#Personal Accountability

[dosesofcommonsense]

[knoxvillerose-blog]

XX: Judgement is about personal accountability, self-analysis & our personal ethos. It is the birth pains of the New Self, an accounting for actions, thoughts & deeds. It's as much about personal reflection as it is external judgement.

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Wilfred Reilly

Published: Jan 1, 2025

It’s always worth remembering that the person responsible for probably 95 percent of what you do is you.

Now that we Westerners know we mostly do have free will, no one seems to like using it. A few days before New Year’s Eve, writing for a — nay, the — conservative magazine, this strikes me as a point worth discussing.

We saw what I’ll call agency-rejectionism first — in very recent discourse — from the feminists. A few weeks back, British pornographic actress Lily Phillips opted to have sex with 101 men in a “gang-bang” scene which she orchestrated and choreographed. The almost universal reaction from women’s advocates was that the fit but slender, blonde Phillips was being abused.

Self-described lesbian radical feminist Julie Bindel penned a raging column for the U.K. Guardian, bold-headlined “Shame on the Men Exploiting Lily Phillips.” Tens of thousands of angry women supported this take across social and digital media, with one typical take being Polly Clark’s: “Lots of men congratulating other men . . . in the face of televised abuse of a woman. Evil is always legalistic and careful with its terms. The Lily Phillips case is not about ‘sex.’ This isn’t about sex. It’s bestial abuse of another human being.” A full list of these responses, including Bindel (again), calling for prison for “any man involved in the torture of this woman,” and the more gender-neutral Hot & Freddy demanding “death penalty for all the dudes,” can be found here.

Unfortunately for Phillips’s unrequested “defenders,” however, there exists basically no evidence of (actual, legal) abuse in her case. Phillips is a 23-year-old adult from a fairly wealthy family, who cleared five British GCSE (“G-level”) exams and went on to college. She has never been sexually abused and describes herself — in one of the articles just linked — as not being a victim of any kind. Her financial manager is her own, feminist, mother. The young woman currently runs a for-profit OnlyFans business, managed by an all-female staff of eight, has made more than $2,500,000 (£2,000,000) to date, and stands to make hundreds of thousands more from her most recent stunt.

As it happens, she not only choreographed that event but booked the setting for it — a nice little Airbnb, now very worried about cleaning and fumigation costs — invited all of the male participants, and contracted with the professional film crew. She now, apparently, plans on a larger-scale repeat. The actress’s new goal is to break the “world sex record” by engaging with 1,000 men in a day (the current mark is 919). Those interested in a casting call may apply here. Perhaps women simply have personal agency, just as men do.

Moving on, a similar wailing cry of, “How could society fail (X amoral person)?” was heard an ocean away at about the same time, when U.S. Marine veteran Daniel Penny was acquitted on the charge of the choking death of vagrant Jordan Neely during a subway fight. A simple Google search for “We all failed Jordan Neely” turns up hundreds of thousands of hits, including predictable drivel from the New Yorker (“The System That Failed Jordan Neely”), USA Today’s main opinion editorial (“Daniel Penny’s Acquittal Isn’t Cause for Celebration”), the Washington Post (“Penny Verdict Reveals How New York City Failed Jordan Neely”), and a major piece from the National Coalition for the Homeless (“Justice Denied: Honoring Jordan Neely and Demanding Change”).

A consistent theme throughout this national coverage is that “America” failed to provide Neely with housing or clean clothing or medical treatment — and that Penny went too hard on him in that train car, perhaps for this reason. But is this empirically true? Not really.

As it happens, Jordan Neely had pretty high-quality housing available to him at the time of his death. He simply opted not to live in it. As the New York-focused website Vital City points out, “in lieu of prison” in a recently decided criminal matter, “Neely was offered 15 months of (free) supportive housing and intensive outpatient psychiatric treatment.” However, he “absconded” from his bungalow after less than two weeks. He was given psychiatric medications while in treatment, but also opted to stop taking these pills: obviously, by default while still under their influence and aware that he could not safely do so.

Not only was Neely’s overall situation largely his fault, so was the very specific situation that led to his death. What is often misleadingly described as Neely “using colorful language” with other passengers on his train car, or “asking them for food and water,” was actually — per my best-possible compilation from several articles and police reports — the phrase: “I’ll hurt everyone here! I will KILL you! I don’t care if I go back to prison!” This obviously insane behavior prompted not merely Daniel Penny but several other random male citizens to confront and restrain Neely.

One glance at Neely’s arrest record would only have strengthened the unsurprising, absolutely correct conclusion that Daniel Penny and his fellow subway heroes drew from their opponent’s crazed ranting and filthy appearance. As it happens, Neely had been locked up some 42 previous times, for crimes including an unprovoked subway attack on a 67-year-old woman (which shattered her orbital bone), breaking the nose of a different subway rider, “pulling down his pants and exposing himself” to an unsuspecting young woman on a train, and attempting to snatch a pre-teen girl away from her guardians . . . in a train station. Neely’s encounter with Penny was only the latest — and, as it turned out, the last — time he fought with strangers on the NYC public rails.

On X and Facebook, we are currently seeing a broader example of the same trend of personal responsibility denial — and one which may hit closer to home for tax-paying readers of this article. Monorail salesman, likely genius, and of-late GOP presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy just began a major conversation and attracted an apple-throwing mob by — while defending most recipients of H-1B foreign “talent” visas — pointing out that white and black American youth may not be the hardest working imaginable occupants of the classroom.

Quoth he: “The reason top tech companies often hire foreign-born & first-generation engineers over ‘native’ Americans isn’t because of an innate American IQ deficit (a lazy & wrong explanation). A key part of it comes down to the c-word: culture. Tough questions demand tough answers & if we’re really serious about fixing the problem, we have to confront the TRUTH: Our American culture has venerated mediocrity over excellence for way too long That doesn’t start in college, it starts YOUNG.”

Ramaswamy was greeted with, alongside some support, an immediate wave of anger and excuses. Elijah Schafer of The Blaze argued: “Vivek — white people built marvelous nations and were almost completely white until 1965. We didn’t have H1B visas replacing jobs and were fine. (H1B support) is only about cheap labor!” Other debaters agreed, with some suggesting that the U.S. should immediately end upper-end foreign migration totally. Our kids? Best in the world!

An honorable and tempting idea. However, as I once noted at book length, a ton of objective statistics indicate that Ramaswamy is largely correct. The average American SAT score was 1024 in the most recent year on record. It’s well below that for Latinos, and below 950 for blacks. Despite this, as writer Adam Grant noted in a sourced response to Ramaswamy, one-third of native-born American college students expect a “B” grade for showing up in class. In contrast, Asian-American students, many foreign born, study roughly three times as much as black kids and twice as much as white kids — and post a 1250 on the annual aptitude test. They tend not to expect a B+ for — forgive me — “being” present.

Delano Squires, a black conservative writer whom I personally know and like, pointed out during the whole Vivek-induced controversy that no one objects to the invocation of personal responsibility or responsibility culture when this is made in the direction of failures or poor people, or even working-class blacks as a whole, or Appalachians. However, we all tend to get a bit testy when similar reminders are made to us or our beautiful children.

Let’s make them to everyone. I intentionally opened this essay with extreme cases, but, as New Year’s Day approaches, it’s always worth remembering that the person responsible for probably 95 percent of what you do is you. Let us all work on ourselves, each other, and the country.

[ Via: https://archive.today/YE3uZ ]

==

This is part of the larger victimhood industry. We have to stop rewarding self-professed "victims" - while not ignoring actual victims - who just refuse to take responsibility for their own actions and choices and feel compelled to blame others.

[drinkingcoffee-inthedark]

reminder that it’s okay to change your opinion when presented with new information. you are not a hypocrite; it’s called growth. it’s so brave to admit when you’re wrong and take accountability.

[cvt2dvm]

Too many people are focused on how others perceive them while simultaneously existing with zero internal locus of control. You can romanticize and try to find the good in all the bad you face, or you can buckle up, sit down, and do the work you need to do in order to change or adapt your situation for a better tomorrow.

Let this be the point where you say enough is enough, take accountability and responsibility for your healing and future, and move forward to a better self. Start your exit strategy, learn to advocate for yourself, whatever it is you need to do. It's not the universe. It's not God/Goddess. It's in your hands. Let go of the things you can't control. Start working on the things you can.

[chefswifediary]

Blaming others for own shortcomings.

Reflecting on my learning journey, I am reminded of numerous occasions where blaming others or external factors seemed more palatable than confronting my own shortcomings. Whether it was a professional endeavor that faltered or a personal aspiration that fell short, my initial inclination was often to attribute these outcomes to people around me, unfavorable circumstances, or mere misfortune.…

[dosesofcommonsense]

Again, I’m not taking morality lessons from the immoral.

Free/ discounted breakfast & free/discounted lunch programs are tax payer funded. Just like personal responsibility (kids, home, phone, car, student loans), your kids = YOUR responsibility.

**While there are programs that address someone’s inability to cover the necessities, those programs are meant to be temporary, heavily controlled, and not for everyone.

[tariah23]

Oh…. Well, it’s over for Crunchyroll I guess

[wickedzeevyln]

Promises Broken

After the turn of the year, we’re pretty much maxed out. All things bright and shiny have drained our bank accounts, energy spent in equal measure. Fair to say, we wrap something in plaid paper, tie it up with ribbons, and cross our fingers, hoping for applause on the other end. Sure, the gift is in the giving, but isn’t someone always muttering, “Ugh, socks again? Blanket again? Mugs again?”…

[dosesofcommonsense]

My wallet doesn’t fund your payroll.

[tmarshconnors]

Australia’s Social Media Ban for Under-16s

Parents, Take Responsibility

In a move sparking global debate, Australia has approved a social media ban for users under the age of 16. The legislation requires platforms to verify users' ages and obtain parental consent for minors to access their services. On paper, this might sound like a commendable step toward protecting young minds from the dangers of the digital world. But let's face it—this is yet another instance of government overreach into parental responsibilities. 

Let me be blunt: it’s not the government’s job, nor that of internet regulators, to parent your children. That’s your job. You chose to have kids; you should be responsible for their upbringing, online or offline. 

The Crux of the Problem 

Social media can be a dangerous playground, filled with predators, cyberbullying, and inappropriate content. But banning under-16s entirely or relying on the government to enforce parenting standards misses the point. The issue isn’t that kids have access to social media; it’s that too many parents fail to educate their children about responsible use. 

When did we, as a society, decide it was acceptable to outsource parenting to regulators and algorithms? When did we start expecting governments to do the hard work of teaching our kids about values, boundaries, and discernment? 

The Case Against Government Babysitting 

Handing over this responsibility to the state or tech companies is lazy and shortsighted. Governments already have their hands full with pressing issues—do we really want them playing Big Brother over our children’s TikTok accounts? And tech companies, for all their promises of "safety measures," are fundamentally profit-driven entities. They’re not moral guardians; they’re businesses. 

Beyond that, enforcement is a logistical nightmare. Age verification systems are easily bypassed, and tech-savvy kids will always find ways to skirt the rules. What we’re left with is a feel-good policy that’s more about political optics than practical outcomes. 

Parents: Step Up 

Here’s the hard truth: if you’re worried about your child’s social media use, it’s up to you to do something about it. 

- Monitor their online activity. Install parental controls, but don’t stop there. Talk to your kids about what they’re doing online and why certain behaviors are harmful. 

- Set boundaries. Teach them when it’s appropriate to be online and when to unplug. Encourage real-world interactions and hobbies. 

- Lead by example. If you’re glued to your phone, don’t be surprised when your child follows suit. Show them what healthy tech use looks like. 

This isn’t about being a helicopter parent; it’s about being present and engaged in your child’s life. 

Freedom vs. Safety 

The internet is a tool, not a boogeyman. It can be used for incredible learning opportunities, creative expression, and social connections. By outright banning under-16s from social media, we risk fostering a culture of fear rather than empowerment. 

Instead of shielding kids from the world, let’s equip them with the skills to navigate it responsibly. That starts at home—not in Parliament or Silicon Valley. 

Closing Thoughts 

Australia’s move to ban under-16s from social media might come from a place of good intentions, but it sets a troubling precedent. It absolves parents of their responsibilities and gives governments more power over individual freedoms. 

Parents, stop relying on governments to do your job. You brought your children into the world; you’re the ones responsible for raising them into well-rounded, discerning individuals. The internet isn’t going anywhere, and it’s up to you—not Canberra or tech executives—to teach your kids how to use it wisely. 

Own your role. Don’t outsource it. 

[lifeinspiration4all]

Justice in Action: Simple Ways to Make a Difference Daily

Justice isn’t always bold or loud. Sometimes, it’s hidden in the smallest of actions, waiting to be uncovered. In the quiet moments of daily life—when no one is watching and the stakes seem low—how do you choose to act? Do you turn away, or do you step forward to do what’s right? The answer to this question isn’t simple, but it holds the key to transforming the way we live and connect with…

[thegreathomestuckreread]

new tumblr update just dropped

also curious in the tags what ur ratio was i.e. i dropped about 300 followers and i was at just over 1200 before

[copepods]

literally a poet