#Environment benefits

[danielnelsen]

while i get where this comes from and it’s true to an extent, i reeeaaaally don’t like how people try to explain “trans men don’t [necessarily] have male privilege” with things like “some trans men don’t pass”.

like sure that’s the most obvious example (someone who is seen as a woman won’t have the privilege that comes with being seen a man) but you’re still acting like being a passing trans man is just a free opt-in to male privilege which is………kinda the issue.

[untitledgoosegay]

re last reblog I do see fanfic culture pushing/replicating a certain model of "what trauma looks like," "how trauma works"

this is a problem across all areas of society obviously, but transformative works are, well, transformative. they're about crafting and modifying narratives where the fan-creator sees a flaw or a lack -- often for the better! don't get me wrong, I've done my fair share of "I take a hammer and I fix the canon," it's the main thing that gets my creative gears spinning -- but what happens when that "flaw" is simply a narrative not conforming to popular expectations?

some people just don't get PTSD from events that sound obviously traumatic. they're not masking, and they're not coping; they just straight-up didn't get the permanently-locked stress-response that defines PTSD. they walk away from a horrible experience going "well, that sucked, but it's over now." some people do get PTSD from events most people wouldn't find traumatic. we don't really know why some people get PTSD and others don't. but fandom has an idea of events that must be traumatizing, of a "correct" way to portray trauma. you see the problems with this lack of understanding in e.g. fans pressuring the devs of Baldur's Gate 3 to add dialogue where the player character badgers Halsin about his own feelings on his abuse -- because he must be traumatized, and his trauma must fit a certain mold and presentation of sexual trauma, under the mistaken impression that anything outside that narrow window is somehow "wrong" and disrespectful or even harmful to survivors.

take, for another example, the very common trope of a traumatized character who hates touch or sex "learning" to like touch or sex as a part of their healing process. certainly that can be healing for some people; other people will never like, or want, touch or sex, because of trauma or because they just don't. the assumption that someone who doesn't want sex or doesn't like to be touched must be traumatized, must be suffering from this perceived lack, is seriously harmful -- to asexual people, to people with sensory issues around touch, and to people for whom healing from trauma means freedom to refuse sex or touch.

and there's a secondary trope, one that's slightly more thoughtful but ultimately repeats the problem -- that once someone has learned that their boundaries will be respected, they'll feel it's safe to soften those boundaries. once they feel safe refusing touch or sex, they'll feel comfortable allowing it on their own terms. but many people don't, and many people won't! many people will simply never want to be touched, and never want sex, and they are not suffering or broken or lacking because of it. the idea that proving you'll respect someone's boundaries entitles you to test those boundaries -- the paradox is obvious, and yet this is something i've seen hurt (re-traumatize) people i care for.

people are imperfect victims. people don't heal in the ways you expect. many people have positive memories of their abuse, of their abusers. many people hurt others in the course of their trauma, in ways that can't easily be unpacked in a 5k oneshot. very few narratives of trauma and recovery actually fit the ones put forward by popular children's media and romance novels -- which are the ones I most see replicated in fandom spaces, because they provide the clearest narrative and easiest catharsis, and so they're easy and soothing to reach for.

that's not necessarily a bad thing! i am not immune to goopy romance tropes. i am not immune to teary catharsis. not every fic has to grapple with ugly realities. but there's a problem when these narratives become predominant, when people think they're accurate and realistic depictions of trauma, when the truth of trauma is unpleasant and uncomfortable, and doesn't fit any single narrative, let alone one of comforting catharsis

[fawntastic]

Why’d they have to pit two bad bitches against each other

[todaysbird]

anybody here who farms insects for human consumption and would be willing to participate in a interview for a (positive) article around insect farming? please dm me with your email and i’ll reach out!

[yardsards]

fuck any job interviewer that's like "so how much money do you expect to be paid for this position"

idk dawg??? as much as you're willing to give me??? don't make me play "do i lowball it and risk getting underpaid or highball it and risk not getting hired" mind games. i did not come here to play the fucking price is right. you're the one writing the paychecks here.

[moongothic]

Going back to this thing briefly

When adapting this chapter into an episode Toei did not explain nor demonstrate to us what the fuck that spike was (instead they gave us Sables #378545), so we're no closer to finding out what kinda new moves Crocodile might have up his sleeve, whether that really was a Haki-infused sand spike or what

But when I was checking the melting point of sand out of curiosity (to figure out if Crocodile has a fighting chance against Akainu, which in theory he does because Akainu isn't hot enough to melt sand (in theory)), I was reminded of the fact that sand is mostly made of silica

Or, in other words, quartz. Sand is, on average, made of crystal. Of course, sand is also made of other things and other minerals (not just quartz), but if we wanted to assume Croc's DF is made of one element and one element alone, then let's just assume it's 100% silica, right

And now I can't help but to wonder now though

Could Crocodile have learned a new technique where he somehow compresses and hardens his sand so much it can turn into large, solid crystals? Or more specifically, sharp pointy stabby weapons to murder people with? 'Cause. How fucking cool would that be

Also considdering how much Crocodile likes his bling, being able to form crystals to murder people with would arguably be on-brand for him

[aroaessidhe]

2024 reads / storygraph

Pluralities

sci-fi novella

a burned out 20-something with premonitions has a gender-questioning journey, after quitting their job and becoming friends with benefits with a trans guy

with a parallel narrative about a runaway alien prince in a space empire and his complicated friendship with his sentient spaceship friend

audiobook arc from netgalley!

[hooked-on-elvis]

"The Trouble With Girls (And How To Get Into It)" (1969) Directed by Peter Tewksbury; Screenplay by Arnold Peyser and Lois Peyser; Produced by Lester WelchStarring; Cinematography by Jacques R. Marquette; Music by Billy Strange. Produced and distributed by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer — Based on Chautauqua by Day Keene and Dwight V. Babcock. CAST Starring Elvis Presley... as Walter Hale. Co-starring Marlyn Mason... as Charlene; Sheree North... as Nita Bix, or Miss Bix; Edward Andrews... as Johnny; John Carradine as Mr. Drewcolt; Anissa Jones... as Carol Bix; and Nicole Jaffe... as Betty Smith. Guest star Vincent Price... as Mr. Morality. Production ran from late October to mid-December 1968.

[lemons-pears]

FUN MOTH FACT:

if you're part of the team, the unit, the company, wherever, beware: moth is the type to affirm. as long as you're considered a teammate, you're getting praised-

old or current unit, he doesn't care. might fumble a little with addressing people but he's adjusting-

get positively reinforced B)

"Ading- matalas ang mata mo! Nice shot!"

"Wh- Sergeant that's not my name-"

"...Right then. You have very good eyes! Good job on the field! Keep up the good work, trying your best is the best!"

"...!?" [Shadow.exe has stopped working]

[icewindandboringhorror]

I have found a beautiful perfect humble rock specimen that is light yellow with a weird dark yellowy brown lining, somewhat resembling a chunk of smoked gouda cheese... effervescent

[9w1ft]

Don't you find the strict rules of society in Japan overwhelming for you and the kids?

not one bit

[eaglesnick]

“It seems the most logical thing in the world to believe that the natural resources of the Earth, upon which the race depends for food, clothing and shelter, should be owned collectively by the race instead of being the private property of a few social parasites.

— Ralph Chaplin

While more and more homes in Britain suffer severe flooding because of climate change, Rishi Sunak has decided that North Sea oil and gas extraction should be speeded up.

“Hundreds of new North Sea oil and gas licences to boost British energy independence and grow the economy. ”  (GOV.UK: 31/07/23)

This policy has now been confirmed and will be included in the king’s speech. More concerned with winning votes than the catastrophic effects of climate change:

“Sunak has already watered down the government’s climate targets, pushing back the deadline for selling new petrol and diesel cars and the phasing out of gas boilers, prompting furious condemnation from the automobile and energy industries.” (Guardian:05/11/23)

The excuse used by Sunak to justify his planned increase in fossil fuel production  is "to reduce emissions and boost UK energy independence."

These claims are simply not true.

Encouraging more oil and gas production does not reduce emissions - it increases them. If you expand the global market for fossil fuels then more will be used with the obvious accompanying increase in emissions. What is more, Rystad Energy, an independent advisory and business intelligence company, has stated that:

“ UK oil rigs are among the highest carbon emitters in Europe. CO2 emissions released into the atmosphere from extracting North Sea oil and gas reached 13.1MM metric tonnes in the UK in 2019, or 21kg of carbon dioxide for every barrel of oil produced – far greater than the Norwegian North Sea, which produced 4MM metric tonnes of CO2 in 2019, or 8kg of CO2 a barrel.”  (Guardian: 13/10/22)

But let us put this evidence aside for the moment and give Sunak the benefit of the doubt regarding emissions, and look at his other claim that increase extraction of gas and oil from the North Sea will “boost UK energy dependency".

Again, simply not true. It was reported only a few weeks ago that the UK EXPORTS 80% of North Sea oil which is processed abroad and then sold back to us at whatever international price makes the oil and gas industries the most profit. (CNN Business: 27/09/23)

The only way to secure energy independence is to have state ownership of our natural assets. But that is not The Tory way.

Unlike the Norwegian government, who invested their countries enormous oil and gas revenues in economic sectors across the world, creating a State owned sovereign wealth fund now worth $1.2 trillion in assets, our Tory government squandered the money, continues to allow private investors to reap the profits, and have refused to create a UK Sovereign Wealth Fund because they are ideologically opposed to public ownership.

While Sunak is forced to sell licenses for oil and gas extraction in order to secure at least some  benefits from our natural resources, the Norwegians impose  a 78% tax levy on private oil and gas companies.

“UK should match Norway’s 78% North Sea oil and gas tax, thinktank says.” (guardian:28/10/22)

But that isn’t going to happen. Instead, our ideologically driven Tory government, opposed to taxes of any kind and especially those aimed at the rich and corporate world continue to draw  headlines like these.

“Shell and BP paid zero tax on North Sea gas and oil for three years.” (Guardian: 30/10/22)

and

“North Sea oil and gas industry offered ‘get-out’ clause on windfall tax.”(Guardian:09/06/23)

The stark contrast between the way successive Tory Government’s in the UK have managed the “bonanza” of North Seal oil and gas and the way the more socialist Norwegian governments have utilised their natural resources couldn’t be more stark.

[merakisphere]

*Volume up!* This exercise demonstrates how fidget tools and stims can help distract your mind during sensory overloaded environments. While the chaos in the above video is playing, try focusing on the movements of Fidget Bloom. Do you find it helps? As the chaos gets more intense, combat it by spinning the apparatus. When you add the tactile nature of this, you can just imagine how greater the effect will be.

What makes this different compared to other stims? The variety of movements and shapes offers your mind several ways to find distractions and tune out the outside world. Plus, you can wear it when not in use, and then fidget with it when you find yourself in overstimulating situations.

Share your experience with how you handle sensory overload situations, and what you do to negate it. I'd love to hear your thoughts! Share this video, and let's get a good discussion going!

[amastelaire]

i NEED to burn some shit up

[razzek]

A quip about AI I was thinking about yesterday:

AI ingests human input (words, art, etc) much the same way a jet engine ingests flocks of birds, breaking everything down into a slurry of it’s former parts. And much like an engine ingesting a bird, everything falls out of the sky as a result.

[coochiequeens]

Men continue to having trouble grasping it's not kids most women object to, it's having kids with men who want the benefits of having a family but leave the downside to the mothers

By Nesrine Malik Mon 2 Sep 2024

JD Vance’s comments on Kamala Harris reflect a stubborn debate in supposedly progressive societies

A woman without biological children is running for high political office, and so naturally that quality will at some point be used against her. Kamala Harris has, in the short period since she emerged as the Democratic candidate for US president, been scrutinised over her lack of children. The conservative lawyer Will Chamberlain posted on X that Harris “shouldn’t be president” – apparently, she doesn’t have “skin in the game”. The Republican vice-presidential candidate, JD Vance, called Harris and other Democrats “a bunch of childless cat ladies miserable at their own lives”.

It’s a particularly virulent tendency in the US, with a rightwing movement that is fixated on women’s reproduction. But who can forget (and if you have, I am happy to remind you of a low point that still sticks in my craw) Andrea Leadsom, during the 2016 Conservative party leadership election, saying that Theresa May might have nieces and nephews, but “I have children who are going to have children … who will be a part of what happens next”. “Genuinely,” she added, as if the message were not clear enough, “I feel that being a mum means you have a real stake in the future of our country, a tangible stake.”

It’s an argument about political capability that dresses up a visceral revulsion at the idea that a woman who does not have a child should be vested with any sort of credibility or status. In other comments, Vance said that “so many of the leaders of the left, and I hate to be so personal about this, but they’re people without kids trying to brainwash the minds of our children, that really disorients me and disturbs me”. He appears so fixated on this that it is almost comical: a man whose obsession with childless women verges on a complex.

But his “disorientation and disturbance” is a political tendency that persists and endures. It constantly asks the question of women who don’t have children, in subtle and explicit ways, especially the higher they rise in the professional sphere: “What’s up with that? What’s the deal?” The public sphere becomes a space for answering that question. Women perform a sort of group plea to be left the hell alone, in their painstaking examinations of how they arrived at the decision not to have kids, or why they in fact celebrate not having kids, or deliberations on ambivalence about having kids.

Behind all this lies some classic old-school inability to conceive of women outside mothering. But one reason this traditionalism persists in ostensibly modern and progressive places is that women withdrawing from mothering in capitalist societies – with their poorly resourced public amenities and parental support – forces questions about our inequitable, unacknowledged economic arrangements. A woman who does not bear children is a woman who will never stay home and provide unremunerated care. She is less likely to be held in the domestic zone and extend her caregiving to elderly relatives or the children of others. She cannot be a resource that undergirds a male partner’s career, frailties, time limitations and social demands.

2:29Oprah Winfrey takes a swipe at JD Vance during surprise Democratic convention speech – video

“Motherhood,” writes the author Helen Charman in her new book Mother State, “is a political state. Nurture, care, the creation of human life – all immediate associations with mothering – have more to do with power, status and the distribution of resources … than we like to admit. For raising children is the foundational work of society, and, from gestation onward, it is unequally shared.”

Motherhood, in other words, becomes an economic input, a public good, something that is talked about as if the women themselves were not in the room. Data on declining birthrates draws comment from Elon Musk (“extremely concerning!!”) . Not having children is reduced to entirely personal motivations – selfishness, beguilement with the false promise of freedom, lack of values and foresight, irresponsibility – rather than external conditions: of the need for affordable childcare, support networks, flexible working arrangements and the risk of financial oblivion that motherhood frequently brings, therefore creating bondage to partners. To put it mildly, these are material considerations to be taken into account upon entering a state from which there is no return. Assuming motherhood happens without such context, Charman tells me, is a “useful fantasy”.

It is a binary public discourse, obscuring the often thin veil between biological and social actualisation. Women who don’t have children do not exist in a state of blissful detachment from their bodies and their relationship with maternity: a number have had pregnancies, miscarriages, abortions and periods. A number have entered liminal stages of motherhood that don’t conform to the single definition from which they are excluded. A number extend mothering to various children in their lives. Some, like Harris herself, have stepchildren (who don’t count, just as May’s nieces and nephews didn’t). A number have become mothers, just not in a way that initiates them into a blissful club. They experience regret, depression and navigate unsettlement that does not conform to the image of uncomplicated validation of your purpose in life.

But the privilege of those truths cannot be bestowed on creatures whose rejection of the maternal bond has become a rejection of a wider unspoken, colossally unfair contract. Women with children are handed social acceptance for their vital investment in “the future”, in exchange for unrewarded, unsupported labour that props up and stabilises the economic and social status quo. All while still suffering sneeriness about the value of their work in comparison with the serious graft of the men who win the bread.

On top of that, women have to navigate all that motherhood – or not – entails, all the deeply personal, bewildering, isolating and unacknowledged realities of both, while being subject to relentless suffocating, infantilising and violating public theories and notions that trespass on their private spaces. With that comes a sense of self-doubt and shame in making the wrong decision, or not being as content with those decisions as they are expected to be. It is a constant, prodding vivisection. That, more than anything clinical observers feel, is the truly disorienting and disturbing experience.

Nesrine Malik is a Guardian columnist