#if you want people to agree with you

[ailelie]

Potential argument to develop more later:

So. I work in education. One thing I've learned from talking with teachers and kids is that kids will meet your expectations. I mean that in a negative way. If you decide early on that a kid is a troublemaker, that kid will become a troublemaker. Kids figure that if that's what you expect, they have no reason to do or be different. They get frustrated because their actions are always viewed with suspicion.

And, like, I get that, though from the other side. I was a "good kid." I was able to get away with so much shit just because the adults in my school assumed I had a good reason for, say, skipping class or getting sodas from the teachers' lounge, etc.

When kids get treated like problem children over and over again, have their behavior questioned over and over, and even have their good actions seen as a distraction or mask for some bad action over and over, they just give up. They become what teachers expect.

So, I know that how we view and treat people affects how they act and who they become. Surely you've noticed the same?

[Get them to give an example or two from their personal life.]

Right. And so that got me wondering--where else is this happening, you know? I saw this documentary that showed prison conditions* and they were horrible. People were basically treated like animals, you know? Worse than even.

And I just had to wonder...if kids who are treated like troublemakers become troublemakers, what happens when you treat people like animals? What do they become?

*Note: This is a lie, but I have read about prison conditions from various sources. Saying "a documentary" and then conveniently forgetting the name keeps the focus on the argument and off my sources.

The goal of this argument is to get my listener thinking about and questioning prisons and prison conditions.

It needs some finessing, still, but I think the bones are decent. You'll notice I start by sharing my personal experiences and I work toward finding some common ground in a way that gets them to accept my premise. Then I give that same premise a new context with my prisons question. I don't give a conclusion, but lead them to it.

After this, they'll likely have some response. The most likely response will be that people in prison are different. At which point, my question will be "how?" Or to ask something like, "But, do you think putting these people in prison, however much they deserve it, is making anything better?"

The one downside is that this can easily lead to the assumption that people freed from incarceration are inherently dangerous, which is not true and not where I want to go. I think the counter there would be something like "So we just give up? Or do we have to pay even more in taxes to keep people locked up forever? That doesn't seem very practical." The idea would be route them back to the idea that prisons are the problem, not people.

Obviously, this argument does not immediately argue for abolition or even mention it. You cannot start there...unless of course you have no hope of convincing the other person and the argument is a performance for third parties.

[ot3]

i gotta admit this is a new take on vote blue no matter who than i've seen recently

[inkskinned]

the thing is there's like, a point of oversaturation for everything, and it's why so many things get dropped after a few minutes. and we act like millennials or gen z kids "have short attention spans" but... that's not quite it. it's more like - we did like it. you just ruined it.

capitalism sees product A having moderate success, and then everything has to come out with their "own version" of product A (which is often exactly the same). and they dump extreme amounts of money and environmental waste into each horrible simulacrum they trot out each season.

now it's not just tiktokkers making videos; it's that instagram and even fucking tumblr both think you want live feeds and video-first programming. and it helps them, because videos are easier to sneak native ads into. the books coming out all have to have 78 buzzwords in them for SEO, or otherwise they don't get published. they are making a live-action remake of moana. i haven't googled it, but there's probably another marvel or starwars something coming out, no matter when you're reading this post.

and we are like "hi, this clone of project A completely misses the point of the original. it is soulless and colorless and miserable." and the company nods and says "yes totally. here is a different clone, but special." and we look at clone 2 and we say "nope, this one is still flat and bad, y'all" and they're like "no, totally, we hear you," and then they make another clone but this time it's, like, a joyless prequel. and by the time they've successfully rolled out "clone 89", the market is incredibly oversaturated, and the consumer is blamed because the company isn't turning a profit.

and like - take even something digital like the tumblr "live streaming" function i just mentioned. that has to take up server space and some amount of carbon footprint; just so this brokenass blue hellsite can roll out a feature that literally none of its userbase actually wants. the thing that's the kicker here: even something that doesn't have a physical production plant still impacts the environment.

and it all just feels like it's rolling out of control because like, you watch companies pour hundreds of thousands of dollars into a remake of a remake of something nobody wants anymore and you're like, not able to afford eggs anymore. and you tell the company that really what you want is a good story about survival and they say "okay so you mean a YA white protagonist has some kind of 'spicy' love triangle" and you're like - hey man i think you're misunderstanding the point of storytelling but they've already printed 76 versions of "city of blood and magic" and "queen of diamond rule" and spent literally millions of dollars on the movie "Candy Crush Killer: Coming to Eat You".

it's like being stuck in a room with a clown that keeps telling the same joke over and over but it's worse every time. and that would be fine but he keeps fucking charging you 6.99. and you keep being like "no, i know it made me laugh the first time, but that's because it was different and new" and the clown is just aggressively sitting there saying "well! plenty of people like my jokes! the reason you're bored of this is because maybe there's something wrong with you!"

[poorly-drawn-mdzs]

Council of lovefools.

[First] Prev <–-> Next

[technically-human]

Ooh, now that we’ve seen N!Edwin and DP!Edwin talk about Feelings could we see the same with N!Charles and DP!Charles?

As simple as that.

Edwins version

ko-fi

[yuwuta]

you ask yuuta if he wants a bite of your food and when he says yes you offer your plate to him, but he’s just sat there looking at you with his dumb big bambi boy eyes and his mouth slightly open and he will not look away or blink or close his mouth until you lift your fork to his lips to feed him and then he grins like shit’s sweet and hums about how good the food is like nothing happened like he’s not ridiculously attractive. gonna chew on steel

[grotesque-butler]

for anyone who stumbles across my blog because i interacted with you, i need you to understand that i like whatever posts i like. i don't have time to click on every single profile to see if i'm "allowed" to interact or not. and expecting that of me, or anyone else, is frankly ridiculous.

if you don't want certain people interacting with your posts (and let's be real, liking a post is barely an interaction to begin with), then the internet is not for you. people are going to engage with the content they want to engage with. you cannot control who sees your posts, unless it's a private account that you only let certain people see.

[redysetdare]

Oh no, you found a post where someone is saying they think sex/romance is gross! Whatever shall you do?

ignore it. literally ignore it. I'm 100% serious just fucking ignore it. it literally is not a personal attack on you. do not take it as a personal attack. scroll past it, hell block if you really need to, but you do not need to respond. it is not about you buddy - not everything is about you. close your eyes and move on buddy it's that easy. literally it is not systematically oppressing you for someone to say "Ew sex" or "Ew romance". just walk away pal.

[travelbasscase]

I hate it when there's someone in your orbit that you want to be friends with, but can't. They're moots with your moots. Their interests align with yours. You're pretty sure you'd get along great.

Except for their "Zionists DNI". Except for where they deny your people the right to exist, to defend ourselves when attacked, to live and thrive and continue our 4000 year old traditions. They're not Palestinian. They're not connected in any way to the Land of Israel. But it's become a fandom now, and everyone's taking sides. They don't even know you, but they don't want to talk to someone like you about unrelated topics, because you're one of (((them))).

[bread-wizards]

I actually think Dorian and Orym should fight more.

Remember when their slowly building tension over and entire episode (full of passive aggressive remarks and blame throwing) led to threats? And how after, Orym thanked Dorian for handing over the crown sadly because he knew Dorian would be mad at him? And Dorian couldn't even look at him because he was legitimately hurt, thinking Orym was disappointed in him for doing what he thought was right? That was peak.

The fact they went from that to their current closeness and trust is the best part of their entire dynamic. Their relationship was hard fought and still will be. They will fight for it because they respect and care for one another deeply, and their disagreements don't change that, only improve it.

[mixmangosmangoverse]

The discussion around the fandomization of the I/P conflict is so fucking relevant because why did I just see someone in a discord for a reaction channel that reacts to musicals and cartoons suggest them to react to the Columbia ""protests"" with a heart emoji as if it's another episode of their favorite show and SIX other people agreed with that

[uncanny-tranny]

It is my sincerest and unironic belief that we must invest in preserving "old technology." The more we move to a hegemonic, easily-surveilled way of living, the worse we will find this world to be.

Letters, public phones and transport, cash, and so much more are key to ensuring both freedom of movement and information, but also to combat the surveillance state. We need to preserve the ability to both access the world but also to be untraceable. I truly hope more people start to recognize this. It isn't about nostalgia for the past. It is about ensuring that we are actually afforded freedom, from the richest person to the person who lives on the sidewalk.

[dailymanners]

Being civil =/= being two faced. If you have to regularly see and deal with someone, such as a roommate, co-worker or other type of work associate such as a supplier, classmate, etc. If you don't like them or have personal qualms with them, for the sake of everyone around you be civil with them.

Of course this isn't about abusers or people who make you feel unsafe. This is about people who you just don't get along with or you just find to be annoying.

If you're uncivil with someone you regularly need to be around, you are making the environment worse for everyone around you including the co-workers and classmates you might actually like and get along with. Few people find it comfortable to even have to be in the vicinity of people being uncivil with each other.

Why make the whole atmosphere of your home, workplace, classroom, etc. uncomfortable for everyone there just because you don't like someone or have personal qualms with them? Don't drag others into your personal mess with your co-worker or roommate etc.

Of course you can still assert boundaries while being civil with someone. In fact you should, in a civil manner, keep your boundaries up. That's the difference between "Sorry Guðmundur, I appreciate your offer for me to join you for lunch but I'll have to pass" vs "Oh like hell am I going to join you for lunch after what you said about me at the staff party Guðmundur!" the former is just being a civil adult, while the latter is making an uncivil environment that is likely going to make your other co-workers uncomfortable.

[inkskinned]

it mattered because when my brother asked me what if this is the happiest you'll ever be? the best you'll ever get? the thing i felt was fear, not peace. everybody thought you were so perfect for me. even i thought you were "helping me grow". i had to challenge every internal clock. make myself more thoughtful, more kind, more beautiful.

i told my therapist it was good because i like the changes i made and there's something so strong about saying i did that. the problem is that i can like the difference all i want, but i changed for you. something akin to getting your name tattooed, all my progress is stamped with fuck you.

it was the happiest i'd ever been and also the best i'd ever gotten. i would still get in the car and think what the fuck just happened.

[crescentfool]

orpheus and thanatos 💚

[chaiaurchaandni]

also remember that no form of resistance is ever acceptable to the colonizer. and that includes non-violent resistance (the great march of return) + non-violence is only successful against a force that has a conscience. but if your opponent had a conscience, he would not be oppressing you in the first place.