#and we're peer reviewing our concepts

[asexualbert]

I miss when impending deadlines kicked me into a panic-induced "gotta get the work done" mode and I just stayed up all night finishing everything and then regretted it and later and swore to do it earlier next time and then didn't

It sucked but not nearly as much as staying up all night doing absolutely no work and thinking about the deadline getting closer and closer without being able to dredge up the motivation to do anything about it.

[grison-in-space]

Reading Men Who Hate Women (Laura Bates, 2020) at the moment. She's talking about the manosphere: the massive online communities of men who congregate to talk misogyny, ranging from PUAs to MRAs, incels and MGTOW. These aren't new topics to me—I've been following this off and on since watching Gamergate kick off—but Bates handles them well and I think this book could serve as an introduction if this is a movement with which you're not familar. By the way, it's been a decade since Gamergate this year. Isn't that a kicker?

(Incidentally, I first ran into the concept of incels way before I think many people did: when I was still on AVEN, c. 2006-2007ish, I remember a few occasions where users ran into incel communities and brought them to our forums to ask: is this like what we're doing? Is this like us? Consensus quickly solidified on the direction of "no," each time, not least because asexuality dialog at the time was extremely clear about divorcing desire from action, and it was very clear that the desires centered in that community were very different than the ones people in asexuality spaces were untangling.)

Bates handles the topic with grace, compassion, and a deep understanding that I really wish more writing on radicalization or terroristic networks used: people in real pain, who are struggling in pitiable circumstances to do their best and clearly need more support, can also in their pain be truly dangerous to others. Hurt people hurt people. Compassion for pain suffered is important—you can't understand recruitment without understanding that—but you also have to understand that pain, fermented in darkness, can create deadly poisons. Pain isn't essentially holy or cleansing or cauterizing. It doesn't accomplish anything good by existing. If we can relieve it, we should—but we should follow harm reduction principles as we do so, lest pain be allowed to multiply and fester.

What gets me is that in 2017, in the wake of the Google bro "manifesto," I spent a feverish week writing what wound up being a 20,000 word rebuttal studded with what eventually totaled 100+ peer reviewed citations. It got quite a bit of reach and covered ground ranging from effects of testosterone on behavior, the concept of effect size in sex differences, basic statistics, the ways that humans treat people differently based on their perception of gender, intersex trauma, and whether feminists care about men's problems (yeah, actually, and they should).

I released that piece, changed up my name and fannish presence—my long time pseud was tangled all over the piece's genesis—and hunkered down for the reprisals. I expected harassment and vitriol. It never really came: I ignored the comments on the post, after a bit, and I held boundaries on what I was willing to pay attention to. But by and large, I had no direct consequences from the Manosphere.

Perhaps the piece was too long (although I got many comments from people who read it and found it useful, and I included an index). Perhaps it was simply that I included a headshot of myself, with uncharacteristic red lipstick and characteristically buzzed hair, and cheerfully discussed throughout that I was butch and queer: sometimes I confuse people who are very focused on bioessentialist sex differences, because I don't fit their paradigms in the slightest.

About six months later, James Damore attempted to frame his incredibly poor decisions in light of his Asperger's, and I did get a couple dudes on social media presenting me with this information apparently in the hope that it would shock or embarrass me. I immediately pointed out, acerbically, that I'm equally autistic and that he was making us look bad, and they melted away again into the background. It wasn't really the well of terrifying anger and obliterative fury I was expecting.

I find myself reading these stories in Bates' book and thinking about the internet I grew up on: AVEN by 2005, WrongPlanet the same year, listening to people on the margins talk about their fears and hopes and dreams and theories about themselves. I find myself thinking about narratives and meaning, the stories we tell ourselves about who we are and why.

I'm certainly not the first person to worry about radicalization of young autistic people, especially autistic men. Not even close. Paradoxically, it's a group of people for whom an understanding of intersectionality is crucial: young disabled men often alienated deliberately from conceptualizing themselves as disabled, without the tools to understand why life is hard and painful and never seems to reflect their experiences, trying to construct understanding beyond one's singular, isolated defective wrongness—which is what's left, if you take community off the table.

(Have I mentioned how grateful I am that so many autistics are trans spectrum? Imagine if we weren't, and if I didn't have so many transfeminine sisters funneled along those same currents and drifting closely enough alongside to understand. My sisters, so many of whom are out there living and modeling better ways to understand and participate in gender as a social activity: by figuring out what is most comfortable for you, understanding that comfort for one might be agony for another, and taking steps to shape your own life into a fashion that wells forth the most peace and joy. It's a message we all need to hear, but that is a group of people I hear singing so loudly from my place in a different wing of the choir, and I love them for it.)

I don't have answers. As is, so often, the case these days, I have only grief and love, and the determination to build better structures where my own hands reach. I had intended to direct my career, once, to undermining the entire concept of "good genes" models of evolution and explaining how their convoluted connections to natural phenomena are better explained by other, more direct motives. Since 2020, I've been moving in a new direction—but what precisely it is, I'm not sure.

Sex differences is certainly a piece of it, though. Even if I find myself often enough writing that it's not enough to know a sex difference in one species to assume that another will reflect a similar relationship: we should study sex differences in animals, but we really shouldn't assume that humans will have the same ones or work the same way. I suspect this won't be the first time I tangle with that community. I suppose it depends how much authority I can accrue as protection first.

[imagitory]

Review: Inside Out 2 (SPOILERS)

Hey all! So earlier today my mum and I went to go see the sequel to one of my absolute favorite Pixar films, Inside Out! For a spoiler-free opinion, I'll just say that we both enjoyed it -- my mum enjoyed it more than I did, perhaps partially because she didn't remember the original as well as I did going in, but even if I didn't personally like this sequel as much as the first one, it's still a worthy continuation with very good humor and some great heart.

That being said, I think it's high time for some more spoilerific analysis. So if you're as anxious to get started as I am, read on!

The Good!

+Honestly, this film went to places that an Inside Out sequel was almost meant to go, just based on the ending of the last film. That puberty joke coming back and messing things up for Riley? Yeah, that checks out. Riley struggling with her emotions through her teen years? Sure! Makes for great drama! The emotions have to come to grips with the fact that change is inevitable? A worthwhile and appropriate lesson. This film's trajectory was a good pay-off for the set-up from the last film, so it never felt like this film's story was jarring or came out of left-field. It even makes sense for Riley to be so afraid of not having any friends and being alone in high school, considering that just two years prior (as seen in the first movie), she had to deal with such a traumatic move that resulted in her entire life in Minnesota being uprooted.

+The conflict between Riley's old and new emotions really does embody a lot of insecurities that teenagers go through! The thought of discarding our more immature, childish selves in favor of looking and acting more "adult" -- the disillusionment and diminishing of self-esteem -- the embarrassment, guilt and shame attached to your mistakes -- the intense desire to be accepted and praised -- the envy and longing to be more like "cool" older students -- the crippling self-doubt and anxiety -- the distant, sarcastic, sometimes even rude or angry shell you might form around yourself to try to hide your insecurities...I truly do think a lot of people will identify with Riley's struggles. My mum actually identified with Riley more than I did in this film, and this is when the first Inside Out became one of my top favorites in large part because how much I'd identified with Riley's struggle with depression! (I think this might be because my mum was both very sporty and a huge people-pleaser while growing up, while I -- oddly enough -- was kind of immune to peer pressure and was much more interested in being accepted for who I was, rather than in actively changing myself to try to "earn" acceptance from others.) I did, however, really feel Riley's perfectionistic tendencies, as well as her anxiety. Which leads us nicely into...

+The anxiety attack sequence. That scene, quite honestly, was a highlight of the entire film. It was a perfect concept that was both written and animated so evocatively, and Joy managing to break through enough to Anxiety to slow the panicked internal frenzy that made it so that Riley's emotions (and therefore Riley herself) couldn't see a thing was so well done.

+On that note, the concept of the threads of Riley's beliefs was great from beginning to end. I love that at the start of the film, Riley has a great sense of self-worth and a strong faith in the thought that she's a good person: something that, quite honestly, we all think until we're ideally forced to confront a more nuanced view of ourselves and the world around us. I like that when Anxiety started taking over (and planted only her memories in that underwater garden space), there's a shift in Riley that makes it so that she can only be happy if A, B, and C -- this idea that happiness is somehow both transactional and something one can only find in the outside world. It feels true to the emotion of Anxiety, and -- honestly -- to many real-life people. Self-love is hard to cultivate when one sees their flaws and shortcomings clearly, and finding happiness in one's own company as oneself can be even harder. The threads were well set-up by us seeing Joy and Sadness reaffirming their friendship from the last film by bringing their joint memory down to the garden, and the evolution of the garden and in Riley coming to grips with both the good and bad aspects of herself was fantastic. The part where all of the emotions embrace Riley's new sense of self, regardless of her flaws and shortcomings, was actually the most resonant moment of the film for me personally. I didn't cry, but it did make my own Joy and Sadness metaphorically hug each other.

+I'm really glad that Anger, Disgust, and Fear got to go on the psychological journey with Joy this time. I have some critiques on how it was done, and we'll get to that, but I am still glad that they got some more focus and time to shine, after Joy and Sadness got so much time to bond in the last movie. Fear pulling out that parachute was both funny and completely in-character, and I liked Anger "sticking it to the man" by swiping that pipe to shoot himself and the others up into the air and onto the top of the walls. It also was so very, very fitting for Joy and the others to trust Sadness to go back to Headquarters -- she would be the best equipped to help since she knows the manuals best, and she's also the emotion who'd be best able to get Riley help from outside should she need it, as proved from the last film. It really showcases how much stronger the core emotions' bond has become in the almost two years since the events from the first movie, especially the one between Joy and Sadness.

+There was some really, really good humor in this movie. The highlights for me were largely in the Deep Dark Secrets Vault -- I died laughing at Lance Slashblade multiple times. (Am I the only one who thought that that hooded Secret was totes Riley's gender identity? Because I'm sorry, I still love the headcanon that Riley is non-binary. For the record, yes, after further research into a post-credits scene I didn't stick around for, I found out I was wrong, but SHHH, I'm ignoring it because it's stupid.) The scene where Joy blew up at Anger, Fear, and Disgust was also both really funny and relatable for me -- I've been in that exact position before, and you're right, Joy: it is exhausting!!

The Ehhh...

+I know I'll probably be in the minority on this, but none of the new emotions grabbed me the way the originals did. They all had funny moments, sure, but Anxiety pissed me off way more than earned sympathy from me, at least until the end. I think it was the whole "we love Riley, really! All we want to do is change her into a completely different person" thing. It's really not that I think the new emotions don't care about Riley -- it's clear they do, and obviously they all learned their lesson -- but I guess I personally just don't ascribe to the idea that love is somehow conditional. If you love someone, you should love them as they are: there shouldn't be this expectation that the person you love (even platonically, as in this case) should change themselves for your sake. I know Anxiety in some ways could parallel Joy in the first movie, but in the first film, Joy sees the depth of her mistake through her adventures with Sadness and the growth she undergoes through it. She then more than proves how much she's willing to make things right in how hard she fights to get Sadness back to Riley's Headquarters. Anxiety -- just due to the characterization established for her -- doesn't really get the chance to redeem herself through passionate, proactive action in that same way. Instead she falls apart, Joy has to come to her rescue, and then all of the emotions come together to symbolically embrace Riley and calm her down. As for the others, as I said, they all had funny moments, but I didn't really latch onto any of them the way I did for Joy, Sadness, and Disgust in the first movie. Again, I want to emphasize that I don't think any of these new emotions are bad, by a long shot -- I just personally didn't like or resonate with them as much as the original five.

+The pacing in this film wasn't always that great. The journey Joy took with Fear, Disgust, and Anger seemed a lot less focused than Joy's with Sadness, largely because Joy didn't really get as much chance to bond with all three of the others the way she did with Sadness. In the original film, all of the obstacles and side adventures Sadness, Joy, and Bing Bong had to undergo on their way back to Headquarters had emotional relevance. They weren't just there for the sake of jokes: they also strengthened the bond between the characters and laid the groundwork for plot points later. Take the trip through Imagination Land in the first film, for example -- sure, the Riley's Imaginary Boyfriend machine was funny, but it was also reused later where Joy made a whole bunch of copies and then used them to both reach Sadness and launch herself and Sadness at Headquarters. But the trip to Imagination Land here was really more a tangent accenting Anxiety's unraveling and a meta reference to the state of modern animation studios, rather than something that lay the groundwork for a more emotional, clever payoff later-on. (It also seemed like it wasted time Joy and the others really needed to get back to Headquarters, as well as revealed to Anxiety that they'd escaped when it would've been more prudent for them to keep their heads down.) The "Sarchasm" was absolutely hilarious as a concept -- I laughed so bloody hard when it cropped up...but imagine how much better it would've been if Disgust had gotten the chance to show how to defeat it by simply not responding verbally to it? Perhaps Disgust's interest in make-up could've given her the ability to show off the power of a silent, condescending "Eyebrow Arch" in defanging sarcasm, which could've materialized as a bridge over the chasm or something. That could've put more ammunition behind the idea that Anxiety is wrong that Riley's old emotions are no longer necessary, rather than just an obstacle being thrown into the characters' way on a whim of the filmmakers to pad the run-time.

+This does actually lead to that one big critique I have about the focus on Anger, Fear, and Disgust -- where was my favorite green girl's chance to shine during this journey through the mind, huh?! Anger figuratively went "f*** it" and got the group up to the top of the wall. Fear saved himself and the others from the fall with his parachute. Joy's relentless optimism carried them all down their path. Where was Disgust using her individuality and named trait to help Riley? Disgust in particular is supposed to be there to "keep Riley from getting poisoned physically or socially" -- she has all the motive in the WORLD to be irritated at Anxiety and the other new emotions, considering she's responsible for Riley ditching her two best friends and poisoning her entire moral character. I do really wish Anger had been more righteously angry about this too, but at least he got some chance to take charge and get the spotlight by himself -- Disgust, in comparison to the other two emotions accompanying Joy, just got less focus.

+I guess this leads into really my only true hang-up with the film -- not that it was bad, but just that it didn't surprise me that much. Just like in the last film, Joy is trying to push away those things that aren't so pleasant supposedly for Riley's benefit. Just like in the last film, Joy has to come to grips with an emotion changing Riley in a way she doesn't like. Just like in the last one, Joy breaks down and exposes the vulnerable emotions she's been trying to hide -- in fact, this time, she does it twice, considering she loses it with Anger, Fear, and Disgust (in a very funny scene, but still) mid-way through and then has that more hopeless bit in the third act. Imagine how much stronger this film could've been if after Joy's first breakdown, she really does give up, or even if it had played into that terrible idea Joy has that "when you grow up, you feel less joy" and that (as a result) Joy is getting weaker or even is starting to disappear...and so, in response, Anger has to take charge of the mission, because he -- as the emotion who cares deeply about "what's fair" -- is furious about how Anxiety treated them and is trying to change Riley. Then we follow Anger as the emotion with a character arc. He's got that fire needed to defend who Riley is and prove that she is that good person she believed she was, but because he's Anger, he has difficulty moderating himself or staying focused. It's Disgust that has to help rein him in and show the power of silence in defeating the Sarchasm. It's Fear who has to save them from the Brainstorm. In this scenario, it'd be Anger rashly confronting Anxiety in that pillow fort in Imagination Land...and it would've been Anger who would've suffered burn-out, after all of his determined rage seemingly leads them out into the middle of nowhere with no way back to Headquarters. He would've cried tears of frustration and despair, feeling like a failure just as Riley did at the beginning of the film, and this would've been where Joy came to the realization that shoving down those negative memories doesn't diminish their impact. Then they would've ridden that avalanche back, and Anger -- seeing the state Anxiety was in -- would've realized that rage was not the way to help and insisted Joy help her, while he and the others try to fix Riley's Sense of Self. Helping Anxiety would've then also helped Joy too, and she would've rematerialized in full, just as bright as before: because Joy doesn't have to just be emblematic of childhood, but also in seeing the light after losing one's way. Sure, this trajectory would've in its own way mirrored aspects from the first film -- but at least we wouldn't have had Joy having to break down three times in two movies, and perhaps we could've given Joy and Anger's friendship the chance to shine the way Joy and Sadness's has.

+As the tiniest of nitpicks as well, I didn't think the score was that memorable, aside from the reuse of the original Bundle of Joy theme written for the first film.

I know my second more negative section has a lot of stuff written in it, but please, don't take this to mean I disliked the film! Truly, overall, I think it's quite good. I just didn't identify with Riley's struggles as much in this film as its predecessor, and I didn't think the script was quite as tightly written with set-ups and pay-offs either. Inside Out 2 is still a very enjoyable film, and I think just about any fan of Inside Out will have a fun time like my mum and I did! Even despite my minor critiques, my memory of this film is largely yellow.

Overall Grade: B+

[mamabearwonders]

Let me step on my soapbox a minute. 🧼 🫧

Is anyone tired of the concept that the goal of disability is to get you back to work? Let's think about it. Shouldn't the focus of a patient to be on their quality of life from a doctor's perspective?

So even if a person might be capable of working, if it's going to put them in so much physical and mental distress, is that really capable of working? Why should pushing through pain be the standard?

It's sickening to me. We put so much value on people's lives through their productivity. Why can't productivity be meeting people where they're at.

I don't like that disability hinders disabled folks from making money either. Some folks on it can't work a traditional job. But some might want to make a little side cash so that might be through like what I do having a small depop shop where you sell things online that I got second hand at the last chance thrift store before it goes to the dump. Some might pet sit or make their own cookies 🍪.

Or they push medication to your more functional. Nothing's wrong with medication by itself. What's wrong is some people don't have no choice or they're told well if you don't want meds, we're not going to help you at all. They give you like two choices.

I just wish that we could be reviewed from our peers and our communities instead of doctors who do everything to make our lives miserable half the time.

I'm at peace knowing that my body cannot do what it used to do. And that helps my quality of life. I don't want to try to be the person I used to be. I miss it, I grieve it, but I'm also at peace with the body I have now and I want to make the best of it.

I haven't been well for years years, but I push myself to the point where I can't even physically work anymore if I wanted to and it makes me mad that doctors are like you just have to push harder. I did.

I would be open to working somewhere like 5 to 10 hours a week. If it means I can still run my depop shop and volunteer. I cannot work more than that.

Why can't my quality of life be the focus? Why does it have to be a return to work if it means hindering that quality of life? I'm still a person even if I cannot work.

[prabhatjairam]

Social Proof and Its Role in Marketing

In a world bombarded with advertising messages at every turn, consumers are becoming increasingly savvy. They've developed a keen eye for discerning genuine value from empty promises, and they're turning to their peers for guidance more than ever before. Enter social proof – the not-so-secret weapon in the marketer's arsenal.

So, what exactly is social proof? Simply put, it's the psychological phenomenon where people assume the actions of others in an attempt to reflect correct behavior for a given situation. In marketing terms, it's the concept that people are more likely to trust a product or service if they see others endorsing or using it.

Think about it: when you're scrolling through your social media feed and come across a glowing review from a friend about a new restaurant, your curiosity is piqued. Or when you're browsing online and see a product with hundreds of five-star reviews, you're more inclined to add it to your cart without a second thought. That's the power of social proof in action.

But why does social proof hold so much sway over our purchasing decisions? Well, it all boils down to trust. In an age where skepticism runs rampant, we crave reassurance that we're making the right choices. And what better way to gain that reassurance than by seeing others – particularly people we know or relate to – vouching for a product or service?

There are several types of social proof, each with its unique appeal:

1. Expert Endorsements: When industry experts or influencers lend their credibility to a product or service, it can significantly boost its perceived value. Consumers trust the opinions of those they perceive as knowledgeable or authoritative in a particular field.

2. User Reviews and Testimonials: Nothing speaks louder than the voice of a satisfied customer. Positive reviews and testimonials serve as real-life proof of a product or service's efficacy, helping to alleviate doubts and instill confidence in prospective buyers.

3. Social Media Mentions and Shares: In today's interconnected world, social media has become a breeding ground for social proof. Whether it's through likes, shares, or comments, the visibility of a brand across social channels can greatly influence consumer perception.

4. Popularity and Social Following: The bandwagon effect is a powerful psychological force. When we see a product or service gaining popularity and amassing a large following, we're inclined to jump on board too, fearing that we might miss out on something great.

“Amid the bustling world of online education, one platform stands out as a beacon of excellence: Study24hr.com. With a diverse range of courses taught by industry experts, Study24hr.com empowers learners to unlock their full potential and achieve their academic and professional goals. Boasting rave reviews from satisfied students who have experienced firsthand the quality of instruction and personalized support, Study24hr.com exemplifies the power of social proof in education. Join the thousands of learners who have chosen Study24hr.com as their trusted partner in learning, and embark on a journey of knowledge and growth today.”

So, how can businesses harness the power of social proof to supercharge their marketing efforts?

First and foremost, it's essential to cultivate a positive reputation and actively engage with customers to encourage organic endorsements. This means delivering exceptional products or services and providing top-notch customer service to foster a loyal fan base.

Additionally, leveraging social proof through testimonials, user-generated content, and influencer partnerships can help amplify your brand's credibility and reach. By showcasing real-life experiences and endorsements from satisfied customers or respected industry figures, you can build trust and establish your brand as a go-to authority in your niche.

In conclusion, social proof isn't just a buzzword – it's a game-changer in the world of marketing. By tapping into the innate human desire for validation and reassurance, businesses can leverage social proof to build trust, boost credibility, and ultimately drive sales. So, the next time you're looking to make a purchase decision, remember: the proof is in the social pudding.

[englishwritingmalaysia]

Fostering Growth in Secondary School Students' English Writing Skills

Introduction:

In today's fast-paced world, strong English writing skills are more important than ever for secondary school students. Whether it's excelling in exams, communicating effectively in the digital age, or pursuing future academic and career opportunities, the ability to express oneself clearly and persuasively in writing is a vital asset. At Write Edge, we understand the significance of nurturing these skills from an early age. In this article, we'll explore how our course can unlock full potential and foster growth in secondary school students English writing abilities.

Understanding the Challenges:

Secondary school can be a challenging time for students, with academic demands, extracurricular activities, and social pressures competing for their time and attention. In the midst of these challenges, English writing skills often take a backseat, leading to frustration and anxiety when faced with writing assignments or exams. Many students struggle with grammar, punctuation, sentence structure, and vocabulary, hindering their ability to express themselves effectively on paper. Additionally, limited feedback and guidance in traditional classroom settings may further impede their progress.

The Benefits of Our English Writing Course:

At Write Edge Malaysia, we're committed to empowering secondary school students with the tools and strategies they need to succeed in English writing. Our comprehensive course is designed to address the specific needs and challenges faced by students at this critical stage of their education. Here are some key benefits of enrolling in our course:

Personalized Instruction: Unlike traditional classroom settings where students may struggle to receive individualized attention, our course provides personalized instruction tailored to each student's unique learning needs and preferences. Our experienced instructors work closely with students to identify areas for improvement and develop personalized learning plans to help them achieve their writing goals.

Interactive Learning Environment: Our course features a dynamic and interactive learning environment that engages students and fosters active participation. Through a combination of live lectures, interactive exercises, and collaborative activities, students are encouraged to actively engage with course material and apply their newfound knowledge in practical contexts.

Comprehensive Curriculum: Our curriculum covers a wide range of topics essential for developing strong English writing skills, including grammar, punctuation, sentence structure, vocabulary building, and essay writing. Each module is carefully crafted to build upon the previous ones, providing students with a solid foundation in writing fundamentals while also challenging them to explore more advanced concepts.

Constructive Feedback and Support: In addition to personalized instruction, our course offers regular feedback and support to help students track their progress and identify areas for improvement. Whether it's through one-on-one consultations with instructors, peer review sessions, or written feedback on assignments, students receive constructive criticism and guidance to help them grow as writers.

Flexibility and Convenience: We understand that secondary school students have busy schedules, which is why our course offers flexibility and convenience. Students can access course materials and participate in live sessions from anywhere with an internet connection, allowing them to study at their own pace and on their own schedule.

Real-World Application: Our course emphasizes real-world application, helping students develop practical writing skills that are relevant to academic, professional, and personal contexts. From crafting persuasive essays to composing formal letters and emails, students learn how to apply their writing skills in real-life situations, preparing them for success beyond the classroom.

Building Confidence and Motivation: Perhaps most importantly, our course aims to build students' confidence and motivation in their English writing abilities. By providing a supportive learning environment, encouraging risk-taking and experimentation, and celebrating students' achievements, we help instill a sense of confidence and self-assurance that empowers students to tackle writing challenges with enthusiasm and determination.

Conclusion:

At Write Edge Malaysia, we believe that every secondary school student has the potential to become a confident and proficient writer. Our comprehensive course is designed to unlock that potential by providing personalized instruction, interactive learning experiences, comprehensive curriculum, constructive feedback and support, flexibility and convenience, real-world application, and building confidence and motivation. If you're ready to take your English writing skills to the next level, we invite you to join us on this exciting journey of growth and discovery. Sign up for our course today and unleash your full potential as a writer!

[bee-capstone-blog]

Blog no.12 25/09/23

In the maramataka, it's a high-energy time to take action and be active. In my personal life, I'm very low energy and have been going through a hard time. Balancing these two energies is important with the upcoming workshops. Yasmin and I have reached out to our peers to get interested in our proposed craft workshops that we will use to enrich our capstones in different ways. I aim to get insights into the application of craft and connection. Up until now, I've been relying on personal experience and literature review, so it's integral to do some participatory design to make sure my concepts translate into actionable workshop design. Below is one of the posts we made to advertise the workshop.

[Image by Bee, texture by Yasmin, 2023]

Making the above image and some other variations was a great way to test how my visual guide can be applied in different formats.

Yasmin and I also translated our workshop plan into kōrero cards, which we can test during our workshop to see if they are an effective tool for advancing vulnerable conversations.

[Scans of kōrero cards, Bee & Yasmin, 2023]

It was interesting collaborating (or co-designing) with Yasmin, especially as we're doing very different projects. The common threads pulling us together (pun intended) of our connection to queerness and crafting allow me to see, tangibly, the wider context of my project and the ontology of queer creativity. We work well together, both motivated and passionate as well as being able to divide tasks in a way that feels fair to both of us.

[affectiondeficitdisorder]

This Is Not A Love Object: A Philosopher Looks at Love and Limerence

by Ethlie Ann Vare

I’ve been writing about love addiction for, oh, 12 or 13 years now. Most of the time, people just thought I was crazy. I interviewed psychiatrist Dr. Reef Karim for the 2011 book Love Addict: Sex, Romance and Other Dangerous Drugs. He told me, "If I went to an American Psychiatric Association conference and said, ‘Doctors, today we're going to talk about love addiction,’ a third of the room would start laughing.”

Well, he and I had the last laugh in 2014 when psychiatrist Dr. Vineeth John stood up at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association and said, "What might be the criteria for love addiction and its destructive and dysfunctional behaviors?”

Okay, we didn’t actually laugh. Being right about a debilitating and potentially fatal behavioral addiction isn’t that all damn funny… although sometimes it helps to look at it that way.

So now there have been more than 700 peer-reviewed scientific studies about the neurological, behavioral and emotional aspects of love addiction. As of today, we can add “philosophical” to the list, as University of Tennessee Professor of Philosophy Dr. Georgi Gardiner has written We Forge the Conditions of Love -  Linguistic Luck: Essays in Anti-Luck Semantics (eds. Carlos Montemayor & Abrol Fairweather.)

Guess what? I’m footnoted!

“As you know,” Dr. Gardiner told me, “there aren't many scholarly articles about limerence, and this is the first philosophy essay about limerence.” She does write about other aspects of love than limerence — aka infatuation, my favorite drug — but I’m all about what she has to say about this one. And she says it using very big words.

One of her main points is that how we verbalize or frame our ideas of romantic love can change how we experience it. “Self-ascribing love can change emotions, attitudes, and values,” is now she puts it. “Self-ascriptions of love are affected by the person’s conception of love.

“A person’s whose conception of limerence is shaped by discourse that emphasises addiction science, neurochemical pathways, or behavioural conditioning might accordingly conceive of limerence as primarily an addiction.” That would be me. My discourse about limerence is that is can be addictive, particularly to people who are genetically and environmentally predisposed to addiction.

“The addiction is to thought patterns, rather than external drugs or behaviours like cocaine or gambling,” she writes. “They might thus understand limerence as contiguous with non-romantic cognitive or attentional addictions, such as maladaptive daydreaming, compulsive rumination, cognitive stimming, mental perseveration, and compulsive suicidal, violent, argumentative, or sexual ideation.”

“The addiction,” she continues, “is not to interacting with the person. It is to thinking about them.” 

I agree. We are rarely in love with a person so much as we are to the feeling of being in love with that person. And thinking about them re-stimulates that feeling. It’s as if thinking about a drink actually gave you a buzz.… and no matter how hard you tried, you couldn’t stop thinking about it, even if you wanted to.

“Two features of this mental activity are emphasised: Incessance—the thoughts are constant — and lack of cognitive control. Therapeutic manuals bluntly deny limerents can intentionally stop thinking about the limerent object. [Dorothy] Tennov writes, ‘In summary, limerent fantasy is, most of all, intrusive and inescapable. It seems not to be something you do, but something that happens.’ Forum posts continually cast suicide as the only escape.”

The thing is, “limerence — not love — is a monomaniacal attentional phenomenon.” In other words, that thing that feels like this-is-my-soulmate-I-must-be-with-them-or-I-will-die-are-they-thinking-about-me-I-have-to-check-their-Instagram… that ain’t love. That is a “monomaniacal attentional phenomenon.”

“Limerence—like many addictions—ultimately arises from unmet needs: The need for romantic companionship or to feel desirable, which corresponds to romantic limerence. The need for approval, especially from authority figures, which commonly underwrites limerence for teachers and bosses. And the need for emotional processing, leading to limerence for therapists and alterous limerence.

“In the resulting conceptual nexus, perhaps love is—at least in its most ideal instantiations—a way to bond, connect, and structure a life. The addiction described by the discourse is not to interacting with the person. It is to thinking about them. Limerence is a way to think.”

So if I have this right — and my degree is in World Literature, not Philosophy, so bear with me — Dr. Gardiner is in our corner. Addictive love isn’t a way of loving; it is a way of thinking. And we do it because we are trying to fill that existential hole every addict and alcoholic talks about. So maybe if we talk about it differently, we will start to experience it differently. I assume this is what she means by “linguistic luck.” The reality we inhabit depends on the way we frame our reality. Changing the way we talk about our thinking… can change the way we think. Which, for some of us, is a worthwhile goal.

So thanks for the reframing, Dr, Gardiner. Plus, I like being a scholarly footnote. A scholarly footnote who cusses.

[lostsouls-house]

Syscourse Related Question (if you’re willing to answer it):

Many systems on Tumblr seem very focused on fighting about who’s real, who’s not, and what’s valid to say. Do you believe new systems in the community are harmed by this? How can we, as systems in this community, do better to create a welcoming space, regardless of if we believe in certain types of systems or not?

Feel free to delete this question if you would prefer not to answer or be involved with syscourse mentions.

We're still fairly new to the community so I can't say we're exactly the best people to answer this question, but we'll do our best.

Firstly, before I answer anything regarding the harm it might do to new systems let me just say- 'The Community' could only refer to the ACTUAL DIDOSDD Community, meaning those formed with trauma (since that is the only way to have a system). As such, The Community as a whole is already doing all that it can. We are trying to make safe spaces for ourselves, we create separate tags and we actively share peer reviewed scientific findings supporting the understanding of how systems are formed. Endos/non-trauma Systems invade those spaces, berate us for our lack of inclusion, then twist single quotes from thirty year old studies to suit their 'proof'. They spread harmful misinformation that has long term ramifications they do not see. Because of the nature of the disorders, attention seekers hide freely among the uninformed and further the confusion, but we'll get to that in my next section. Traumagenic Systems have learned to be cautions and sometimes outright angry with people who identify as endo/ non-trauma because they often invalidate our horrific experiences and daily struggles by downplaying the severity of the mental scaring it takes to fracture a mind. No matter what anyone says, this IS a harmful thing to do.

The environment new systems stumble into, especially online is extremely harmful. In every community there are attention seekers and while in many they are easy to spot, this is not the case when it comes to DIDOSDD. It is a covert disorder, meaning for many the trauma that caused their system to form is buried under layers and hidden by trauma holders. Often people who identify as endogenic are people who simply cannot remember their trauma, but that raises a few issues. Because of the culture created online and people pushing the concept of 'endogenic systems', people with real trauma may take years longer to talk about it. They may begin to downplay it mentally since "If anyone can form a system, it must not have been that bad." By telling people that they do not need trauma to form a system to are reinforcing gaslighting and false memories. It also creates an unwelcoming and uninviting air when we constantly have to fight to validate our existence and this may make new systems reluctant to further their research through the noise. This can lead to a bumpier road to system communication and can hinder recovery considerably.

People who use these disorders for attention also use them to get away with abusive behaviour. They will blame their abuse on an Alter or tell people harmful things claiming it was said by 'someone in their head'. These things reflect on the DIDOSDD Community in a way that makes singets and professionals BOTH Weary of working with us and thus limits our access to care. Endogenic/ non-trauma systems open the door for people like this. They create a space that makes it okay to pretend to have a disability and they defend people who do so in the name of overinclusion. They rally behind anyone who calls themselves a system and had them legitimacy which leads to abusers shouting back at anyone who calls them out with a sense of validity. This is harmful for even more reasons I won't bother to list.

Basically, endos are ableist and they make everything uncomfortable for everyone. They should go.

- Dr. Ian Bennett {LostSouls}

[crabnby]

ok @the-defiant-pupil i'm just gonna go ahead and make a new post bc this is about to get too long for my adhd ass

(context: continuation of this post)

1. funny thing is, i've actually read most of your sources already. they get really, really boring after awhile though, bc all of them start to say the same thing: yes there are differences, but there are also similarities, and scientists have yet to figure out the significance of this.

i'm not gonna go through each and every one of your sources, and i shouldn't be expected to either. when it comes to biological research, find the most recent articles with the most solid evidence/conclusions and call it good. don't dredge up an entire archive. i could find you sources that only characterize lichens as 2 symbiotic organisms rather than 3, but that wouldn't be correct bc the most recent research says otherwise. so yeah, just bc you CAN find that much info out there doesn't mean all of it is viable and should be used.

also, you can't just list a bunch of sources and expect it to be enough. you should contextualize them, explain them, tell your audience why each one matters. if you're really going to have that many, then be prepared to give a short annotation for each one bc i can guarantee you no one has enough time on their hands (or in my case, attention span) to read that many sources

your "plain as day" source by the way?? says this as well:

this is what i was talking about earlier!! do you actually read, contextualize, and analyze what you read? or do you just find the first line you agree with and run with it?

bc what i got from reading that article is that even after years of research and the largest study to date, scientists STILL don't fully understand what they're looking at, and they might never. so we, as people Not Actively Researching This Subject should be incredibly hesitant to draw our own conclusions when even the researchers can't do so.

i also like that the author mentions how socialization can affect brain structure and development — did you know that domestication causes visible differences in gene structure between the ancestor and current-day species? bc of selective breeding, humans changed the genetics of dogs, cows, crops, etc.; genetics changed bc of domestication, domestication didn't come about bc of a change in genetics. and i KNOW that you're going to tell me this has nothing to do w what we're talking about, but it does hold a similar concept: it's not just genetics and bodily functions that affect behavior, the environment has an equally important role.

similarly, gene expression in almost every species is highly regulated by the environment just as equally as it is the body (and for clarification: environment means anything external, body means anything internal). as are hormonal responses, reflexes, emotions, etc. all of which can have subtle but lasting impacts on the body! i don't actually think that anti-transmeds are trying to deny science when we say that how your brain developed is not the only thing that affects gender identity! i think it's kinda actually the opposite!

2. i've haven't heard of this tumblr biologist, so please direct me to their publications, i'd actually really love to read them

3. science literacy is a whole other beast than literacy in general. like, yes, you have to be able to read, but suddenly specific word choice and HOW you read articles becomes important. it goes from reading chronologically (english literacy) to reading section by section and contextualizing what you've read in previous sections and articles so that by the end you understand the initial hypothesis, if the evidence ACTUALLY proved it, if their methods were sound, and why it matters in the particular field.

i'm not trying to say that people who aren't studying science can't read peer-reviewed articles and understand them, but you do have to realize that it's a completely new skillset you have to practice over and over again, not just something you can pick up on the fly

4. i think you completely missed my point about the anti-vaxxer movement. the reason it started was bc McBastard Wakefield published his article and before any other research could be done to refute it or back it up, the greater population picked it up and ran with it. 7 or so years since it's been debunked and he lost his medical license, but people still believe him bc he got published, and to some of the most accredited journals at that.

my point was that just bc the research exists doesn't mean we should accept it at face value until the medical/scientific community can undeniably say "this is what this is, and what it means." and they're STILL doing further research, which means that hasn't happened yet. bc the whole point of science, and by extension research, is to never be satisfied w your results, and instead continue to look for more than you can currently see. or at least that's what i've been taught.

bc to look at published articles and assume that they MUST be true bc it's PUBLISHED SCIENCE is...exactly what the anti-vaxxer movement began on. and i'd rather not repeat that.

(please show me, by the way, how """tucutes""" 1. actually exist and 2. harm anyone by simply living their own damn lives)

5. yeah """""tucutes""""" don't have any science bc uh.....there really is none. science is a process, and we're currently in the research phase which means NO ONE should be using it as proof. it's good to say "hey this exists" but to completely invalidate someone's existence based on studies that scientists are still trying to understand? that's called abusing and misconstruing results

6. i'm guessing you don't actually care, but sure. i'll explain mating types of fungi to you.

in short: genetic diversity is advantageous for survival, and fungi are nothing if not crafty little bastards, thus 1000s of mating pairs for better chances of sexual compatibility

in long: each mating type is determined by a set of genes. really, you can think of mating types as extended alleles, since each distinct allele has a distinct mating type.

so as for 5 different mating types and how they're different...there you go. that'd be like asking me to tell you 5 different alleles of the same gene and how they're different. the only difference is in sequence and then how they're expressed due to differences in sequence.

usually we don't categorize every single mating type since that'd be a bit...much.

however, we can and do categorize fungi by how they reproduce! i.e., what kind of syntamy do they display? can they go through diploid selfing? can they inbreed or only out cross? what's their primary stage of life: diploid or haploid? do they rely on sexual reproduction or asexual reproduction? if it's an ascomycete, do they form pericarps or ascocarps?

in fact, one of the main differentiators between fungi is their life cycle, most of which is geared towards reproduction. that's why although basidiomycetes and ascomycetes are the only fungi that can form macro fruiting bodies (as well as many, many other similarities), they'll always be categorized differently.

but i digress. the reason i compared fungal mating types to brain morphology and "sex" categorization is bc i was making an analogy. i'm not a neurologist, as you can probably tell at this point, but that doesn't mean i haven't taken any classes that covered the brain pretty extensively.

what i was really trying to say was this: everything that i've read so far says that although there's definitely some differences between brains, there's also a significant amount of overlap, so much so that when you try to categorize the brain into two distinct types, you're still going to have an incredible amount of variety.

likewise, you could, theoretically, do the same to fungi. you could sequence the genes from each mating type, determine the different SNPs, and categorize them into two distinct groups based on what SNPs they do/don't have. it wouldn't make sense to do so, though, bc there'd still be too much variety within each group.

this was just me trying to relate it to what i personally study but tbh i can see how that would've been confusing, so i apologize for that

[thelunastusco]

Ignoring the fact that hours of "research" don't overrule the lived experience of potentially thousands of systems, and you know, the entire foundation of scientific research and how hypotheses become theories/laws--

Once again clarifying that we know, accept, and are perfectly fine with being a trauma-formed system with DID?

Like... our journey was endogenic w/ no DID > accepted we had DID from trauma later in childhood but still considered ourselves endogenic > realized we had trauma from WAY earlier than thought and accepted we were also traumagenic (we prefer 'adaptive' but whatever) > currently use the labels traumagenic/adaptives + protogenic because we still feel like we were born plural due to egg donor being abusive while we were still in utero + showed signs of fetal distress + don't remember a time when we WEREN'T plural.

Also we consider ourselves spiritually-based.

So no we're not in denial, LOL. We do in fact credit the non-traumagenic, and inclusive plural, communities for giving us the space, time, and support needed to eventually work through our mental blocks with regard to our trauma.

Just because we were wrong about our system, doesn't mean every system that uses the term endogenic for themselves are. The concept of endogenic systems has existed forever. And it's impossible to call it a "delusion" since delusions are things that are DEMONSTRATIVELY false. (For example, someone claiming that their skin is actually fish scales.) You can't see what's happening in a system's head, and the possibility of non-traumagenic plural has NOT been disproven. Nothing anywhere proves systems ONLY form from traumas, ever.

Like, flat out, the studies don't exist. "Dozens of articles prove systems are trauma-formed only" in what universe? Links or it didn't happen. (Spoilers: it didn't happen.) Trauma-formed systems are woefully lacking in peer reviewed studies, non-traumagenic systems have been included in even less studies.

And how would science prove it or disprove it, anyways? All science can do is say "yeah, this system says they existed before trauma/in the absence of trauma, and these tests we've done prove that their brain reacts in the same way as trauma-formed systems, so it stands to reason they're probably experiencing something similar". And that's ignoring the fact that, you know... nothing anywhere says that all traumagenic systems operate the same way on a brain level, either, so in the end what does it prove?

Isn't it easier to just accept that a system is telling the truth about their origins, as they understand it, and embrace them regardless of their journey?

Especially considering that a system's origins in no way impact access to comprehensive health care, or social acceptance? That these two angles need all of us working together to improve?

Also we had a psych tell us to our face that if we were really plural, we wouldn't respond to the body's legal name when called back from the waiting room, LMFAO, so excuse us if we don't give a shit what someone's little psych friends have to say about plurality. :')

Lol this person.

We passed from "HOURS" into days just from participating in the FMRI study at Stanford University. We've spent literally hundreds of hours just reading research papers - we have alerts set on Academia.edu and Google Scholar to let us know when interesting stuff drops. (Not just on endogenics, but also on other things that interest us like synesthesia, lucid dreaming, fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue, migraines, and Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome.) We've also read books - including the DSM, which we have digital copies of every version of - and talked to doctors and clinicians and researchers. And of course, talking to a very wide variety of endogenic and nondisordered systems. All told, not counting the talking to systems, over the past decade we've easily spent well over a thousand hours on this stuff.

(And THEN you get into the hours we've spent pouring over our memories and trying on different models of plurality over the course of our life like we're the ugly stepsister trying to make Cinderella's glass slipper fit on our much too big foot. That by itself is easily a thousand hours.)

Altogether that's a sum total of at least 1000 hours, or 41+ days, or nearly a month and a half straight of nothing but research (and then the same amount again for introspection and self-determination.)

"Trust me I've done HOURS of research."

Amateur. Absolutely amateur numbers.

[bitcofun]

Hodlnaut is a Singapore-based cryptocurrency interest account platform that used substance interest of 10% for stablecoin possessions and 6% for Bitcoin. On August 8th, 2022, Hodlnaut suspended all withdrawals, token swaps, and deposits-- making it third biggest CeFi "crypto interest account" platform to avoid its users from withdrawing their properties (behind Celsius and Voyager.) The e-mail that shocked every Hodlnaut user on August 8th, 2022. So, you might be questioning, is Hodlnaut legit? The following Hodlnaut evaluation analyzes its interest account item, security practices, functionality, group neighborhood trust, and an unique interview with an agent from the Hodlnaut group. Let's dig in. Hodlnaut Review: Quick Summary Hodlnaut is a Singapore-based business established in2019 It is offered around the world, leaving out places restricted by Hodlnaut Policy or Sanction Laws. Holdnaut obtains its name from the crypto slang HODL (Hold On for Dear Life), a passionate expression that describes keeping your digital properties instead of offering them, despite the marketplace's volatility. The latter part of the business name remains in the theme of "astronaut." According to its website, the platform has actually collected about $250 M in properties under its management from over 5,000 users. Hodlnaut has actually raised about $100,000 in financing from one pre-seed financing round with Antler, a Singaporean start-up accelerator and investor company. Hodlnaut's fundraising since July 2021. This is definitely various from platforms like BlockFi, which has actually raised north of $500 M. That being stated, Hodlnaut appears to have actually limited on a comparable company design with dramatically less financing essential. There was no minimum balance to get approved for crypto interest. Hodlnaut deals: 6.2% APY on BTC 6.7% APY on ETH105% APY on stablecoins. Hodlnaut's Token Swap let users exchange tokens straight in the app, e.g, BTC to ETH The Hodlnaut Team Holdnaut Founders Hodlnaut was established by CEO Juntao Zhu and CTO Simon Lee The duo formerly established Cypher Forge, a cryptocurrency trade execution platform. Zhu invested over 3 years as an expert and designer with the Swiss wealth management company Credit Suisse. Lee invested over 3 years in engineering management functions. The 2 creators have 9 years of experience in software application advancement, financing, and engineering. Hodlnaut Review and Interest Rates: How Does Hodlnaut Compare? Hodlnaut supports 6 cryptocurrencies: BTC, ETH, DAI, USDC, USDT, and WBTC, providing in between 6.2% and 10.5% APY. Hodlnaut's Interest rates (Source: Hodlnaut)" We simply included assistance for WBTC just recently, where users can likewise cover and unwrap their Bitcoin utilizing our token swap function," states CEO Juntao Zhu "We've had fun with the concept of including BNB and likewise DOGE too however absolutely nothing is prepared yet as we're concentrating on other function launches such as peer-to-peer fiat on-ramp, and getting our mobile apps out." So, it's a more recent platform, however it provides much better rates than its more recognized rivals-- with a smaller sized group and less financing. How does it pull this off? How Does Hodlnaut Make Money? Hodlnaut declared to utilize deposits as security to provide loans to business financial institutions, making off the distinction in between the interest it pays users and what it credits use loans to its institutional debtors. The platform likewise generates income by making interest from providing its properties to decentralized procedures." We have extremely rigid capital requirements in location of our counterparties," remarks Zhu. "In any case, we're really selective with whom we provide to. We just provide to business entities with great credit history and we will confirm this with them throughout the onboarding procedure, and the Loan-to-Value (LTV) Ratio of our loans is typically 70% or lower.

" Are Your Funds Safe With Hodlnaut? No. On August 8th, 2022, Hodlnaut suspended all withdrawals, token swaps, and deposits-- making it third biggest CeFi "crypto interest account" platform to avoid its users from withdrawing their possessions (behind Celsius and Voyager.) No digital possessions in any cryptocurrency interest account are FDIC guaranteed, so among the primary defenses for U.S. depositors is totally missing from this market at big. Singapore likewise does not use FDIC-equivalent federal security for cryptocurrency accounts. Hodlnaut Review: Security The platform needs that you established 2FA prior to making a withdrawal, which assists keep accounts safe and secure and avoid unapproved withdrawals. Hodlnaut utilizes industry-standard file encryption and other security guidelines to safeguard the possessions and info on its platform. As of this writing, Hodlnaut has actually never ever been hacked. Hodlnaut's main custodian is Fireblocks, a leading digital possession custody service that utilizes numerous approaches to make sure the security of possessions. Fireblocks holds possessions in a mix of offline freezer and guaranteed hot wallets; all user deposits are never ever in the very same location simultaneously. Hodlnaut permits you to buy insurance coverage on your crypto through a collaboration with European business Nexus Mutua l That's huge, particularly in the crypto interest area where released, or lent possessions are frequently uninsured if they're kept in hot wallets. Given that these platforms are continuously providing and getting deposits, the funds remain in movement, that makes them really hard to guarantee. The Hodlnaut insurance coverage with Nexus presently stands at $22 million and is prepared for to grow as both business acquire traction. Hodlnaut describes its treatments when it comes to a debtor default. Hodlnaut is licensed by the Singapore Fintech Association, which is acknowledged by the Monetary Authority of Singapore. At the time of this composing Hodlnaut is going through a license application, and intends to end up being the very first controlled entity in Singapore's crypto loaning and financing area. With over $250 M in AUM, Hodlnaut will undoubtedly require to show specific accreditation in its capability to be accountable with user funds. As the platform continues to grow, it's most likely we will see more advancements in this location. Hodlnaut Review: Ease of Use & & Customer service The platform is presently available just on web and means to launch an IOS application. Reddit evaluations of Hodlnaut tend to alter favorable for client assistance, mentioning the group's punctuality as an unique benefit. Hodlnaut assistance can be reached by means of an assistance ticket or at [e-mail secured] Hodlnaut keeps an FAQ area on its site. Hodlnaut Review Final Thoughts: Is Hodlnaut Legit? On one hand, Hodlnaut is a relatively brand-new business with a single bootstrapped fundraise based in Singapore. This is a significantly various proposal than U.S.-based business like Celsius and BlockFi, which have actually developed themselves as the blue-chip of CeFi. That stated, Hodlnaut's service design didn't appear naturally riskier than any other crypto interest account supplier-- however based upon its desire and need to freeze all consumer withdrawals, Hodlnaut is badly geared up to manage any user funds. Read More

[asklolard]

BOOK RECOMMENDATION:

LIFEONAIRE

As most of you already know, I am an Amazon and Audible affiliate marketer which means that I do make a little bit of money off of every sale. That being said, let's get on with today's topic.

To me, this book is life changing. It gives a look at life and money and time. It puts into perspective certain incongruities in our thinking that cause us to become slaves to our jobs and those that we borrow money from.

There is a overtone in religious or spiritual even metaphysical thought. However I don't think very many people would ever find it offensive. It's given in such a way as to be helpful to people of all types, whether or not they have a spiritual background at all or not.

To be clear, this is not a church book. It is a book written in story form about people helping people see life for what it really is. It looks behind the scene of what goes on in most of our lives and helps us to develop a desire to break free of that nonsense.

One such example is this and then I'll let you decide whether or not to read the book.

If you could begin to see money as human, then imagine it as a business employee for your business. There are good employees and bad employees, good money in bad money. When we go out and get a job, the first thing we want to do is go spend some of our money on something that we have been wanting for a while. Maybe a new car or a new house.

The problem is we can't afford to buy them. Therefore, we find ourselves sitting at a loan company or a bank asking for a loan.

But in effect, what we're doing is using our future money to buy the product. We voluntarily give away, in the case of a house, 30 years of a good portion of our income. In return, as long as we never miss a payment, we'll get to keep the house.

But in a reality, what we've done is become a slave to the lender. We cannot stop working because we have to earn money or they'll take the house. Right?

So the question is proposed then, what is good money and what is bad money in this situation?

The thing each one

The thing each of us has to ask is ... what effect has more money made on our life? Do we now have more life?

Or does living life seem to be put on the back burner while we pay for the loan that got us what we thought would make life better?

Anyway, this book is really good at helping the individual assess where their life is and what they want from life.

There is a right or good way to go about getting the things we want. Equally there is a wrong or bad way to go get what we want in life.

But do we even know the difference?

Years ago, before loans became so easy to come upon, a couple would get married and stay with one of their parents while they saved money to buy a house.

Once they had saved enough money, everyone in the neighborhood would get together and help build the house. The difference between that time-gone-by culture and the modern culture today is that they had their house paid for already.

Today, we are being fooled into being enslaved by the lenders. Money is working against us. We think if we have more money, life will become easier. But it actually doesn't for most of us.

I personally am building a set of businesses in order to make enough regular income to leave my job and move permanently to the Philippines as a self-employed business entrepreneur.

Much like the main mentor (Scott) in the book, I don't think there's anything wrong with having money. In my situation, I've been encouraged by business associates to go out and get loans to push my business faster into the future.

However, I already understand what the guiding principle of a Lifeonaire is. I want a Life more than fast Money.

I have chosen to become, and staunchly fight to stay, financially independent from the lenders. So my business grows a bit slower than many of my peers. The difference is I do not have the stress of all of the debt collectors looking forward to me making money, so they can have their hand out to accept most of what I make.

Sure, I make money slower, but I think I make it the right way. When money comes in, whether a little or a lot, that money is my slave. I can put it to work for me.

When we become to encumbered in debt, oftentimes we become the slave to our money.

Below you will find a link to the audiobook version. In that same link you will find the link to the paperback version....

Lifeonaire

(audiobook on Audible)

Audible is an excellent way to listen to books be read to you on your phone or tablet or whatever device. Here is the link to consider a membership at Audible, and if you're like me you're going to be tempted to replace much of your driving time with listening to audiobooks to add value to your life. So here's that link also...

There is also a inexpensive study guide that goes along with the book. And here is the link to that...

Lifeonaire Companion Study Guide Workbook

And lastly, if you will start to strive to become a Lifeonaire, valuing the quality of life and the freedom to move as you wish through life rather than chasing money, here is a great t-shirt which can share your commitment both to yourself as a reminder and to others, prompting them to ask you what it means.

Lifeonaire (T-shirt)

I BELIEVE THAT IF I HELP OTHER PEOPLE FIND GOOD QUALITY PRODUCTS THAT THEY NEED OR WANT, AND CAN MARKET THEM WITH GOOD CONSCIENCE KNOWING THAT THEY ARE GOOD QUALITY, GOD OR THE UNIVERSE WILL JUST TAKE CARE OF MY NEEDS.

Much like karma, the Bible teaches that what we give out into the world is what we get back from the world. Most religions of the world agree with the concept of karma, although they won't necessarily call it that.

Be sure to like the post and subscribe, share us with others so that we can grow together. You can also find us at the link below on YouTube for other things that we have to offer...

I hope you have a wonderful and blessed day today,

Lolard

[gothprentiss]

i'm not reblogging this because the original post has over 150k notes so it's not like i'm gonna fix someone's bad takes but this is like.... this is what happens when you skim theory looking for something that's relevant to your twitter arguments so you can have a Big Name Cudgel for authority.

for example, here's what Sedgwick says about paranoid reading, in a book chapter [which is freely available in pdf form if you just google "sedgwick paranoid reading," which is how i got it, because while i own a copy of touching feeling it is such a famous and easy to find book that this was genuinely the easier option]:

"Ricoeur introduced the category of the hermeneutics of suspicion to describe the position of Marx, Nietzsche, Freud, and their intellectual offspring in a context that also included such alternative disciplinary hermeneutics as the philological and theological ‘‘hermeneutics of recovery of meaning.’’ In the context of recent U.S. critical theory, ... to apply a hermeneutics of suspicion is, I believe, widely understood as a mandatory injunction rather than a possibility among other possibilities." (Touching Feeling 124-5)

so already we can see that what's being described here is not merely the individualized practices of social justice oriented twitter illiterati, as the screenshot heavily implies, but a particular rarefied practice which is emblematic not of all the people you're beefing with but with a particular philosophical bent common to a particular era of critical theory. It is also, centrally, a matter of a critical method: Sedgwick's question, repeatedly, isn't "why don't people look past flaws in media???? oh why oh why can't twitter see my immense genius??? oh why????" it's "how do we know and evaluate our knowledge?" This will be important later. It is also worth clearly differentiating between critique as the critical practice she's discussing, which has certain practices of gatekeeping (ranging from peer review to proximity to academia to a platform to showing your work) and critique as a wider practice. We all engage in criticism and commentary; we're not all the critics she's discussing.

She goes on: "Not surprisingly, the methodological centrality of suspicion to current critical practice has involved a concomitant privileging of the concept of paranoia" (125), and a discussion of Freud's study of paranoia; "In a world where no one need be delusional to find evidence of systemic oppression, to theorize out of anything but a paranoid critical stance has come to seem naïve, pious, or complaisant" (125). She notes, as well, its pride of place in the queer theory of the late 20th century:

"If paranoia reflects the repression of same sex desire, Hocquenghem reasoned, then paranoia is a uniquely privileged site for illuminating not homosexuality itself, as in the Freudian tradition, but rather precisely the mechanisms of homophobic and heterosexist enforcement against it. What is illuminated by an understanding of paranoia is not how homosexuality works, but how homophobia and heterosexism work—in short, if one understands these oppressions to be systemic, how the world works" (126).

In other words, and obviously, paranoid reading isn't a tool which Sedgwick is castigating as a dumb thing people do when media doesn't live up to their expectations. I have spent enough time in school to find the sort of casual anti-intellectualism that goes into the self-serving individualist reading this screenshot mentions ("this text asked me to think about the world in a different way and my GOD i did not trust myself to do that, i clamped my clam shell so TIGHT around me it cut off my air flow, etc") concerning; the fact that people are still, for example, having surface level arguments about whether or not Nabokov's Lolita excuses, enables, or romanticizes the sexualization of children (it doesn't. everyone has said this. yet it persists....!) is a great example of this, or any list of Problematic Authors will have a couple of misreadings so astounding and beyond interpretive nuance that they make you wonder whether anyone's ever broached the subject of what literature is for-- you get my point, maybe.

What Sedgwick is talking about, and is making literally zero bones about talking about, is a dominant mode in criticism which she has come to recognize as limited in its capacity to study what it seeks to study. Sedgwick is most prominent as a groundbreaking and paradigmatic queer theorist. She is writing about a critical stance, which has become an imperative, in queer theory, and identifying its flaws:

My impression, again, is that we are liable to produce this constative formulation as fiercely as if it had a self-evident imperative force: the notation that even paranoid people have enemies is wielded as if its absolutely necessary corollary were the injunction ‘‘so you can never be paranoid enough.’’ But the truth value of the original axiom, assuming it to be true, doesn’t actually make a paranoid imperative self-evident. Learning that ‘‘just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean you don’t have enemies,’’ somebody might deduce that being paranoid is not an effective way to get rid of enemies. Rather than concluding ‘‘so you can never be paranoid enough,’’ this person might instead be moved to reflect ‘‘but then, just because you have enemies doesn’t mean you have to be paranoid.’’ That is to say, once again: for someone to have an unmystified view of systemic oppressions does not intrinsically or necessarily enjoin that person to any specific train of epistemological or narrative consequences. To be other than paranoid (and of course, we’ll need to define this term much more carefully), to practice other than paranoid forms of knowing does not, in itself, entail a denial of the reality or gravity of enmity or oppression.

So beyond the obvious line that this is not about interpersonal beeves about the sufficiency of media, it's pretty clear that what Sedgwick is writing against a particular critical logic, which she elaborates on as follows:

Paranoia is anticipatory. Paranoia is reflexive and mimetic. Paranoia is a strong theory. Paranoia is a theory of negative affects. Paranoia places its faith in exposure. (130)

As Sedgwick goes on to note, paranoid reading is a method of exposure, one which is constantly on guard against attack: "Paranoia proposes both Anything you can do (to me) I can do worse, and Anything you can do (to me) I can do first—to myself" (131). Because of this, a paranoid reading isn't a way of getting to knowledge, and isn't itself knowledge; it's a position where you're being shaped by the thing you fear or study. Sedgwick notes how this works in criticism. In terms of individualized reading practices, you might say a paranoid reading is one where you assume, off the bat, that there will be nothing in the text which is not shaped by prejudice, and that it is the work of your reading (which, I cannot stress enough, is an analytical practice) to expose how this works. To insist that paranoid reading is this babybrained Why Are We Not About ME??? practice of reading is to discount the value of paranoid readings, on one hand, and to just be childishly wrong on the other. The paranoid isn't about a single and individualized form of reading: it seeks, rather, to subsume all individual practices of reading and knowing into the same communal gesture. Another way of conceptualizing this, I think, is that Sedgwick isn't being like "Marxist reading [among other critical disciplines] is bad" but rather "Marxist reading is a tool which produces certain ways of knowing and certain kinds of knowledge, and critics have stopped recognizing its specificity.

Reparative reading, on the other hand, isn't simply about what's nourishing or healing. One point Sedgwick makes is that reparative reading often looks insufficient to the harms which paranoid reading identifies:

Reparative motives, once they become explicit, are inadmissible in paranoid theory both because they are about pleasure (‘‘merely aesthetic’’) and because they are frankly ameliorative (‘‘merely reformist’’). What makes pleasure and amelioration so ‘‘mere’’? Only the exclusiveness of paranoia’s faith in demystifying exposure: only its cruel and contemptuous assumption that the one thing lacking for global revolution, explosion of gender roles, or whatever, is people’s (that is, other people’s) having the painful effects of their oppression, poverty, or deludedness sufficiently exacerbated to make the pain conscious (as if otherwise it wouldn’t have been) and intolerable (as if intolerable situations were famous for generating excellent solutions).

The reparative is often imaginative, potential, and small-scale. We are not necessarily healed or nurtured by it, though through it, we seek the space to be. You might say the most basic distinction is that paranoid practices grant narrowness (Sedgwick's example: camp being perceived as deconstructing the dominant culture, always in a tone of irony), whereas reparative practices grant plenitude (Sedgwick's example: camp as a lived practice of passion, expression, and relation). From this, we can see another problem for critics, which I don't think Sedgwick names but is pretty easy to extrapolate: paranoid practices are always bounded to the negative space of the objects they fear and react to. For example, the paranoid understanding of camp gives us an object which is most commonly and meaningfully studied in relation to its dominant culture. The reparative understanding of camp allows it to be meaningful in its own right.

You might have problems with this-- for example, as fairly complacently liberal, assuming that exposure and eradication of the enemy is not an ethical imperative, etc. I'm not over here holding Sedgwick up as having cracked it. But at the same time, it's worth noting that at no point does she claim to have cracked it all: while there are obvious political and social ramifications to her analysis, what she's talking about, at the end of the day, isn't a clearly articulated action agenda for queer liberation, it's an argument that a dogmatically adopted critical stance is holding us back from a fuller understanding of the histories we study, and forcing us to retrace and reentrench histories of oppression.

Anyway. The larger article this screenshot comes from is, like, interesting, and significantly more nuanced in its discussion of interpersonal and intra-community ethics than it is here. If the length of the explanation (STILL insufficient to Sedgwick's point) preceding this is of any illustrative purpose beyond its content, it's that this is a highly complex topic which arises from and speaks to a particular moment and a particular group, and which should command equal care and explanation in its application to a discursive setting which Eve Sedgwick (d.2009) never set eyes on. If anyone's still reading this and has any intention of listening to me: read the stuff you're going to cite. Read it carefully, and without a plundering eye for evidence for your argument. This is, for example, why no one on the internet seems to have even a rudimentary understanding of Barthes' "Death of the Author"-- if you don't read it and attempt to articulate your own position relative to that of the explicitly identified object of the critique, and audience for the text's argument, you're not going to get something that's meaningful for your own life and practice. Yes it takes time. It matters that you're approaching something in better faith than the desire to win arguments online.

me rattling the bars of my cage: please GOD read the things you’re TALKING ABOUT

[lostsouls-house]

I posted 1,181 times in 2021

134 posts created (11%)

1047 posts reblogged (89%)

For every post I created, I reblogged 7.8 posts.

I added 420 tags in 2021

#system things - 116 posts

#avery things - 66 posts

#answered - 60 posts

#osdd - 37 posts

#syscourse - 28 posts

#lost queue - 27 posts

#osdd 1b - 24 posts

#reece things - 23 posts

#did - 20 posts

#osdd community - 19 posts

Longest Tag: 113 characters

#if you don't have a pinned post or carrd or something and it's not obvious where you stand we don't even risk it.

My Top Posts in 2021

#5

Syscourse Related Question (if you’re willing to answer it):

Many systems on Tumblr seem very focused on fighting about who’s real, who’s not, and what’s valid to say. Do you believe new systems in the community are harmed by this? How can we, as systems in this community, do better to create a welcoming space, regardless of if we believe in certain types of systems or not?

Feel free to delete this question if you would prefer not to answer or be involved with syscourse mentions.

We're still fairly new to the community so I can't say we're exactly the best people to answer this question, but we'll do our best.

Firstly, before I answer anything regarding the harm it might do to new systems let me just say- 'The Community' could only refer to the ACTUAL DIDOSDD Community, meaning those formed with trauma (since that is the only way to have a system). As such, The Community as a whole is already doing all that it can. We are trying to make safe spaces for ourselves, we create separate tags and we actively share peer reviewed scientific findings supporting the understanding of how systems are formed. Endos/non-trauma Systems invade those spaces, berate us for our lack of inclusion, then twist single quotes from thirty year old studies to suit their 'proof'. They spread harmful misinformation that has long term ramifications they do not see. Because of the nature of the disorders, attention seekers hide freely among the uninformed and further the confusion, but we'll get to that in my next section. Traumagenic Systems have learned to be cautions and sometimes outright angry with people who identify as endo/ non-trauma because they often invalidate our horrific experiences and daily struggles by downplaying the severity of the mental scaring it takes to fracture a mind. No matter what anyone says, this IS a harmful thing to do.

The environment new systems stumble into, especially online is extremely harmful. In every community there are attention seekers and while in many they are easy to spot, this is not the case when it comes to DIDOSDD. It is a covert disorder, meaning for many the trauma that caused their system to form is buried under layers and hidden by trauma holders. Often people who identify as endogenic are people who simply cannot remember their trauma, but that raises a few issues. Because of the culture created online and people pushing the concept of 'endogenic systems', people with real trauma may take years longer to talk about it. They may begin to downplay it mentally since "If anyone can form a system, it must not have been that bad." By telling people that they do not need trauma to form a system to are reinforcing gaslighting and false memories. It also creates an unwelcoming and uninviting air when we constantly have to fight to validate our existence and this may make new systems reluctant to further their research through the noise. This can lead to a bumpier road to system communication and can hinder recovery considerably.

People who use these disorders for attention also use them to get away with abusive behaviour. They will blame their abuse on an Alter or tell people harmful things claiming it was said by 'someone in their head'. These things reflect on the DIDOSDD Community in a way that makes singets and professionals BOTH Weary of working with us and thus limits our access to care. Endogenic/ non-trauma systems open the door for people like this. They create a space that makes it okay to pretend to have a disability and they defend people who do so in the name of overinclusion. They rally behind anyone who calls themselves a system and had them legitimacy which leads to abusers shouting back at anyone who calls them out with a sense of validity. This is harmful for even more reasons I won't bother to list.

Basically, endos are ableist and they make everything uncomfortable for everyone. They should go.

- Dr. Ian Bennett {LostSouls}

41 notes • Posted 2021-10-16 06:19:58 GMT

#4

FICTIVES ARE NOT THEIR SOURCE.

Super unsure of why it needs to be said or explained but here it goes;

Source Fictives are not their source. Some follow their source closely and that is obviously valid, but a lot of introjects start as one thing and gradually change into something else. The idea that they should know or feel comfortable around others from their source RIGHT AWAY is ludicrous. It isn't like they just stepped out of their life for a detour. They are fragmented parts of someone else's mind. Someone else that you don't know. They are unlikely to be comfortable with a stranger straight away. Honestly, it would be really strange if they were.

Not every fictive follows the same story either. Some may have arrived at a canonical point before certain events or introductions. Those Fictives are exactly as valid and shouldn't be pressured into interacting with ease around someone they and their system don't know. Being excited to see someone from the same source is fine, but always be respectful. You don't know where that Fictive is at.

If you want a relationship with a sourcemate from another System, build one. Slowly and with care, like most relationships should go. Respect is key.

-Reece {LostSouls}

68 notes • Posted 2021-10-02 05:10:35 GMT

#3

In the new year we might make an DIDOSDD Minecraft Server.

We have talked to a few Systems and plan to set it out so every system has a space so whatever Alters want to can build in those spaces and collaborate with who they want. It would be open to content creation and would be attached to a Discord server. It would be 18+ for a number of reasons and it would be hosted at our expense so it would obviously be free to join.

I'm putting this out here to guage interest. Would people want to join this of we did it?

-Avery {LostSouls}

73 notes • Posted 2021-11-27 21:52:38 GMT

#2

Okay so, I didn't know there were so many things we were going to need to call bullshit on, but here we are! I just saw this shit:

"If you have singlet friends that don't know, you're faking."

ABSOLUTELY FUCKING NOT.

Just because your system works well together and manages to 'act' well enough to keep you from getting called out? That's valid and NORMAL. We were too scared to tell people before we were an adult and now at 30, we have learned how to function as a unit. Lots of people front, but those that can't act like the body usually does, they stay quiet. It is bot hard and it DOES NOT MAKE YOU FAKE. People that need to call people out for coping are far more likely to be faking.

I honestly can't believe it needs to be said in the first place. Hiding well is not faking. It's self-preservation. -Avery {LostSouls}

126 notes • Posted 2021-09-10 20:57:09 GMT

#1

I think there is some clarification needed to Endos concerning 'Sysmeds'.

No one is asking you to face your trauma. Let me repeat:

NO ONE IS ASKING YOU TO FACE YOUR TRAUMA.

All that we are asking is that if you are a legitimate System, you underatand that somewhere in your history there is prolonged and sustained trauma. We are not asking you to go looking mentally for that trauma. We're not asking you to dwell on it or even asking you to start asking questions about it. Asking someone to face their trauma is WRONG.

We are simply asking that you recognize the science of where this disorder HAS to come from. We are only asking your to acknowledge the reality that something bad happened somewhere. Which is a reality everyone faces daily.

Basically, we're asking you to grow the hell up.

-LostSouls

147 notes • Posted 2021-09-27 21:35:46 GMT

Get your Tumblr 2021 Year in Review →