tunesykari

🌟 kari, 18+ 💖 dms are open to all evil wizards

[spin-the-wheel-polls]

you have to dress in this style for the rest of your life!

(you do not have to follow the beliefs associated with the style if that style has associated beliefs. The wheel curse does not affect anything like that.)

Do you like it?

yes!!

it's okay I guess

no

NO.

I dress like this already

results/other/unsure

Remaining time: 4 days 22 hours

[animentality]

[bundibird]

The thing about censorship is: it actually makes kids MORE likely to stumble across things that theyre not ready for.

Back before this site banned porn, it was all tagged with whatever clear label matched it. If you wanted to search for, say, bdsm, you could type that in and find exactly that. And, crucially, it meant you could filter it out, too. Meaning that people who wanted to find that content could do so with ease, and people who wanted to not find that content on their dash by surprise could also ensure that with ease.

But then tumblr banned porn thanks to pressure from the Apple App store, and ----- did porn go away? Nope. It just stopped being labelled as porn. There's still all the same raunchy content on here as there was before -- its just not tagged, or its tagged with euphemisms, or tagged with creative tags that circumvent the bans, or tagged with completely unrelated should-be-innocuous tags like "oceans" or "photography" or "flowers" or etc.

Which not only makes it harder to find, but also, more importantly, makes it harder to avoid.

Nowadays I can be scrolling my dash and get slapped suddenly in the face by a post that is decidedly not G-rated, and its because neither the OP or the person who reblogged it has tagged with anything, meaning my blocklist (which I have in place so that I'm not surprised by a raunchy gifset while I'm scrolling my dash in the work lunchroom, surrounded by colleagues) hasn't caught it and filtered it out.

And the same thing is going to happen on other platforms. If you ban porn, the outcome is never "there is no more porn" -- the outcome is just "porn is harder to find now and simultaneously harder to avoid."

This post was prompted by a random post i saw earlier today which ive since lost, but which was an advert for some """fishing gear""" that looked pretty much like a dildo. And who knows, maybe that item WAS some kind of obscure fishing gear. But it made me think of how, with the censorship and purity culture infecting every corner of the internet, it means we ARE going to wind up with sites that are selling sex toys that are labelled as innocuous everyday items.

So imagine youre a kid and you get suddenly super into fishing, and you're looking into building a christmas wish list, so you research a bunch of fishing tackle. And there, nestled amongst the lures and weights and lines and tackle boxes, is a bunch of sex toys. None of them are labelled as sex toys. Theyre labelled as miscellaneous fishing tackle. Because, unbeknownst to you, the sex toys companies -- no longer able to advertise their wares honestly -- have started labelling their dildos as fishing lures and their whips as fishing poles and their butt plugs as fishing weights. And those In The Know are aware that to purchase sex toys, you need to look up these Regular Non-sexy Products, and you'll find the raunchy products youre after.

But meanwhile, anyone who wants to find ACTUAL fishing lures and poles and weights suddenly has to contend with mislabelled sex toys showing up in their search results.

TLDR? Censoring porn never makes it go away. It just makes it go into hiding. Which, in an internet era, makes it more likely that the kids you're trying so hard to """protect""" from porn will simply stumble upon it through routes that used to be but are no longer innocuous.

[autisticandroids]

the thing that bothers me about "kids will get traumatized by media" type discourse, other than you know the fascism, is do you know what the most memorably upsetting media i experienced as a kid was? stuff that stuck with me for years, interfered with my sleep again for years, was the thing i saw when i closed my eyes at night for probably a decade and influences what freaks me out to this day?

a few specific incidences (from children's media) of the kind of physical harm or (often fantasy) violence widely considered to be totally appropriate for little kids

horror movie advertisements

when i was eight or nine i watched kill bill vol. 1 with my parents and had to ask my mom what a pedophile was. this didn't have a terribly profound effect on me, though i do remember it because usually at that age, when i had to ask my mom about the definition of a word, i formed a pretty strong memory of that. on the other hand, when my mom read my mrs. frisby and the rats of nimh at six or seven, the child mouse having pneumonia and being delirious with fever freaked me out so bad that it changed the trajectory of my life.

you actually don't know what will bother a kid in a book or movie. you can't predict it or really protect them in any meaningful way. some kids will freak out, it's developmentally normal and you can't stop it.

[addictofreading]

Happy Zutara Month 2025!

Here's my drawing for day 6: Cuddling!

If I allow myself, I'd be noodling this thing to death. So yay for deadlines? Anyways, I hope it's obvious they're cuddling on Appa. He does look cozy to nap on so long as he doesn't turn over in his sleep. >_<

@zutaramonth

[micromontage]

what should I listen to

[segamascott]

women

[guerrillatech]

[swinging-from-my-cable]

How is it is supposed to work: your emotions are a response to your situation and surroundings. It is OK to feel the emotion. Now take that emotion and use your logical brain to decide which parts of the emotion fit the facts of the situation and which do not and why, and how you're going to respond to said emotions (which is what tweet said, and what therapists say)

How people seem to interpret it: any emotional reaction is perfectly fine and I am not responsible for what I do out of emotion.

[theroguefeminist]

This process is called checking the facts in dialectical behavior therapy. Sometimes we overeact or project onto the situation. Identify the emotion objectively without judgment, what are you feeling? Rate the intensity of the emotion. Check the facts of the situations. Does the emotion and intensity fit the facts? If yes, what can you do about the situation that will actually benefit you? If not, try to manage the emotion or change the way you are thinking about the situation.

[coolyo294]

scientist voice: today i will be a dick to this cricket 

[onion-souls]

The phrase “exposed to this spider torment” will haunt me

[ventela1]

People in the notes have entirely misunderstood the point of this experiment and what it entails.

It’s not “proving that crickets can be traumatized”. It’s proving that *animals can genetically pass on the stress that a dangerous situation causes, and the offspring will instinctually respond to the same situation without ever having personally experienced it.*

And that’s a big deal for many things, including human psychology.

When Nazis invaded The Netherlands, local Dutch peoples were under extreme emotional and physical duress. The Nazi army took their food for the soldiers, starving the population. They patrolled the streets and harshly reinforced their new laws. Existence was horrible and some parents had to give their children away to wealthier families because they couldn’t feed them anymore. This event is known as the Hongerwinter, or Dutch Famine.

One generation later, the children of mothers who were pregnant at the time of the famine have been proven to exhibit intense reactions to stress, and heightened fight or flight responses. They also experience more obesity because their bodies are prepared for starvation.

Some of these children were never personally exposed to the famine. Their mothers gave birth after conditions had improved, or even after moving to another country. But the effects are there, and those people are now adults who can recognize this and attest that they didn’t experience something else traumatic during childhood. It was passed on in the womb.

You can read about it here: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2018/01/31/science/dutch-famine-genes.amp.html

The Famine Ended 70 Years Ago, but Dutch Genes Still Bear Scars

Babies born during the Dutch Hunger Winter became adults with higher rates of health problems. Now researchers may have found the genetic sw

This is called epigenetics. It’s essential to understanding how the human brain and body works. That our responses to stress can be passed on genetically. That it can show up in how we look physically, our physical health, our mental responses, our instinctual reactions. It’s especially important for people who are in therapy and need to understand *why* they act a certain way before they can actually work on it.

So no, this experiment wasn’t “haha let’s torment a cricket”. I’m not going to argue the potential cruelty of the experiment with people. I just want you to understand what it actually all MEANS.

[melancholieanger]

Reblogging for that last comment!

[royalturkeyz]

This would be a great time to remember that epigenetics applies even where it isn’t studied. Black people were enslaved in horrible conditions for centuries then experienced Jim Crow, and continuing police brutality.

Black people are incredibly underrepresented in medical studies and epigenetics would be difficult to study in black people anyway because of the many racial stressors we face. But plenty of black doctors have suggested this would be an extremely important and eye opening place to look into but the funding and interest often not always there.

Think about the instances world wide of genocide, colonisation, war, ect and how this would effect the unborn people of that population even if those things weren’t currently going on.

Think about the stress of poverty on the bodies of the poor.

The far reaching effects of violence on othered bodies and our genes is something I think we’ll never have full access of information to.

[offtherecordsarahc]

Cultural difference I’m starting to get a handle on:

In smiley cultures (like the Bay Area culture I’m in, and maybe also things like Minnesota Nice or Southern Politeness), being smiley and positive means “I’m okay with interacting with you again, and potentially open to eventually having a relationship with you that involves meaningful mutual benefit.”

If someone’s being smiley/positive/effusive, it doesn’t mean they genuinely like you, it doesn’t mean they’re willing to offer you any concrete thing now, it just means they haven’t ruled out having a positive relationship with you, maybe sometime in the future.  And they’re okay with you continuing to engage with them, meeting you again, talking to you again, etc.

By contrast, if they seem frowny or severe or reserved, they’re mad at you, you fucked up, you are expected to go away or demonstrate appeasement behavior NOW, or else.

In non-smiley cultures (Russians seem to be like this, sometimes also Israelis and American rednecks), people will often be incredibly generous and helpful with practical things, without giving any nonverbal/subliminal signals of warmth or liking. 

From my perspective, people like that seem like “scowl scowl scowl I hate your guts…btw here’s a bar of solid gold. also you’re dead wrong about that thing. but i really liked your work on that other thing.”

wait what. you act incredibly cold to me, but you give me this unbelievably valuable gift, at nontrivial cost to yourself? what? why?

and you’re really critical of me, and of people in general, but you’re giving me really high praise in a specific instance? what gives? dude, do you like me or not?

The thing is, in non-smiley culture, as far as I can tell, “I like you enough to want to engage with you at all” isn’t…a thing you have to signal by smiling or acting friendly. It’s set to on by default if they are talking to you at all.  

You don’t have to develop emotional rapport or “liking” as a prelude to entering a relationship where mutual benefit is potentially on the table – you’re already in that relationship, as soon as you’re talking to the scowly guy.

Non-smiley cultures use actions first as a gauge of how much someone is “on your side” – they’ll be like “wow, this guy did something really generous for me, therefore I feel more friendly towards him”.  Affection and warmth and smiles are for close friends and loved ones – they’re an achievement you unlock through acts of generosity.

 In smiley cultures it’s just the reverse – people will only exchange acts of generosity after they’ve exchanged social signals of friendliness, and not signaling friendliness means I will definitely never do anything generous for you.

(People from non-smiley cultures often say that smiley cultures are “fake nice” – “you’re acting like my close friend when you’re clearly not. you were incredibly unwilling to help me in any meaningful way.”)

Adapting to non-smiley norms is interesting to me – it’s like communicating between two submarines via sonar or something. “okayyy…I can intellectually tell from your words and actions that you want to cooperate…so i’ll just brute-force my way through the stress of feeling like you don’t like me, and…yikes…tell you with my words when I disagree with you or don’t like something you do? like we’re married or siblings or something? before we’ve built up any emotional intimacy?? okay then…”

but I actually suspect the non-smiley way is objectively better, because you can cooperate with people way sooner, and with a much wider range of backgrounds and personality types.

[teaboot]

^^^^^^ back home, smiling and saying hello to a stranger on the street gets you suspicious side-eye. Like, what do you want? Are you going to give me a pamphlet and lecture for an hour? Ask for money? What? Let me get on with my day, thanks. But at the same time, if you need directions or help with something it’s no issue.

[systlin]

Oh my god, the non-smiley culture is dead-on me, living in Redneck Nowhere, Iowa. 

[onceuponacupoftea]

This, along with the ask/guess culture post explain so much about how different my partner and I are.

They are from an ask and smiley culture. I am from a guess and non-smiley culture, but am also more inclined to be a smiley type person.

We’ve just moved house and my mum spent 5 hours scowling and cleaning our kitchen for the vacate clean. It kind of freaked my partner out.

One of the advantages of smiley culture for me is that the establishing of emotional rapport before negotiating cooperation gives a cushion for my rejection sensitive dysphoria and more importantly allows me to test a person’s acceptance of my being very queer and establish their interest in my welfare.

It lessens the risk of my having given up something of value to a relationship doomed by bigotry.

[star-anise]

Yes exactly! That’s literally the function of smile culture–it helps establish trust and goodwill in diverse settings where these things cannot automatically be assumed. It’s why smile cultures are often the result of different immigrant groups that don’t have a language in common.

[higgsboshark]

The thing about knitting is it’s much harder to fear the existential futility of all your actions while you’re doing it.

Like ok, sure, sometimes it’s hard to believe you’ve made any positive impact on the world. But it’s pretty easy to believe you’ve made a sock. Look at it. There it is. Put it on, now your foot’s warm.

Checkmate, nihilism.

[cheskamouse]

This is a powerful positive message..

[pluckyredhead]

I’m literally reading a book right now (Burnout by Emily and Amelia Nagoski) that says this is scientifically sound.

There have been studies done on rats and dogs where they develop learned helplessness in the animals by giving them impossible tasks. Eventually the animals stop trying, even when the task stops being impossible. (I.e. put a rat in a maze with cheese it can’t get to until it develops learned helplessness, then put the cheese somewhere it can get to it and it won’t even try.) But once they show the animals they CAN do something - i.e. physically moving the rat to the cheese - the learned helplessness goes away.

No one can move you to your cheese for you, but the book says DOING something - which they define as “anything that isn’t nothing” can help. Make a food. Work in the garden. Clean a thing. Do a favor for a friend. Call your elected officials.

Knit a sock.

If you feel overwhelmed by existential despair, do something. It doesn’t have to be big. It just has to be anything that isn’t nothing.

[strawberryspoons]

Viciously destroy the idea that bullying is a normal part of growing up.

[lachesismeg]

This is so hard for me as a parent to deal with, from both sides.

Like it brings up all of my issues, and I so want my kid to not have to deal with bullying.  And I have no idea how to do that.

[star-anise]

I’ll repeat something I’ve said before:

I was doing my Master’s thesis on bullying until the topic triggered me back to my own childhood so badly I dropped out of that degree program.  Let me share something I know.

We haven’t quite found anti-bullying programs that stop bullying once it’s started, but we canreduce the harm bullying does.  Just a few small changes to classroom culture, like limiting children’s opportunities to exclude each other, or spending time talking about respectful communication, has visible changes.  Yeah, there’s still a hierarchy of popularity, but kids at the bottom of the ladder go from having no friends on average to having one or two.  And that’s enough to make or break a childhood.  (Sources: one two three four five)

But here’s the other thing.

There is one major factor that mediates the link between childhood bullying and adult mental illnesses (predominantly depression, anxiety, and eating disorders).  It’s self-blame.

What really damages children isn’t precisely being bullied; it’s believing that they deserve to be bullied. If children don’t blame themselves for being victims, they are much more resilient and experience fewer long-term negative consequences. (Sources: one two three four five)

Society blames children for their victimization by bullies all the time.  It says, “There is something about you that causes people to bully you.“  Common responses to bullied kids are things like: “Don’t give them a reaction.” (They’re bullying you because you get upset.)  “They’re just jealous.” (They’re bullying you because you do well.)  “Let’s teach you some social skills.”  (They’re bullying you because you act weird.)

If we can just change that one thing, we could prevent a lot of damage.  What bullied kids desperately need at the very least is a caring community that says: You are not alone.  It’s not your fault.  What they’re doing is not okay.

[bittersnurr]

Also extra horrible: if you get counseling for being bullied a lot of the time it is “identifying what rhing about you is causing people to bully you”. In other words, even the “help” you get us often blaming the victim for being bullied and framing is as your fault, even though ime even if you stop doing the thing you get bullied for the bullies won’t acknowledge it. I got bullied over stuff from third grade until I dropped out of school in 10th.

And that’s not even accounting for the fact sometimes bullying is things that end in ism and there is absolutely nothing you can do as you’re being blamed for your own marginalization.

[infiniteglitterfall]

Bullying is emotional abuse. 

There is nothing that can ever make you deserve emotional abuse. 

Telling people, directly or through your actions, that they’re at fault for being abused is, again, emotional abuse. 

[kamdjdndknsssnsshs-deactivated2]

I hate the term “bullying” for this exactly reason.

“Stop bullying” programs don’t work because they treat “bullying” like its a unique, child-specific thing you grow out of once you reach the magic age of 18 and It Gets Better ™.

It’s not. It’s just a fancy word for abuse that people coined because they didn’t want to believe their precious little baby could abuse another child and everyone went along with it because NOBODY wants to believe a six year old can intentionally traumatize another six year old to the point where they want to take their own life. Its “just bullying.” It’s not abuse. Only adults can be abusers. Kids are bullies. And if a child DOES do something evil, they’re either mentally ill or an adult drove them to it. Children can’t be bad!

Except here in the land of reality, it doesn’t work that way. Being abused causes the same amount of trauma whether your abuser is 9 or 90. I don’t care if a child has the biggest, saddest sob story in the world, they don’t get to use that as an excuse to abuse other children. Adults don’t (or shouldn’t) get away with that, so neither should children.

If people really want to “fix” bullying, they need to ditch this useless term and start calling it what it is. Abuse. And then, start actually doing something about abuse besides gaslighting the victim and saying “well maybe the abuser had good reasons uwu”.

[jemthecrystalgem]

“If you get counseling for being bullied a lot of the time it is “identifying what rhing about you is causing people to bully you”

That’s literally how it was for me

[benpaddon]

My school literally told my mother that I should be removed from school until I could learn to be less of a disruptive influence.

The disruption I was causing was being bullied. Me being targeted by bullies was somehow my fault, my problem.They had me removed from classes rather than dealing with the bullies.

Naturally my mum told them to fuck off and had me put in a different school, because my mum doesn’t play those fucking games. Neither, fortunately, did the new school I was moved to.

[gwydionmisha]

That blame the victim was very explicitly taught to teachers in the ‘70′s and ‘80′s as the appropriate response and pretty much did horrific damage to my generation.

By the time I was learning to teach at the tail end of the ‘90′s it had been replaced with a target the instigator and the instigator’s… I’m going to use the word minions here, though they used kinder words in teacher college.  That thing were they kick the back of the kid with the learning disabilities’ chair until ze explodes for the fun of seeing the kid explode and then get in trouble for it?  I’d watch for that little asshole and come down like a ton of bricks on the bully first kick.  I’d separate that kid from his or her sniggering friends, because they are supporting the bully in the assholery, and the bully would not only have me watching zim like a hawk for as many years as ze had me, I went around to all the teachers in the bullies pod with a list of assholery to look out for.  Because, surprise!  If you punish the bully hard and keep on that instead of punishing the victims?  The bullying nearly disappears in your room.  Not 100% but close. 

We were getting really good results in my district with a mixed approach with the things star-anise was talking about, but also a district wide program that targeted the audience of the bullying.  The research was showing that bullies, whether in schools or that adult asshole sexually harassing adult women on public transport, etc.. read silence as approval.  So we taught the kids that if they felt comfortable saying something either against what the bully was saying or in defence of the person being harmed, that it was the strongest way to help.  If they didn’t feel safe doing that, slip away and get an adult.  If they didn’t feel safe doing that?  Leave.  Because standing and watching strengthens the harasser.  on our end, we all made an effort to intervene every single time, and to model how to verbally push back against it, and to use things like classroom geography to prevent isolation and break up clusters of people encouraging each other in asshole behavior.

It helped.  It helped so much.  I’ve had the instigator’s sniggering sycophants decide they were tired of getting in trouble and it wasn’t worth it to support the bully.  I’ve seen groups of girls descend like Amazons to stand up for a kid being picked on before I could cross the room.  I’ve had a boy turn to another boy and back me up when I was confronting him on homophobia.  I’ve seen two girls and a boy hold a quiet but firm intervention about a certain boy’s bigotry while they were working on a poster project together.  I saw the Middle School with the worst school culture in the District turn around in the course of year because of concerted whole school efforts to break up cliques and intervene whenever they saw even the start of something maybe happening.

I’ve also seen it work with street harassment where we stood up for the person being harassed.  I think it needs to happen in workplaces and anywhere this sort of thing goes down.  We need to have each other’s back, whether adults or children are being harassed, there need to be consequences and intervention.  What ever the age of the person doing the asshole thing, people need to not stay silent witnesses, because that will always be a form of approval.

It can change.  It can get better, but that only happens if a critical mass of us decide to make it better.

Also?  If your school isn’t proactively protecting your kid?  Sue them.  It’s how we got the rural district a little north of here to go from dangerous as anything for queer kids to the most safe for LGBTQIA+ kids of every stripe and in two decades the whole culture of the town is noticeably changed an improved because the kids we taught they way have kids of their own now.

[pasquey]

“What researchers discovered was surprising: Those who are described as ‘agreeable, conscientious personalities’ are more likely to follow orders and deliver electric shocks that they believe can harm innocent people, while ‘more contrarian, less agreeable personalities’ are more likely to refuse to hurt others. The study also found that people holding left-wing political views were less willing to hurt others. One particular group held steady and refused destructive orders: ‘women who had previously participated in rebellious political activism such as strikes or occupying a factory.’”

—

Psychologists Have Uncovered a Troubling Feature of People Who Seem Nice All the Time - Mic

u dont fucken say

(via 3liza)

haha hoho I am not surprised in the least that people who prioritise niceness are more likely to be morally bankrupt

(via alexdallymacfarlane)

In other news: sky blue, water wet. More findings to follow.

(via moniquill)

“You’re so … . nice. You’re not good, you’re not bad, you’re just nice. I’m not good, I’m not nice, I’m just right.” <— Stephen Sondheim’s Witch, preaching it.

(via prismatic-bell)

[problemnyatic]

"Punishment works!!!" We're drowning in three to four generations of people so pants-shittingly terrified of ever being wrong that half of everyone has constructed a worldview wherein they never even consider the possibility that they could be wrong and the other half behaves like one wrong move will make anything or anyone explode violently into a million irreperable pieces. I don't think it works guys

[problemnyatic]

I know this might be a bold take but maybe teaching everyone from a young age that ever making a mistake will be met with unimaginable pain and misery doesn't actually encourage learning or correct behavior. If anything it creates a sense of terror so powerful it completely suffocates curiosity and exploration, thus leading to people knowing absolutely nothing but whatever is brought directly to them, which is a big problem in a world where information is so tightly controlled that a very small number of very powerful people basically have complete power over what people see and hear on a day-to-day basis when not actively seeking new and rigorously verified information from diverse and trustworthy sources.

[problemnyatic]

if any of this sounds like you, start by looking up the definition of words you've heard and are pretty sure you know what they mean, but haven't actually double-checked for yourself. Just like, whenever it occurs to you. Great first step

[problemnyatic]

This post goes out to the "we need to bring back bullying" crowd. Just because you aren't hitting someone physically doesn't mean you aren't being punitive. Maybe it isn't actually healthy to believe it's necessary to harass and humiliate anyone who makes you upset or uncomfortable. That sounds like a you problem actually.

[problemnyatic]

Anyways, breaking the cycle of abuse starts with you and how you treat yourself. You have to give yourself grace and room for error or you'll never be able to cultivate a healthier mindset than your trauma left you with. It's not easy, but you have to trust yourself that whatever seems kinder than however you usually treat yourself is probably a good enough start.

[thatsonemorbidcorvid]

‘Heroic actions are a natural tendency’: why bystander apathy is a myth

Modern research shows the public work together selflessly in an emergency, motivated by a strong impulse to help

“The notion that people panic and run screaming for the exits is a Hollywood fiction,” said Prof Stephen Reicher, an expert in group behaviour at the University of St Andrews.

“Characteristically, people stay and help each other,” he said. “We found this during the 7/7 attacks on the underground and the 1999 attack on the Admiral Duncan pub in London, where people looked after each other even though they feared other bombs.

“In our own research on the Leytonstone tube attack in 2015, there was an amazing level of spontaneous coordination by bystanders: some directed others away from danger. Some distracted the attacker. Some confronted the attacker. Each was able to act because of the others. Heroism was a feature of the group, not just the individual,” he added.

Prof Clifford Stott, a specialist in the psychology of crowds and group identity at Keele University, agreed. Modern research, he said, showed “bystander apathy” was a myth. Instead, strangers often work together in emergency situations with highly sophisticated unity.”

[cephalopodvictorious]

Bystander apathy is a myth invented by the New York Times to cover up that the police were called by several residents of the building, but the cops refused to act. The cops then told the Times that 38 people just watched her die (a seemingly arbitrary number and a physical impossibility based on where the attacks occurred), and the Times ran with it. In fact, Kitty was alive when the cops got there, and was being held and comforted by one of her friends who lived in the building because one of the people who saw her get attacked from across the street called her friend to go get her. Because people care.

The Bystander Effect Started from a Lie

You have just been attacked. How likely is it that someone will come to your help? If you remember the infamous case of Kitty Genovese in 19

[moosepower]

I will always re-blog this. The story of Kitty Genovese’s murder has gone down in history as a story about everyone watching it happen and doing nothing and none of the story is true.

[luulapants]

Got into a discussion about emergency response at a professional retreat recently and everyone was going on and on about agility, and I was like, "Okay but what about contingency?"

And they were like "What?"

And I was like, "Agility isn't the ultimate form of preparedness. Contingency is. Agility still requires you to flounder and figure out a solution in the moment, but if you have a contingency plan, all you have to do is implement it."

And they were like "But you can't make contingency plans for every situation!"

And I was like, "Yeah, you basically can if you just identify all of your basic dependencies and contingency plan around the loss of any dependency," and then I gave a few examples.

And they all stared at me like I'm an alien.

Anyway, that's how I figured out I'm Batman-coded and also learned how Batman must feel talking to supposedly professional superheroes who never bothered to run disaster scenarios until I pointed out that it's insane that they don't already have a plan for if Superman turns evil.

[nestofstraightlines]

There’s a phrase that really stuck in my head around this. It was from one of the British divers who enacted the Thai caving rescue, though I couldn’t tell you which one or which interview.

As he described to the interviewer a moment of panic and how he he overcame, the interviewer said, in one of those, summarise-last-answer-given-with-appropriate-levels-of-respect-in-order-to-proceed-to-next-question phrasing’s, “Wow, so you rose to the occasion -“

And the diver said, “No, actually people always get that exactly wrong. In an unexpected and urgent situation you don’t rise to the occasion. You sink to the level of your training.”

[throckmortons-thrussy]

[theweirdwideweb]

[rimonoroni2]

unfortunately very true. Doing Better does not always mean never being upset or never being triggered or never having trouble. often Doing Better means experiencing those things and being able to keep going/cope healthily/move on. if you’re in a bubble with no sensation, if you’re numbing yourself out, that’s not what recovering really is. it won’t help you have a happier life it’ll just make your world smaller and smaller until you can’t fit anywhere anymore. gotta learn to make peace with the hard stuff too, that’s the only way to keep going

[magicratfingers]

[chaumas-deactivated20240115]

the other thing about Internet dogpiling is that it is just not possible to think clearly during the acute stages. it’s so easy to criticize people for responding defensively or tactlessly to mass criticism but I cannot overstate the degree to which your brain becomes a rat in a trap. I think we do have to temporarily recalibrate our expectations in these circumstances and accept that they do not necessarily represent how that person responds to criticism. the skills for self-regulating and reacting to normal interpersonal criticism are not the same skills needed to respond to viral callouts.

[chaumas-deactivated20240115]

as other people have pointed out:

for most of human history, if a bunch of people are really mad at you specifically all at once, it means you’re about to die badly. obviously that’s not the case with internet controversy (…usually) but our nervous systems don’t know that. I just think that’s a variable we have to consider inherent to the circumstances rather than an aberration.