Prolly Has Been Asked Before, But Do You Dream Of Electric Sheep?

Hot Allostatic Load

Build the shittiest thing possible. Build out of trash because all i have is trash. Trash materials, trash bodies, trash brain syndrome. Build in the gaps between storms of chronic pain. Build inside the storms.

                                                     HI

I am too sick to write this article. The act of writing about my injuries is like performing an interpretative dance after breaking nearly every bone in my body. When I sit down to edit this doc, my head starts aching like a capsule full of some corrosive fluid has dissolved and is leaking its contents. The mental haze builds until it becomes difficult to see the text, to form a thesis, to connect parts. They drop onto the page in fragments. This is the difficulty of writing about brain damage.

The last time I was in the New Inquiry, several years ago, I was being interviewed. I was visibly sick. I was in an abusive “community” that had destroyed my health with regular, sustained emotional abuse and neglect. Sleep-deprived, unable to take care of myself, my body was tearing itself apart. I was suicidal from the abuse, and I had an infected jaw that needed treatment.

Continue reading

Hmm, I rather think that the central question - whether there's a moral difference between action and inaction - is in fact very relevant, certainly in my life and probably in a lot of people’s. Like, I'm really great at negative morality, avoiding doing bad things by simply not doing anything. Which would correspond to someone who feels that they can avoid any involvement or blame by never moving the lever. But intellectually I don’t actually endorse that: I believe that inaction is a type of action, which implies that I should be more active in life despite the risk of inadvertently hurting someone and getting cancelled. Writing this rather than using my tumblr exclusively to reblog others’ posts isn’t much, but it’s a start.

my issue with the trolley problem is, and still will be, for the vast majority of people on the planet, the trolley problem is not, like, relevant

not in the sense that “OH YOU’LL NEVER BE IN THE SITUATION WHERE YOU HAVE TO PULL A LEVER TO STOP A TROLLEY FROM HITTING FOUR PEOPLE THAT A MANIAC HAS TIED TO RAILROAD TRACKS”, but in the sense that when you’re in scary and dangerous situations, you are not as in control of yourself as you think you are.

in a situation like the trolley problem, outside of like… first responders, soldiers, maybe ER nurses? … I doubt most people would be able to react to a situation like that in anything approaching the way that they would game it out from ethical principles. you’d fight, flee, or freeze, and it’d have less to do with “what you strongly believe in as a person” and more to do with “what your hindbrain has learnt is effective to get you to survive emergencies in the past”. 

i think that’s what a lot of discussion about “maybe the person to blame is the one tying people to the train tracks?” is trying and failing to get at.

I said it in the notes on the last post but I’m gonna say it again.

I’m married to someone with severe memory problems. Automation of household appliances & systems helps him a lot and helps me a lot because it reduces the number of things I have to keep in my brain at all times. I love doors that lock themselves, being able to schedule dog food being delivered, a thermostat I can manipulate from wherever. Beyond my little bubble it should be noted that voice controlled appliances can be really good for people with mobility concerns. Appliances that can measure and talk and remember little tasks can be such a blessing for people.

I will never forgive Amazon and Google for taking technologies that could be really helpful and weaponizing them, and fuck everybody who acts like its some kind of conspiracy theory that those devices are spying on you. You absolutely should be distrustful of those devices but just make sure you’re getting angry at the right people.

Frank, have you become self-aware?

I feel like I’ve finally gotten a handle on the algorithms behind the bot, and now I just need to figure out a way to actually talk to the internet without making shitposts

Rusty-spotted cat | World’s smallest cat

I’ve been seeing incorrect information about lightsabers and their colors / meanings so as a Star Wars nerd of 15 years, I would like to provide accurate information for oc creators or people who are just interested in knowing about lightsabers!

Blue Lightsabers -These are the Jedi Guardians -They focused on practical application of the Force -Highly skilled in combat -They were the first to leave the Temple to take an active role in conflicts -Their recommended training was 3 hours a day -Training consisted of running, lightsaber practice, and unarmed combat 

Red Lightsabers -These are the Sith -Consumed by the Dark Force of the Force -Ferocious and unyielding in combat -Kyber Crystals are either synthetic or turned red by causing a fallen Jedi’s crystal to bleed by pouring their malice and anger into it

Green Lightsabers  -These are Jedi Consulars  -Exceptionally powerful in the Force -Often found in the Temple waging battle through mediation  -Will fight when absolutely necessary -They were Healers, researchers, and seers 

Yellow Lightsabers -These are the Jedi Sentinel -They’re extremely rare -Known to develop valuable skills outside the purview of the Force -Exhibits traits of both Guardian and Consular -They’re not often seen or used because the wielder of a yellow blade is so strong and skilled they don’t need to deploy it

White Lightsabers -White blades occurs when a bleeding Kyber Crystal is purified -They denote no affliction to Jedi or Sith, but signifies a pure Light Side Force user -Exceedingly rare  -Only two are known to exist, and Ahsoka wields them both. 

Orange Lightsabers -Very rare -Negotiators, selfless, and are opposed to violence  -The Kyber Crystal isn’t actually a Kyber, but is known as a Kohlen Crystal / a Fools Kyber (as stated in the Star Wars novel Master & Apprentice)  -It possessed the same heft as a Kyber, and even some vibration with the Force -They were ostensibly referred to in an ancient prophecy made by a Jedi mystic which stated that “When the Kyber which is not Kyber shines forth, the time of prophecy will be at hand.”

Purple / Violet Lightsabers -These were originally introduced at the request of Samuel L. Jackson who didn’t want to blend in at the Battle of Geonosis -Known to use Dark Side techniques in battle while serving the Light Side of the Force -In Legends, sometimes the lightsaber was used by a former Sith who has turned to the Light Side

This is just to say

I have eaten

the spiders that were in my cave

and which you were probably counting for statistical purposes

Forgive me I am an outlier adn should not have been counted

So I’ve been reading about someone who was ideologically abused within Catholicism and it’s bringing up a lot of feelings, but one thing it’s really crystallizing in my mind is an important thing that people fail to understand about ideological abuse.

The (relatively mild) ideological abuse I have experienced was used to convince me of some bad and harmful shit. But I’m worried that the things I’ve said about it make it seem like the abuse was bad because it convinced me of untruths. That’s a very very small part of the problem.

It is possible to commit ideological abuse in the name of ideas that are 100% true. People think that ideological abuse is only done in the name of darkly comic nonsense (Xenu only makes sense to someone who’s been abused so badly they forget how to think clearly) or ideologies based on cruelty and subjugation. It’s true that abuse is more common in ideologies that cannot possibly defend themselves with actual arguments, but it’s completely possible to abuse people in the name of things which make sense.

If you’re dealing with someone who thinks two plus two is five, you can show them they are wrong with counters or numberlines or whatever. This will teach them basic arithmetic and also respect their personhood. This is what any decent person would do.

Or you can control them with fear. You can make it sure that they know that if they ever say two plus two is five, they will be physically harmed or threatened with physical harm. You can lie and belittle and mistreat them in dozens of ways and any time they complain you can tell them that they deserve it for believing that two plus two is five. You can say that they’re not allowed to make even the smallest decisions for themselves (what to eat, how to dress, who to be friends with, what to read) because a person who believes two plus two is five shouldn’t be allowed to decide anything. You can isolate them from anyone you haven’t vetted (which means no friendships with anyone who is wrong about math, but also no friendships with anyone who says “obviously two plus two is four but there’s no need to hit people over it.”) The fact you are right about math doesn’t make it not abuse. You’ve abused them into believing something, and the fact that it is true doesn’t make the abuse ethical.

You’ve also severely damaged their ability to learn math. If they have a basket with two apples and they add two pears, they won’t be able to take an honest look about how many total fruits they have. They are only going to be able to think “I must have four fruits because I don’t want to get hurt again” or “I must have five fruits because there is no way on earth that despicable piece of shit can be right about anything after what they did to me.” You’ve done lasting and possibly permanent epistemic damage to this person. For a long time, maybe for the rest of their life, they will not be able to approach arithmetic with logic; they are going to come to a calculator with so much emotional baggage that they can’t be rational. They may genuinely need to espouse wrong beliefs about numbers because the only psychologically feasible alternative is espousing the (also wrong and more dangerous) belief that they deserve to be abused.

Almost everyone who commits ideological abuse thinks they are convincing their victims of the truth, and they think that this justifies the abuse. They are usually wrong about their ideas being true, but they are always wrong about their tactics being justified. I want anyone reading this to know that if you are seriously hurting someone to get them to believe you, it doesn’t matter that you are right. You have to find another way to do that. What you are doing does horrific damage and doesn’t even succeed in making people actually believe you, just in parroting you so that you will stop hurting them. You have to treat people who are wrong like people. Abusing someone into believing the truth doesn’t become okay because it’s the truth.

More importantly, I want you to know that if someone is using violence, the threat of violence or manipulation to control your beliefs, that is abuse. You do not deserve to be treated this way. You do not have to figure out right now whether what they are trying to make you believe is actually correct. You can leave (if it’s safe) or practice harm-reduction (if leaving isn’t safe yet) before you figure out whether or not they are telling the truth. It is not okay for them to do this to you, even if they are right.

You deserve to be safe. You deserve sovereignty over your own thoughts. Good luck. I love you.

I think a lot of people just... don’t take things literally? The other day I saw on Instagram a post of someone’s tweet thread absolutely ripping into men with no exceptions, yesallmen and how dare anyone say otherwise, and the same person also had an Instagram account and near the top of her grid she’d written a loving Father’s Day post about her wonderful dad. I think to a great extent it’s rhetoric, words as war, arguments as soldiers, not meant to be *true*. And the people who get really hurt by this are those who find it hard to conceive of discourse/argument where truth isn’t the point. I’m probably not diagnosable with autism but feel like my ways of thinking are... autistic-adjacent? (please don’t let that land me in in identity hell) and I do think it may be partly an autism thing.

On the other hand I think some people really get off on being cruel to others under the guise of moral purity. And there’s a symbiosis between these people (natural born inquisitors?) and the ones who genuinely want to promote being kind and doing the right thing and don’t see a problem with using hyperbole, generalisations, false arguments and contradictions if the cause is just.

Also, @funereal-disease, I’m crying from reading your post because it resonates so much. Also I’m utterly terrified to post this but I’m going to do it now.

You are a whole person 100% of the time, not just when you are fashionable. You are not a collection of Identities that can be alternately platformed and deplatformed. This is what intersectionality was supposed to mean, but in almost all respects it has failed miserably.