...

but their affection is clearly quite conditional. deeply. and, i think, more than anyone involved quite realizes. it's followed up by "that's the deal - dedicated sourcebox - brilliant doctor'. no matter how lightlyheartedly and affectionately it's said, it's clear it's seriously meant - and baby!simon clearly takes it to heart. (note: i've always interpreted this as simon already expressing interested in medicine and his father basically going "fine, but whatever you're doing, you have to be the best at it". i'm sure attorney or corporate ceo also would have sufficed for their image-focused needs, as long as he was successfuly and prestigious enough.)

i should also note that the the dynamic between regan and her children is far more implied because the focus in safe is mostly on gabriel.

a quote from an interview with sean maher: “It was great to learn where Simon came from. We see that his parents are incredibly ostentatious. There were so many expectations and Simon and River felt so much pressure, trying to be what their parents wanted them to be. And we got an idea of what happened to River. The parents sent her away to a school they thought would further her learning. Maybe they were naive in a sense, to think of only bettering her mind and not listening to her as a girl–as their daughter.” (emphasis mine)

notable here (and i love sean maher for noting this because, understandably because river isn't present in the flashbacks in the episode proper, it's not as clear what river's dynamic with their parents is, but certainly inferences can be made) is that both simon and river feel expectations and pressure from their parents, not just simon.

which leads to me wondering about river going to the academy. i think multiple things can be true here at once. i think, as simon says in the pilot, she did genuinely want to go. she was curious and brilliant and bright and not challenged enough in the current education system she found herself in or by her peers. she wanted something rigorous. i think a lot of that probably DID come from her. but i also do wonder if there was a level of their parents always expecting her to challenge herself in this way because, as you mention and i think implied in the quote above, they valued her brilliance and prodigy above her personhood. i also think it's possible (though i'm less sure on this) that river wanting to go to a school where she lives away from her parents and can both live up to their expectations but where she can distance herself from them could indicate something about how she feels. but might be reading too much into things.

there are also elements of controlling behavior that goes hand in hand with both the conditional love and the valuing their children for their intelligence/ability over simply valuing them as their childhood. in the shooting script, the offer simon gets goes through gabriel, and it's not presented as one opportunity or path simon can take. it's The Plan, and there's no room for deviation even when the most dire of circumstances calls for it. (and like, this would never happen because simon does genuinely value medicine and being a doctor, but in an interesting excercise: how would the conversation look if simon decided he didn't want to be a doctor o some other prestigious high paying XYZ? or even that he wanted to pursue a different opportunity he found on his own and is maybe not quite as prestigious in medicine? i don't get the sense it would have gone over that well.) we don't really get a sense of this with river because again, she's less present in the episode - but i think reasonable assumptions can be made.

^ it's a funny story that simon tells kaylee in object in space, about paying the feds off so they wouldn't tell his father about his drunken (and relatively harmless) escapade with his peers after making surgeon, and tbf, a lot of people probably wouldn't want their parents to know that. but in context with the rest of this, it feels very telling that simon did not want his father (or presumably his mother) knowing he acted at all in a way that could be considered undignified or that he got in any degree of trouble (it doesn't even sound like he was arrested, the police just showed up and he didn't want his parents to find out.)

in many ways, it seems clear both simon and river start off as golden children in their parents eyes - they care about them and value their gifts, but more like you would care about a trophy than a child. they care about what river and simon reflect on them. and notably, when river is no longer just the brilliant prodigy-child but vulnerable, in need of protection, and a symbol of inconvenient truth they don't want to face (a number of them, really - the misplaced trust in their government/society/system, the fragility of status and the false sense of security, their own culpability and failures to protect their children) - instead of helping her when she needs them the most, they ignore and abandon her. and when simon can't do the same, he - as the "truthteller" in many family dynamics of this structure often do - becomes some degree of a scapegoat. he faces the truth they are unable or unwilling to see. they turn a blind eye but simon can't, it's not who he is and he loves river too much. and suddenly, when he's not doing and saying and being exactly what they say he should because he's focused on helping river, he's treated like he's causing problems for no reason - like he's the problem. like he's making a big deal over nothing when he tries to show them the letters, when his father says "are you trying to destroy this family?" as though their daughter being kept and tortured against her will and their own refusal to acknowledge it isn't what's actually doing the family-destroying. and while i think simon getting scapegoated/othered/treated as a problem is a rather new development, and don't imagine they were getting constantly berated - in the scene at the end of safe, YMMV, but gabriel seems a little too comfortable quite ufairly berating simon for things that are quite obviously not his fault or for at all disappointing him. i don't think it was always happening - but i don't think this comes out of nowhere.

on the causing problems for no reason (or a reason they dismiss) component; this feels particularly insidious because they should know their son well enough to know simon doesn't do that. he doesn't do things for no reason, he has a highly overly developed sense of responsibility (which comes back into his dynamic with river ofc.) so like... either they do know that and are purposefully ignoring and even twisting it, or they don't know their son nearly as well as they should.

the scapegoating component lends itself to the extremely uncomfortable gaslighting component in safe. in fairness: i think this aspect of the Tams Very Poor Parenting Choices is likely much more situational and less indicative of past behaviors. regardless, it's pretty rough to watch simon point out things that are quite obviously strange (they don't KNOW anyone called d'arbanville) and have his parents treat him like he's paranoid and insane.

this also comes with a certain level of guilt tripping and beratement. i will say it forever: if i had a child and they were arrested, the FIRST thing i do is ask them if they're okay, figure the rest out later. "

and again: some aspects of all this are situational as we get into the river-at-the-academy component, but i think there's a lot that can be read into the tam family dynamic as a whole based on all this.

so on some level - a lot of THAT is why simon says he's always taken care of/protected river - i don't think he necessarily could have entirely saw or named or what their parents were doing for what it was (which i would argue, as you said, was some degree of emotional neglect and emotional abuse, though some of this is implied or inferred - i would argue based on evidence, but just something to keep in mind). but i do think he developed a sense of responsibility over her and a caretaking role as result.

because it's very notable to me that - for instance - in the river tam sessions, river specifically asks for simon. she doesn't say "i want to see my parents" or even "i want to see my family" but "i want to see my brother." and yes, you could argue that this is because that's who the audience who most care about/be familiar with - but with the rest of the context, it feels extremely significant. in the serenity film, she says something similar to what simon says in that shooting script flashback - "you take care of me, simon. you've always taken care of me. my turn" after simon gets shot and right before she goes in to get his bag and fight the reavers. and like, you could argue that she means ever since the academy - but "always" feels much more weighted than that to me.

it's also interesting to me that river doesn't seem to have as much difficulty reconciling with the fact that their parents abandoned them (and a whole host of other stuff, as established, but that's what the show most focuses on.) now, in fairness, river has a LOT going on - psychic and emotional overwhelm, lots of trauma and intrusive memories - both hers and others, etc - so it makes sense that maybe that just wouldn't be on her register regardless. but i also think... well 1) being so in tuned into what others think and feel, even if she might not have been quite able to name it, i do think she's understood longer than simon (maybe since before the academy; i am still curious if that's paret of why she left) how their parents really saw them. so she's had more time to accept and move on from it. 2) there's this other level where river DID have someone protecting her - simon - even if it took a long time to realize what he was protecting her from. while i think it probably looked less intense than it does in the show proper where she is so deeply traumatized, there is no doubt in my mind that if she was ever upset or anything ever went wrong, it was simon she turned to for comfort or help, not her parents. which tbc: <333 i love them. and this is not her fault at all. but simon Did Not Have That. i think he protected her without quite knowing that's what he was doing for a long time... and didn't realize he needed protection too and wasn't getting it.

which makes it difficult to reconcile and move on from, which is why in the moment in safe when river (seemingly talking about gabriel but likely talking about mal) insists "daddy" will come for them - simon totally shuts down. because he knows that's not going to happen, and it hurts a little too much to deal with, but he's still fairly RECENTLY coming to terms with How Their Parents Are - and the fact that he did not have emotional support. so now he doesn't know how to let himself even ADMIT that he also needs care.

final note (god sorry this is sooo long) i will also say that, while i (as a #tam siblings lover) am often very sad/angry/frustrated about simon and river's dynamic with their parents, and that i certainly will never excuse emotional abuse or this kind of parental behavior, that i try and hope to approach the tam parents in any analysis or ficwriting i might do from a very human angle. the range of human complexity is fascinating to me, and i don't think it does the themes of the show justice to act like the tam parents are outright monsters, totally good or totally bad (note: this is so not in the slightest me saying that i think you are doing this. more just thinking out loud about fandom discussions i have seen surrounding this topic.)

this gets at larger discourse both in fandom and in general i think there is a tendency in our society to want either completely villainize or idolize people (and this maybe becomes especially true in complicated relationships like this). when we talk about abuse to any degree and of any kind, people often want to dehumanize and villainize the abuser in such a way that separates themselves from that possibility - "abusers are evil and inhuman and i'm nothing like that so there's no way i could ever cause that kind of harm etc." but in actuality, there is no inherent internal quality that makes someone an abuser - it is a pattern of harmful behavior that people can choose to do and choose not to do. and i don't want to suggest that people who do this are abusive themselves, that's not what i mean - only that i think the mindset comes from a culture that insists on some very black and white thinking. i think it's a very natural human impulse to want to separate ourselves that way, but also maybe gets us away from seeing the bigger picture. and to be clear: i don't mean to suggest that anyone owes an abuser anything, or that simon and river, for example, should have to forgive their parents. that's not true here or in real life. i only mean to say that people are more complicated than being fully good or fully bad, and firefly reflecting this is one of my favorite things about it.

and again, this is complicated with the tam parents because i'm making a lot of (what i feel are supported, but even so) inferences and assumptions here. so whether you want to identify them as emotionally abusive/neglectful etc is a whole can of worms. but regardless, it's clear their behavior and parenting harmed their children. BUT here are where some major caveats come in:

similarly to the way people often do in other contexts, i have seen people want to outright completely villainize the tams and while i understand this impulse, i think it comes from the same place that a lot of well-meant but misguided discussions do. there are those that think they either must have never cared about river in any capacity at all or actively agreed to sell her out to the alliance (a theory i not only don't like or subscribe to but actually feel misses the point of what's going on with the tams and is less interesting even besides). but i think that sets up the tams to look cartoonishly evil in a way that the narrative doesn't support or intend. do i think the tams are good parents? well, no! i think it was easy to look like good parents when things were easy, but even then, there were cracks. (though i don't think everything was always bad - even in abusive situations, that is usually not the case - there are reasons why people love their parents and stay and have a hard time seeing the bad - because things aren't always like that.) i have also seen people insist or write like it's a given that the tams must have also been physically abusive, and while i don't want and would never tell anyone what they can and can't write, by my own reading, i find that unlikely. i think some of that is often coming from a place of people working through their own stuff, which again - never gonna tell anyone not to do that, you do you - but i also think at times it speaks to a societal tendency to assume that the harm isn't bad enough if it isn't physical - but i think we get a good sense of how deeply simon and river are affected even outside of the confirmation of any physical harm from their parents. (note: i do think the tams being willfully ignorant and leaving their daugher to be tortured and experimented on while on some level know that's what happening is a form of physical abuse or neglected, it's just situational and not in the traditional sense.)

but what i think is so important present, and much more interesting in this story, is that the tams are not evil, so to speak, or at least aren't mustache-twirling villains. they're not even entirely bad-intentioned; i believe they do genuinely want good things for their children, even if they have very specific ideas of what it should look like and how it will benefit them. but they have wholeheartedly, implicitly, without any room at all for questioning bought into the system values of the core and the alliance: prestige, status, and privilege treated as worth, family as a hollow projection of prestige, disruption as the ultimate trespass. to me, the story with regard to the tam parents isn't about them not caring or valuing simon and river at all - it's about valuing those things above them, and how their care is warped and shaped by those harmful systematic values.

now, this is rarer, but i have also seen people want to (maybe in response to above?), if not idolize, then absolve the tams of the role they played in river's abuse at the hands of the academy, but that doesn't ring true to me either. i want to be fair where it's due and say yes, there was danger involved (which simon put himself through) in helping river, but the fact is the narrative focuses much more on the tams focusing on what it could cost them on a social level - their status and "good name", prestige, etc. and at the end of the day, when you have children, you have responsibility to them - and the tam parents failed both of their children on that front.

one thing i also thing is so interesting to note is that simon and river are so loyal and value connection so deeply when it's clear that is not what was most instilled in them on a systematic level or taught to them by their parents. in fact, i think you could argue that while some of it was intrinsic to who they are (here's the old nature vs. nurture debate which i think you could argue simon and river are the two biggest representers of on the show), i also think it's a repsonse to this bond they formed specifically BECAUSE of their parents.

[inspofromancientworld]

History of Philosophy: Individualism

Individualism is the moral and philosophical stance that centers the individual over the community, valuing independence and self-reliance as well as promoting the gains of the individual over the state or a social grouping such as the family or community, while also opposing influences from the state or social group on the individual, based on the 'fundamental premise that the human individual is of primary importance in the struggle for liberation'. Some of the fields of philosophy under individualism include humanism, freethought, anarchism, and hedonism, among many others that have developed from those, with philosophers such as Diogenes, Protagoras, Laozi, and Zeno involved in their development.

Hedonism is considered 'one of the oldest philosophical theories. Some interpreters trace it back to the Epic of Gilgamesh, written around 2100-200 BCE', and is a 'family of philosophical views that priorities pleasure' and the 'theory that all human behavior is motivated by the desire to maximize pleasure and minimize pain' and 'suggests that people only help others if they expect a personal benefit'. This pleasure can be physical or psychological, as can the pain, making it 'difficult to measure this balance and compare it between different people'. Aristippus of Cyrene, who lived from 435-356 BCE is usually identified as the 'earliest philosophical proponent', formulating an 'egoistic hedonism, arguing that personal pleasure is the highest good', holding that people were 'focused on the gratification of immediate sensory pleasures with little concern for long-term consequences'. Plato, who lived from about 428-347 BCE, countered with a view that 'proposed a balanced pursuit of pleasure that aligns with virtue and rationality' and Aristotle, who lived from 384-322 BCE, 'associated pleasure with eudaimonia or the realization of natural human capacities, like reason'. Epicurus, who lived from 341-271 BCE, took a more nuanced view of pleasure, further contrasting with those of Aristippus and his followers, stating that 'excessive desires result in anxiety and suffering, suggesting instead that people practice moderation, cultivate a tranquil state of mind, and avoid pain'. Antisthenes, who lived from 446-366 BCE, and the Cynics who followed him 'warned against the pursuit of pleasure, viewing it as an obstacle to freedom, while the Stoics dismiss hedonism altogether. In India, during about the 6th-5th centuries BCE, a form of egoistic hedonism developed based on the 'belief in the non-existence of God or an afterlife, this school advocates enjoying life in the present to the fullest', though many other Indian traditions advocate for an ascetic lifestyle, such as Jainism, Buddhism, and Hinduism. In China, Yang Zhu, who lived from about 440-360 BCE, 'argued that it is human nature to follow self-interest and satisfy personal desires', founding the school of Yangism during the Warring States period.

Anarchism has roots that go back to ancient Greece and China and is a philosophy that 'seeks to abolish all institutions that perpetuate authority, coercion, or hierarchy, primarily targeting the state and capitalism'. In China, philosophers such as Zhuang Zhou, who lived in the 4th century BCE during the Warring States period, and Laozi, who lived sometime between the 6th-4th century BCE, questioning the legitimacy of the state and Taoism 'has been said to have had "significant anticipations" of anarchism'. In ancient Greece, both philosophers and tragedians such as Aeschylus and Sophocles 'used the myth of Antigone to illustrate the conflict between laws imposed by the state and personal autonomy', with Antigone being the daughter of Oedipus and daughter/granddaughter of Jocasta, Oedipus' mother and wife, and the fate imposed on her when the incestuous relationship of her parents becomes known. Socrates, who lived from about 470-399 BCE, 'questioned Athenian authorities constantly and insisted on the right of individual freedom of conscience' and the Cynics taught that living according to nature (physis) was more important than living by human laws (nomos) and the Stoics felt that 'a society based on unofficial and friendly relations among its citizens without the presence of the state' was the ideal. Mazdak, a Zoroastrian monk who died somewhere around 524 or 528 CE, advocated for 'an egalitarian society and the abolition of monarchy, only to be soon executed by Emperor Kavad I'.

Humanism is a complex philosophical stance that has changed meaning over the centuries, but can be thought of as 'a philosophical stance that emphasizes the individual and social potential, and agency of human beings, whom it considered the starting point for serious moral and philosophical inquiry'. While it is often associated with the Renaissance, it has roots going back to pre-Socratic philosophers. Protagoras, who lived around 440 BCE, 'put forward some fundamental humanist ideas', but only fragments of his work survive, including the first known agnostic statement: 'About the gods I am able to know neither that they exist nor that they do not exist nor of what kind they are inform: for many things prevent me from knowing this, its obscurity and the brevity of man's life'. Socrates turned philosophy from nature to humans with his need to 'know thyself'. He was also executed for atheism, despite being a theist, because of investigating 'the nature of morality by reasoning'. Aristotle continued this rationalism as well as a 'system of ethics based on human nature that also parallels humanist thought'. Epicurus also 'developed an influential, human-centered philosophy that focused on achieving eudaimonia', or general 'happiness' or 'welfare', which could be brought about through '[h]uman happiness, living well, friendship, and the avoidance of excess', which are considered core tenets of modern humanism.

Freethought, also spelled free thought, holds that 'beliefs should not be formed on the basis of authority, tradition, revelation, or dogma, and should instead be reached by other methods such as logic, reason, and empirical observation' and is 'strongly tied with rejection of traditional social or religious belief systems' and can be traced to 'the Hellenistic Mediterranean, in the repositories of knowledge and wisdom in Ireland and in the Iranian civilizations (for example in the era of Khayyam (1048-1131) and his unorthodox Sufi Rubaiyat poems)' as well as in the Chinese 'seafaring renaissance of the Southern Song dynasty of 1127-1279'. The writings of 'heretical thinkers on esoteric alchemy or astrology' also preserved older freethought philosophies through to the modern age.

[philosophicalconservatism]

"There are many who consider as an injury to themselves any conduct which they have a distaste for, and resent it as an outrage to their feelings...But there is no parity between the feeling of a person for his own opinion, and the feeling of another who is offended at his holding it; no more than between the desire of a thief to take a purse, and the desire of the right owner to keep it. "

John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) English political philosopher.

[civanticism]