The binturong of sick jumps
RMH
KIROKAZE
Lint Roller? I Barely Know Her
cherry valley forever

JBB: An Artblog!

JVL

PR's Tumblrdome
Cosmic Funnies
art blog(derogatory)
No title available

blake kathryn
Jules of Nature
Monterey Bay Aquarium

izzy's playlists!
tumblr dot com
Show & Tell
YOU ARE THE REASON
No title available
Not today Justin

oozey mess
seen from Canada

seen from United Kingdom

seen from United Kingdom

seen from United Kingdom
seen from South Africa
seen from T1

seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from Malaysia

seen from Singapore
seen from Germany
seen from Brazil

seen from Germany

seen from Malaysia
seen from Ireland

seen from United States
seen from Russia
seen from United States
@teogli
The binturong of sick jumps
So what caused Eternal September?
In 1993 AOL turned on their internet gateway, permitting millions of idiot AOL users unfettered access. We’ve never recovered.
truly like. to have a successful mutually beneficial interpersonal relationship with someone its very important that you believe that they are a full real entire person just like you are, really believe that. and then you have to successfully communicate that to the other person. and they have to believe the same thing, AND successfully communicate it to the other person. and then you have to decide how you want your relationship with each other to be and you have to agree on most things, or else it doesn't make sense. and you have to actually believe it and not just want to believe it in order to be able to believe you yourself are a good person. you have to actually believe it.
i think those are most of the. the ones you can't do without, if you want it to be relationally healing or whatever. people will be able to tell if you do not really think they are a person with interiority in the way they are. they will not like it.
most of us flatten others to some degree and we do this bc we need psychologically to be able to justify the fact that our brains only have so much social categorization capacity. if you're doing it to the people directly around you, they'll notice.
I didn't understand why people were reacting to me the way they were until I understood what my behavior had been saying to them! then it made perfect sense and I was like "oh shit that's not what I wanted to communicate to you at all, geez, I have to get better at understanding this language so I can make sure I'm showing the things I believe with my behavior in a way this person will understand and that will not instead harm them! i definitely do not want to be harming people but I was sort of unpersoning this person to justify how I was acting because I was making choices based on what I wanted and not what they wanted. if someone asked me straight up "do you want to have interpersonal relationships where you're always making choices based on what you need and discounting what the other person needs and wants?" i would say "no! i don't want to have those kind of relationships! i value not hurting people!" but in those individual instances I was ignoring behavioral communication that I was receiving to just go ahead with what I wanted.
i don't think it's evil to say things like "look buddy I don't care if you're having a bad day, I really did NOT like being spoken to that way" to dismiss someone's feelings. but if someone you claim to care about is behaving in a way that YOU CAN READ as hesitant or reluctant to bring up what you are doing and how it is hurting them, then you better respond to that by saying "hey if you don't want the same things that I want, that's okay. i just want to know the real answer so we can be on the same page. i really value you and it is important to me that you be able to trust me. i have not behaved in a way that has made you feel that I am trustworthy. i will behave differently in order to communicate that to you better"
like sometimes someone's answer is truly "well I don't really see you as a full human person with interiority" like for real for real. and boy howdy that can sure change your interactions if you can read it, right? like when a doctor has shown me that I can't trust them to believe I am a person who is accurately reporting what is going on with my health, that changes EVERYTHING about the interaction. And if someone i LIKE and who I VALUE tells me that they weren't considering me to be a real person, that's a whole different thing.
I'm not saying everyone is always telling you exactly how human they see you as at all times. but like. its there subconsciously! some people are fine with this and some people grapple with it. i grapple with it a lot. its really hard right? sometimes not seeing yourself as uniquely different is hard. sometimes you know that it is important that you see others that way all the time because it's what is true; we are all human beings. no one can value every single other human the same as themselves or the people they love because we would go insane I think. sometimes it's easy to slot someone you like a whole lot into that grouping a little bit, sometimes, because you want something. sometimes you want that person to play a role in your life that they are not prepared and don't want to play. if people feel like their needs don't matter to you as much as your own, they will not feel fully safe in the relationship, and they'll be right.
this can describe a lot of dynamics and obviously one end of the spectrum is abuse but stuff that isn't abuse can also involve an amount of doing this. its just that the amount and kind of harm it causes depends on the specific circumstances in each case.
this is my most truest hottest deepest cptsd hack. all trauma is relational. you have to regain your own personhood not by denying the personhood of others, but by believing in the personhood of the people around you. and then include yourself.
now maintain that.
that's my ego death recipe! enjoy
this bit
sometimes someone's answer is truly "well I don't really see you as a full human person with interiority"
is sooo difficult to confront when you are the one doing this because you've been conditioned to believe thats how everybody is interacting. like as a child I struggled to feel seen + understood as a real person by nearly everyone around me, and I think ultimately that led to a rejection of my own responsibility to see others as whole people in their own right. I started to assume that all my social interactions would involve my personhood being ignored and by assuming that I was implicitly refusing to see others as people themselves! So no wonder I was never overcoming the canyon between myself and others and felt incredibly alone.
Over-extrapolating a perceived pattern like that is very easy to do I think. I only interrupted that tendency in myself after fully leaving home and my social context (and growing up lol). And even then it wasn't like a switch flipped, it took practice and commitment to trying to see people as people, and the good luck to meet people who were also trying to connect on that level.
yes yes! I think most people who habitually do this have been taught that how you get your own needs met involves dehumanizing others/denying that they have needs that are as important as your own. I grew up being the only person who would consider my own needs so it made sense for me as a child in that situation to be able to disregard the humanity of the people controlling me to prioritize my own narrative. however! ☝️ ONCE YOU ARE ADULT interacting with PEERS this becomes unfair and harmful! you HAVE to stop treating the people you love like your abusive parents. has been my takeaway. sooooo many of us have noooo idea that is what we are doing when it is absolutely what we are doing. we ascribe people who we feel our selfhood threatened by for whatever reason as having some authority we are justified in resisting, even when that is absolutely not at all the case and we in fact simply don't know how to navigate stressful situations where that ISN'T the case.
this harmonizes very nicely with what I've been thinking of as the role of curiosity in relationships. as I see it, if I acknowledge someone else's personhood and interiority, that also carries a measure of curiosity - or at least a lack of certainty, because I can't assume they follow the patterns I've already seen.
curiosity is hard. it takes a lot of energy, and admitting I don't know is very vulnerable, and I think that effort is part of the reason why it's sometimes downright easier to flatten people. which relates, to me, to the role of fear in dehumanization, because when my trauma made it harder to be vulnerable because I was so guarded, I could not bear the idea of being wrong, especially about other people (not to mention that, to me, being wrong about someone felt dangerous).
I think the closest I've gotten to an internal solution with this is to remember that curiosity is tiring, but it's not all or nothing - I can be passively open to being wrong without actively looking for it, the way I do with my loved ones. but dear lord did it take me a long time to get there.
yeah!!! and I had to get over a bump when learning this where I realized I was getting better at reading people which sometimes meant I could conceptualize why they were acting a certain way than they could, because I was thinking about it and they weren't. and I had to figure out how to square that with the fact that every person is the only person with access to their own interiority. and even when I am Quite confident that the guy screaming at the cashier is doing so because he's insecure and embarrassed about making a mistake, that doesn't mean that I know better than him what his experience is feeling like to him in that moment. i can guess! and some situations I'm more likely to be right than others. but I'm still building a system to approximate being able to imagine what someone is experiencing and feeling based on behavioral clues and pattern recognition. that comes with a necessary caveat that my information can be (and in fact will always be to some degree, even if I'm correct) incomplete. and THAT necessitates me prioritizing continually gathering the information that will help me modify my models and equations which necessitates CURIOSITY yes yes I love curiosity thank you for bringing up curiosity :)
Wow! This sounds a lot like what Nonviolent Communication is trying to do. It never says it quite as clearly tho. It has scripts centered around explicitly stating that you're guessing the other person's emotions, but in the literature there's a sort of '????? ... Step 4, Profit!' where they don't really say why it's helpful. Not that the personhood thing is the only reason, but it's significant!
truly like. to have a successful mutually beneficial interpersonal relationship with someone its very important that you believe that they are a full real entire person just like you are, really believe that. and then you have to successfully communicate that to the other person. and they have to believe the same thing, AND successfully communicate it to the other person. and then you have to decide how you want your relationship with each other to be and you have to agree on most things, or else it doesn't make sense. and you have to actually believe it and not just want to believe it in order to be able to believe you yourself are a good person. you have to actually believe it.
i think those are most of the. the ones you can't do without, if you want it to be relationally healing or whatever. people will be able to tell if you do not really think they are a person with interiority in the way they are. they will not like it.
most of us flatten others to some degree and we do this bc we need psychologically to be able to justify the fact that our brains only have so much social categorization capacity. if you're doing it to the people directly around you, they'll notice.
I didn't understand why people were reacting to me the way they were until I understood what my behavior had been saying to them! then it made perfect sense and I was like "oh shit that's not what I wanted to communicate to you at all, geez, I have to get better at understanding this language so I can make sure I'm showing the things I believe with my behavior in a way this person will understand and that will not instead harm them! i definitely do not want to be harming people but I was sort of unpersoning this person to justify how I was acting because I was making choices based on what I wanted and not what they wanted. if someone asked me straight up "do you want to have interpersonal relationships where you're always making choices based on what you need and discounting what the other person needs and wants?" i would say "no! i don't want to have those kind of relationships! i value not hurting people!" but in those individual instances I was ignoring behavioral communication that I was receiving to just go ahead with what I wanted.
i don't think it's evil to say things like "look buddy I don't care if you're having a bad day, I really did NOT like being spoken to that way" to dismiss someone's feelings. but if someone you claim to care about is behaving in a way that YOU CAN READ as hesitant or reluctant to bring up what you are doing and how it is hurting them, then you better respond to that by saying "hey if you don't want the same things that I want, that's okay. i just want to know the real answer so we can be on the same page. i really value you and it is important to me that you be able to trust me. i have not behaved in a way that has made you feel that I am trustworthy. i will behave differently in order to communicate that to you better"
like sometimes someone's answer is truly "well I don't really see you as a full human person with interiority" like for real for real. and boy howdy that can sure change your interactions if you can read it, right? like when a doctor has shown me that I can't trust them to believe I am a person who is accurately reporting what is going on with my health, that changes EVERYTHING about the interaction. And if someone i LIKE and who I VALUE tells me that they weren't considering me to be a real person, that's a whole different thing.
I'm not saying everyone is always telling you exactly how human they see you as at all times. but like. its there subconsciously! some people are fine with this and some people grapple with it. i grapple with it a lot. its really hard right? sometimes not seeing yourself as uniquely different is hard. sometimes you know that it is important that you see others that way all the time because it's what is true; we are all human beings. no one can value every single other human the same as themselves or the people they love because we would go insane I think. sometimes it's easy to slot someone you like a whole lot into that grouping a little bit, sometimes, because you want something. sometimes you want that person to play a role in your life that they are not prepared and don't want to play. if people feel like their needs don't matter to you as much as your own, they will not feel fully safe in the relationship, and they'll be right.
this can describe a lot of dynamics and obviously one end of the spectrum is abuse but stuff that isn't abuse can also involve an amount of doing this. its just that the amount and kind of harm it causes depends on the specific circumstances in each case.
this is my most truest hottest deepest cptsd hack. all trauma is relational. you have to regain your own personhood not by denying the personhood of others, but by believing in the personhood of the people around you. and then include yourself.
now maintain that.
that's my ego death recipe! enjoy
this bit
sometimes someone's answer is truly "well I don't really see you as a full human person with interiority"
is sooo difficult to confront when you are the one doing this because you've been conditioned to believe thats how everybody is interacting. like as a child I struggled to feel seen + understood as a real person by nearly everyone around me, and I think ultimately that led to a rejection of my own responsibility to see others as whole people in their own right. I started to assume that all my social interactions would involve my personhood being ignored and by assuming that I was implicitly refusing to see others as people themselves! So no wonder I was never overcoming the canyon between myself and others and felt incredibly alone.
Over-extrapolating a perceived pattern like that is very easy to do I think. I only interrupted that tendency in myself after fully leaving home and my social context (and growing up lol). And even then it wasn't like a switch flipped, it took practice and commitment to trying to see people as people, and the good luck to meet people who were also trying to connect on that level.
yes yes! I think most people who habitually do this have been taught that how you get your own needs met involves dehumanizing others/denying that they have needs that are as important as your own. I grew up being the only person who would consider my own needs so it made sense for me as a child in that situation to be able to disregard the humanity of the people controlling me to prioritize my own narrative. however! ☝️ ONCE YOU ARE ADULT interacting with PEERS this becomes unfair and harmful! you HAVE to stop treating the people you love like your abusive parents. has been my takeaway. sooooo many of us have noooo idea that is what we are doing when it is absolutely what we are doing. we ascribe people who we feel our selfhood threatened by for whatever reason as having some authority we are justified in resisting, even when that is absolutely not at all the case and we in fact simply don't know how to navigate stressful situations where that ISN'T the case.
this harmonizes very nicely with what I've been thinking of as the role of curiosity in relationships. as I see it, if I acknowledge someone else's personhood and interiority, that also carries a measure of curiosity - or at least a lack of certainty, because I can't assume they follow the patterns I've already seen.
curiosity is hard. it takes a lot of energy, and admitting I don't know is very vulnerable, and I think that effort is part of the reason why it's sometimes downright easier to flatten people. which relates, to me, to the role of fear in dehumanization, because when my trauma made it harder to be vulnerable because I was so guarded, I could not bear the idea of being wrong, especially about other people (not to mention that, to me, being wrong about someone felt dangerous).
I think the closest I've gotten to an internal solution with this is to remember that curiosity is tiring, but it's not all or nothing - I can be passively open to being wrong without actively looking for it, the way I do with my loved ones. but dear lord did it take me a long time to get there.
yeah!!! and I had to get over a bump when learning this where I realized I was getting better at reading people which sometimes meant I could conceptualize why they were acting a certain way than they could, because I was thinking about it and they weren't. and I had to figure out how to square that with the fact that every person is the only person with access to their own interiority. and even when I am Quite confident that the guy screaming at the cashier is doing so because he's insecure and embarrassed about making a mistake, that doesn't mean that I know better than him what his experience is feeling like to him in that moment. i can guess! and some situations I'm more likely to be right than others. but I'm still building a system to approximate being able to imagine what someone is experiencing and feeling based on behavioral clues and pattern recognition. that comes with a necessary caveat that my information can be (and in fact will always be to some degree, even if I'm correct) incomplete. and THAT necessitates me prioritizing continually gathering the information that will help me modify my models and equations which necessitates CURIOSITY yes yes I love curiosity thank you for bringing up curiosity :)
"Blorbo from my shows" no. Blorbo from my BA. Blorbo from my major. Blorbo from my primary source document.
You don’t have to love your body
I really needed to read this today. Thank you.
This sick bleach shirt I made. Something to showcase my undying love for prehistoric cave art.
Some of the bleach burned thru the shirt bc this was my first time bleaching anything ever, but it kinda adds to it.
Gold decorated kris from northeast Java, Indonesia, late 18th century.
from The Livrustkammaren
yeah whatever, you can sit there
now, I don’t know if you can sit there. that laptop was open for a reason
Men, boys, and eggs of my acquaintance, I cannot stress this enough:
Nobody worth being with will ever judge you based on your deli sandwich choices.
Sincerely, a dude who had to watch like two dozen men pretend to find vegetarian sandwiches unthinkable in order to maintain a sense of masculinity today.
The sando gender spectrum I osmoted this weekend according to a specific type of dude:
1. Roast beef is the most masculine of sandwiches. The only sandwich it is permissible to ask for by name (we did not have roast beef as an option).
2. Ham is an acceptable substitute for roast beef. There appears to be some controversy, however, over the bread options; we only had two, croissant or ancient grains roll (gluten free). Croissant is considered slightly more manly than ancient grains UNLESS you are under 20 in which case "ancient grain" sounds badass.
3. Turkey is okay, obviously not ham but if you don't like ham it's an option as long as you don't show enthusiasm for it. Definitely has to have mayo however. Mustard is a bit much. (Initial field research indicates mayo is the manliest of condiments but we have not introduced barbecue sauce into the study yet.)
4. Chicken salad is woman food. Absolutely not acceptable unless you announce loudly that it's for your wife or that she's making you for your health.
5. Vegetarian wraps require a recoil reaction or a sheepish "oh, no, no, what meats do you have?" protest. We had the veggie wraps off to one side so vegetarians could get to them more easily, and guys would come up to the wrap boxes because there was no crowd/line, then I'd say "that's veggie wraps" and they'd stagger back.
To be clear, most of the people of all genders at the event were totally fine, this was a small and specific set of guys -- mostly older dudes and (unsurprisingly) their young sons or grandsons. Maybe 20-30 people out of the 400+ attendees. But it really was both sad and a little funny to watch them unnecessarily assert their manhood using deli meat to me, a guy in a floral shirt with neon blue hair handing out box lunches at a charity event. My indifference to your masculinity is so vast it has its own international calling code, fellas.
Friends, I have volunteered in the lunch tent once more and I have new scientific findings to share regarding the Sandwich Gender Spectrum.
We still do not serve roast beef, the most toxically manly of all sandwiches, but it turns out that there is a sandwich option almost as masculine, the mention of which will preclude a certain type of dude from even asking for roast beef:
The Italian.
For those unfamiliar, an Italian sandwich in most American sandwich shops is composed of ham, capicola, salami, and sometimes pepperoni, with provolone, the usual sandwich veggies, and a drizzle of Italian dressing.
The hierarchy from ham-downwards remains undisturbed by this revelation currently rocking sandwich discourse, but new data has indicated that the Italian sandwich occupies a special place above ham and technically below roast beef but so acceptable a substitute for roast beef that I only had one guy ask me for it this time around. I would say, "We have ham, Italian, turkey, or veggie," and the Certain Kind Of Man would look skeptically at the ham and then ask for an Italian.
I am now working on my doctoral thesis in Sandwich Gender, where I will be examining whether there is a direct correlation between how masculine a sandwich is and how weirdly homoerotic the name is. I'm going to call it "I'd Like An Italian: Gender And Sexuality Between The Buns."
i find this very interesting
I would like to submit additional data for your groundbreaking study. The deli nearest me has some sandwiches named after four private schools in the area. The boys school: roast beef. The two girls schools: vegetarian (different veggies, color coded to the school colors). The co-ed school, turkey.
I feel....I feel so peer-reviewed. Independent replication of results!
EVERYOBODY GET DOWN HES TAKING A CREATIVE LIBERTY
Did you play AD&D? I can't remember how old you are, so hopefully that's not too offensive. If so, was a typical game really as hostile as people say it was?
That's one of those question where the answer hovers somewhere between "no, with a couple of massive caveats" and "yes, but not in the way most people think".
A lot of AD&D 1st Edition's GMing practices are pretty hardass by modern standards; however, they need to be understood in the context that the game's authors were writing for a target audience who mainly played the game in college wargaming clubs, where players would frequently transfer between groups and group sizes tended to be very large – six players per GM was considered a bare minimum, and up to a dozen player characters in a single party was by no means unheard of!
In particular, players would often bring their character sheets with them when hopping between groups, and it was considered a faux pas for a GM to reject an incoming player's existing character or request any substantive changes be made, so managing expectations could be quite challenging; even as late as 2nd Edition, the Dungeon Master's Guide contains extensive discussion of how to gracefully handle players bringing existing characters with them who aren't necessarily a good fit for the present game's tone or resource economy.
The upshot is that the culture of play these iterations of Dungeons & Dragons are targeting inherently obliges the GM to take a much firmer hand to keep things on track than a pickup game that draws players exclusively from within the GM's established friend group might – and to be sure, some GMs abused these expectations to act like petty tyrants, but some contemporary GMs do that, too.
A big part of the modern perception that 1E and 2E were extraordinarily player hostile, meanwhile, has nothing to do with the previously discussed GMing practices; rather, it emerges from the transition away from that culture of play in a slightly unexpected way.
In brief, back when D&D was mainly played by wargaming clubs, it was fashionable to run pre-written adventure modules competitively at conventions; the competition wasn't between players, but between parties, with multiple groups running the same adventure in parallel to contend for prizes. Tournament play sometimes chose its winners based on the fastest real-time completion of the module in question, or set specific objectives within the module which would award points when completed, a bit like speed-running or achievement-hunting in a video game (though neither practice existed yet at the time).
It was the survival module, however, that quickly emerged as the most popular tournament format. In a survival tournament, each player would provide or was furnished with a binder containing a fixed number of pre-generated character sheets, switching to the next character sheet in the set as each preceding character died; the winning group was the one whose last surviving character's corpse hit the dirt furthest from the dungeon entrance.
Many of 1E's most popular adventure modules, including the infamous Tomb of Horrors, were originally written as survival modules to be run at tournaments in conventions. As such, they were designed to kill off player characters both quickly and efficiently, so as to reduce the likelihood that the tournament would run overtime and get kicked out of the convention venue. When they were later cleanup and repackaged as commercial adventure modules, their text rarely bothered to explain any of this – who doesn't recognise a survival module when they see one?
The answer to that question, of course, is kids who didn't come up through the mentorship system of the college wargaming clubs, but taught themselves how to play D&D from first principles using books they bought at their local hobby stores – and when D&D's popularity unexpectedly exploded in the early 1980s, there were suddenly rather a lot of them!
These kids purchased the repackaged survival modules along with all their other D&D books; having no frame of reference, they assumed that these represented what a "standard" D&D adventure was supposed to look like – and since they weren't experienced players with whole binders full of pre-generated backup characters at their fingertips, the result was a lot of seemingly unfair total party kills, and a lot of kids concluding that the previous generation's GMs must have been objectively insane.
There is an additional amusing point of order here, which is the answer to the following two questions. I once had a discussion with someone in Gary Gygax's gaming group, who was involved in early TSR work a bit. Allow me to paraphrase my questions and his answers.
Why publish survival modules as your primary format of published adventure?
"Because that's what we had -- they were already laid out for publication. Why not publish them and make some money off it?"
Did it ever occur to you at the time that publishing adventures like these would shape the larger D&D culture's expectations of what play was supposed to look like?
"No, why would it?"
One of my favorite anecdotes about early D&D, from Blog of Holding:
"It’s hard to get that context just from reading the original Dungeons and Dragons books. If nine groups learned D&D from the books, they’d end up playing nine different games.
"Mornard told us about an early D&D tournament game – possibly in the first Gen Con in Parkside in 1978? Gary Gygax was DMing nine tournament teams successively through the same module, and whoever got the furthest in the dungeon would win. You’d expect this to take all day, and so Mike was surprised to see Gary, looking shaken, wandering through the hallways at about 2 PM. Mike bought Gary a beer and asked him what had happened – wasn’t he supposed to be DMing right now?
“It’s over!” replied a stunned Gary Gygax.
"Gary described how the first group had fared. Walking down the first staircase into the dungeon, the first rank of fighters suddenly disappeared through a black wall. There was a quiet whoosh, and a quiet thud. The players conferred, and then they sent the second rank forward, who disappeared too. The rest of the players followed.
"The same thing happened to the next tournament team, and the next. Players filed into the unknown, one after another. And they were all killed. The wall was an illusion, and behind it was a pit. Eight out of the nine groups had thrown themselves like lemmings over a cliff; only one group had thought to tap around with a ten foot pole. That group passed the first obstacle, so they won the tournament.
"Gary and his players couldn’t believe that the tournament players had been so incautious. But, to be fair, none of those tournament groups had played in Gary Gygax’s game. They had learned the rules of D&D, but they had no experience of the milieu in which the book was written. Of those nine groups that had learned D&D from a book, only one played sufficiently like Gary’s group to survive thirty seconds in his dungeon."
https://twitter.com/coff33detective/status/1271463582312673281
“make yourselves impossible to ignore. 10,000 signatures on twitter is a lot but 10 unique personal emails is enough to derail an entire council session.”
I was in a city council meeting last week about defunding the police and one of the council members mentioned multiple times that she’d been inundated with calls and emails all that day saying to defund the police.
[ID: Two screenshots of a twitter thread by alex flanigan, anti-fascist @Coff33Detective from June 12, 2020 beginning at 11:25 AM that reads: hi! i work in local government and community management, and i’m here to tell you a secret: it is like, really, really easy to overwhelm the people who work in your local government. especially right now. especially on things they can actionably do or impact.
you may not know this, but i bet your city or town or municipality has a website. i bet that website has some contact forms or email addresses on it. i bet you can use them to put together a message in about 5 minutes! i bet it’s almost as easy as signing a national petition.
which is to say: i’m noticing, like most other people, that the national level discussion on really important and long overdue issues is flagging. but the internet and news cycle is not the only battleground, and you will be pleasantly surprised by how easy it is to—
—fight those battles at home, on your own turf, with much more immediate impact, and they are so, so important.
I am begging you: make my job, and the jobs of people like me, difficult right now. flood us with demands. make yourselves impossible to ignore. 10,000 signatures on twitter is a lot but 10 unique personal emails is enough to derail an entire council session. End ID]
I’ve been a city council observer with the League of Women Voters for nearly a year, and I have witnessed the following:
A few guys voicing their anxiety about speeding on a street where their children play and suggesting a radar speed sign. Despite catching all of two meetings where this was mentioned, I walked back home one day and–yep–there was a radar speed sign up.
A persistent force of 3-5ish loud residents coming to zoning and council meetings because they did not want a drive through style restaurant moving into a particular area where there were already major issues with traffic congestion and safety. This eventually resulted in a Chik-fil-a having its planning proposal shot down by council such that the lot is now likely to house an Aldi. I am getting low cost groceries instead of bigotry chicken in my neighborhood because of a D&D party’s worth of regular speakers.
A turnout of residents shouting down an attempt to reduce the amount of funding for the community Juneteenth celebration until Council backed down. One meeting. Roughly a dozen people + their kids speaking about the significance of the holiday. The celebration ended up having its full funding restored.
In my experience, it is incredibly easy to bully local politicians and get some sort of results, especially in small municipalities. If you have something that you want to see happen at the local level, seriously try to contact your local officials and see what you can make happen.
I single-handedly got them to double the number of chickens you are allowed to keep in my former town.
in happier pride news i actually found this deeply heartwarming
that's solidarity baybeeee
Further context: Durham city council (Reform UK) cut funding and support for Pride. The Durham Miner's Association and other trade unions raised enough money for Durham Pride 2026 to go ahead - a direct call back to when Lesbian and Gays Support the Miners (LGSM) raised money for mining communities when Margaret Thatcher seized union funding during the miner strikes of 1984-85.
At the 1985 Labour party meet, the motion to support LGBT rights as a party was passed due to a block vote from mining unions.
Stephen Guy, the chair of the Durham Miners’ Association, said that when it became apparent Durham Pride was under threat, he took it upon himself to “encourage the trade union movement to step up and do the right thing, and stand shoulder to shoulder with the LGBT+ community […] They not only raised funds for us, but came to our communities, uplifted our spirits when they were down, and showed their solidarity.”
alright I've got to do some quick math to explain attitudes towards AI to my boss.
we're looking to create an AI policy, and when we were talking about this, my boss (older millennial) was genuinely shocked to hear that younger people do not (seem) to view AI positively (a la the recent commencement speakers being booed)
please rb for larger sample size!
Question 1/3
What is your age, and do you feel AI is a net positive or net negative in our lives today?
under 18, AI is a net positive
under 18, AI is a net negative
18-29, AI is a net positive
18-29, AI is a net negative
30-45, AI is a net positive
30-45, AI is a net negative
46-60, AI is a net positive
46-60, AI is a net negative
over 60, AI is a net postive
over 60, AI is a net negative
Question 2/3
How often do you visit or interact with museums/archives (whether in person or online)?
Frequently (multiple times per month)
Often (multiple times per year)
Occasionally (a couple times per year)
Rarely (once every couple of years)
Never :(
Question 3/3
If you saw a museum was using AI in exhibits, marketing, research, etc., would you be more or less inclined to visit that museum?
under 18, more inclined
under 18, less inclined
18-29, more inclined
18-29, less inclined
30-45, more inclined
30-45, less inclined
46-60, more inclined
46-60, less inclined
over 60, more inclined
over 60, less inclined
Thank you for helping with this data collection. Please rb for as big a sample as possible!
🫶
Bovine figure of the day: Wena Art "Apis"
I drew this bovine figure