Also People Forget To Warn, The Software Itself Should Scan Moving Images For Rapid Changes Of Brightness

I would add that it’s disappointing more grown women haven’t stopped having babies. No one asks to be born, even if circumstances are perfect your kid could wish they never lived. We have 8 (!) billion people in the world and counting, we need fewer people not more.

Women are pressured socially to have children. I want to tell any woman that you do not have to have kids, your career comes first. We need male birth control, I want to tell any cisgender man to be kind to women by not siring any kids on them. And maybe we should stop being queer-phobic and let people boink others of their own sex (regardless of gender identity).

Hey tumblr.

I want to share a post from The Guardian that was published today.

“Inside the building, staffers said that Doge cultivated a culture of fear.

“It’s an extreme version of ‘who do you trust, when and how?’” said Kristina Drye, a speechwriter at the agency, who watched dozens of senior colleagues escorted out of the building by security. “It felt like the Soviet stories that one day someone is beside you and the next day they’re not.”

People started meeting for coffee blocks away because “they didn’t feel safe in the coffee shops here to even talk about what’s going on”, she added.

“I was in the elevator one morning and there was an older lady standing beside me and she had glasses on and I could see tears coming down under her glasses and before she got off her elevator she took her glasses off, wiped her eyes, and walked out,” she said. “Because if they see you crying, they know where you stand.””

Everyone should read this article about “DOGE” tearing apart USAID (and then read more reporting about how they are being allowed to do the same to other US federal entities). Elon Musk and his minions are violating our highest laws and destroying lives and livelihoods in the US and abroad. USAID is less than 1% of the federal budget— this isn’t about cost-cutting or “investigating fraud”. It’s about cruelty and seeing how much unlawful devastation and psychological warfare they can get away with, with the intention to repeat this process at one federal agency after another. They already have access to IT systems at the Treasury, NOAA, and other agencies, and have taken over OPM (essentially HR for the federal government), using the latter to send demeaning and threatening e-mail blasts to civil servants.

I’m urging everyone who reads this to recognize what’s happening here and how abhorrent and frightening it is. I wager that even most people who wanted Trump back didn’t want a centibillionaire technocrat making unilateral decisions on which parts of the federal government to “feed into the wood chipper” (as he has described his team’s actions at USAID in a recent post on X, The Everything App).

Please call your elected representatives and urge them to act against Musk now— before his actions make our legislative branch totally irrelevant.

I’ve been seeing posts about Musk’s coup-in-progress going around on here, but I feel like a lot of people still aren’t aware of the extent of it, and I really want to help get the word out. I’m heartsick for all the civil servants at USAID and beyond. Some of them, their unions, and some Democratic congresspeople and others are speaking out, but these workers need us everyday Americans to speak out for them, too.

Thank you for reading. And anyone who isn’t American, please keep us in your thoughts.

I don’t really have a choice since I can’t drive or afford a car. It’s bike or bus for me, ride shares are too expensive. But honestly I like bike riding anyway.

Bike propaganda by me

Between the (so called left-wing) people who hate technology and right wingers hating science and social progress, we might go back to the dark ages while calling it good. 🤦

Meanwhile I grew up on Star Trek and I desperately want a future like that. I believe in social and technological progress together. Technology can improve society if we use it that way, such as home labor saving devices helping women’s liberation. It is not however sufficient, we need the political will to make a more fair and equal world.

The recent surge of reactionary sentiment makes me wonder if there really is hope. But maybe this is just the “gets worse before it gets better” stage. I can hope.

In one of my posts the other day about how expensive smartphones are there were people saying that "the luddites had great ideas" like they were proto-socialists and all. And well. That isn't really the case, as some others explained their reaction to industrialization did not have any lasting change as a goal. I'm not really introduced to the historical specifics.

But anyways, what the luddites were like in 1800s England doesn't really matter as what identifying yourself as a luddite means in modern times: being anti-technology. And no, not skeptical of technology, not being in favor of a better use of technology, not hating on AI while liking other stuff. It's being anti-technology. Luddite is a word used for exaggerated positions like breaking machines. It's not a nuanced ideology or a thing you would like to be called.

And being anti-technology not only is as nonsensical as being anti-art or anti-philosophy, technology is one of the things that define humans since the Oldowan rock tools. But it also means being against progress. It is technology that has enabled social progress. It is technology that allow us to understand the world and also to build a fairer society. Material conditions and all that.

I will try to say this without getting into much theory or philosophy of science, but your focus should not be on calling certain technologies "good" or "bad" by nature, much less rejecting the advance of technology, as if that is possible or desirable at all. You should instead see how society uses technology and how the structures of society use it. And how to change society so that technology serves to the benefit of people instead of capital.

Anyways. Don't be a luddite.

Buses are a public health nightmare. Poor ventilation, people coughing, people vaping, one time I caught some jerk huffing inhalants. It’s like they’re trying to get you sick.

I know I sound like your mom but you kids need to stop fucking vaping

Does anyone want to start a school based on a minority faith? Which would expose their Christian-normative hypocrisy. Watch them get up in arms about anything Muslim (even though that’s Abrahamic and conservative), Neopagan, or other ones. How would they feel about a Buddhist school made by Asian-Americans?

Mother Jones

The Supreme Court is about to let religion ruin public education

Two recent cases suggest that the era of secular schools is coming to an end.

In modern America, religious education is offered in private schools or in a homeschooling setting. Public education, by contrast, is secular, because the government is not in the business of sponsoring religious indoctrination. But in two cases the Supreme Court heard over roughly the last week, the justices appear ready to throw out public education as we know it and usher in a new era where tax dollars flow to religious schools and religion can dictate what is taught in public classrooms. When the decisions come down, public education may change forever. On Tuesday, the justices heard arguments in Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond, a case over whether Oklahoma must fund a religious charter school that carries out religious instruction and hosts religious activities, including mass. Rather than consider this an affront to the separation of church and state, four Republican-appointed justices appeared outraged at the idea that a state would fund a charter school focused on language immersion or the arts but not one focused on religious instruction. Without ever acknowledging that the the First Amendment’s establishment clause (“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”) prohibits government-sponsored religion, several expressed palpable anger that allowing only secular charter schools was a form of anti-religious discrimination. “All the religious school is saying is ‘Don’t exclude us on account of our religion,’” Justice Brett Kavanaugh said. “If you go and apply to be a charter school and you’re an environmental studies school, or you’re a science-based school, or you’re a Chinese immersion school, or you’re a English grammar-focused school, you can get in. And then you come in and you say, ‘Oh, we’re a religious school.’ It’s like, ‘Oh, no, can’t do that, that’s too much.’ That’s scary.” He continued: “You can’t treat religious people and religious institutions and religious speech as second-class in the United States… And when you have a program that’s open to all comers except religion… that seems like rank discrimination against religion.” [ ... ] This case alone will be a bombshell if the court mandates that states begin funding religious schools through their charter school programs. But this term, the Supreme Court is poised to deliver a one-two punch. Last week, the court heard arguments in Mahmoud v. Taylor, in which it considered whether religious parents could opt their kids out of lessons that did not conform with their beliefs. Again, the GOP-appointed majority appeared ready to side with the plaintiffs and allow religious parents to pull kids from the classroom when material they object to is taught—a policy that threatens to create a backdoor through which religious parents have veto power over elements of the curriculum and classroom discussion.  In any school that cannot accommodate children leaving the classroom and being provided alternate materials, the religious preferences of a minority seem destined to dictate the curriculum for all. The likely result is the wide elimination of LGBTQ content. Teachers may fear answering a question about a gay politician, for example, or even displaying a picture of their same-sex partner on their desk. If the justices decide in the next few months to allow religious opt-outs in public schools and the creation of religious charter schools, it’s hard to see how public education will not change profoundly. In many districts, together the decisions would likely mean the only publicly-funded school options would be either explicitly religious or circumscribed by the religious preferences of certain parents.

This is a joke because of course the c-suite will never fire themselves. They are kind of like the lord of the manor. The employees are like serfs. Nothing ever changes. Oh and there’s one person a step up from the rank and file that actually organizes and keeps the place running, the supervisor, corresponding to the steward. Meanwhile the lord does little but he owns the joint, and can’t be gotten rid of unless the peasants revolt.

Unfortunately they seem to hate minorities of various kinds more than lords exploiting everyone.

Hey Corporations!

And more corporate stuff.

Unfortunately I can’t use this advice myself. If I try to empathize and see their point of view it is more likely I’ll become an antivaxxer myself at least temporarily despite knowing the science. I need that barrier in my mind. Also, I’m bad at talking to people

So how do you change an anti-vaxxer's mind, anyway?

First, understand that sometimes, the answer is simply: you can't. Some people are very firmly entrenched in anti-vax narratives, and will become extremely aggressive in response to challenges.

Second, understand that in this case, saying nothing is better than saying the wrong thing. Becoming hostile, or expressing judgment (no matter how well-deserved) is likely to entrench them more into these conspiracies than it is to make them see reason, making them less likely to be receptive to even gentle challenges in future.

Third, understand that change isn't something that happens after a single conversation. It takes repeated discussions, and a lot of building up trust, to start making people change their minds.

So, then, how do you change an anti-vaxxer's mind?

First step: understand why anti-vaxxers feel this way. This can be summed up in one word: fear. Irrational fear, but fear nonetheless. There are a lot of reasons they may have gotten to this point. They may be deeply distrustful of physicians due to past experiences. People of color in the United States are very prone to vaccine hesitancy and refusal, not because of conservative views, but because of the racist history of the medical institution- in particular, the atrocity known as the Tuskegee experiments. Some, particularly those in the United States, are very prone to distrusting the medical-industrial complex, and extend that skepticism to vaccinations as well. Some may have encountered misinformation, such as the infamous Wakefield farce, which convinced them that children were in danger of being autistic (which is still heavily stigmatized) if they became vaccinated. There are also other reasons, but these are the most common.

And how do we deal with other fears people have? Empathy.

How to have an empathetic conversation about this issue:

First, you need to do just that: have a conversation. Ask open-ended questions, and listen to the answers no matter how much they anger or upset you. The most important and most simple: "what are your reasons for not trusting vaccines?" Other good questions are, "why do you feel this way?" "Are you interested in receiving information about vaccines from me?" "How can I help you work through these difficult feelings?" You need to then tailor your conversation according to how they respond.

You need to build trust with the person you are talking to. If you are in a position of privilege over them, particular if you are white and they are black, you cannot attempt to speak over their concerns about bias in the medical community. This also includes disabled people who no longer trust doctors to have their best interests at heart. Empathize with their concerns, don't erase them, and then segue into the facts. "This is an unfortunate reality, and should never have happened to you. May I share a counterpoint about (specific issue), with the understanding that this does not erase the systemic biases in the medical community?" It is worth noting that breakdowns in trust in the doctor-patient relationship are a key factor that leads to the development of antivax attitudes. This person already feels they can't trust their doctors or the government, and they have, in desperation, turned to a community of other afraid people to be heard. If you remember this, you will have a chance here to gain their trust and be an ambassador for vaccination.

Another way of building trust is to emphasize to them that your goals are aligned. They want what is best for them and their kids, even if they are misguided, and so do you. One rhetorical strategy (that is, incidentally, also used by lawyers in jury trials) is to ascribe positive traits to this person, and then challenge them to live up to it. "I know you love little Tommy very much, and want him to be healthy. I want him to be, too. I am sure, since you care for him deeply, you will look into this issue thoroughly."

That last point is also key. You need to start small, as counterintuitive as it might seem. Don't come right out and say for them and their children to get vaccinated; they need to make that decision by themself. Instead, say that you have information about vaccines that you would like to share with them. It is especially good if you have something saved for a particular claim they made. If, for example, they believed the Wakefield study, there are many refutations out there you can show them. If they are concerned about mercury, you can explain that the kind of mercury in vaccines isn't the "bad" mercury that we find in tuna- and even if it was, there is less mercury in the vaccines than there is in tunafish. Keep it focused, and keep it neutral; one claim at a time.

It is very likely that they will respond to you with a study of their own. Read it carefully before responding. "I noticed that the Wakefield paper has since been retracted. Here is a peer-reviewed study that reaches a different conclusion; it seems worth examining."

You need to show that you are actively listening to what they have to say, and that you appreciate them talking to you. "Thank you for trusting me to talk about this." "Thank you for showing open-mindedness." No vague-posting about anti-vaxxers, no eye-rolling, and no distractions while talking to them.

Another key for showing empathy is to make sure you acknowledge the root of each claim. You don't need to repeat it like a parrot- but for example, using the mercury example above, "it is understandable that you fear mercury! Normally, it is a dangerous substance. Thankfully, there are different kinds of mercury, and the one that can make you sick, methylmercury isn't the same as ethylmercury, which is the one found in vaccines."

Don't start right with debunking myths; always begin with an affirming statement ("that must be scary" or "I know there is a lot of information out there; you must be overwhelmed trying to sort through everything!") before pivoting to correcting misinformation.

Keeping your tone positive in nature is also very helpful. You don't have to be shooting rainbows from your mouth/keyboard, but positive statements help build trust and make people more receptive.

Remember that debunking myths is only one part of what you are seeking to do here. If the person you are talking to starts to feel like you only want to hear their thoughts so you can correct them, they will stop sharing them. No one likes to talk with someone who only wants to be right, even if they ARE right!

Unfortunately, these steps may not work. Sometimes, despite your best efforts, the person won't be receptive. That's okay. Simply tell them again that you are here if they have questions, and you wish for the best for them and their children. Let them come to you if they change their mind.

And please remember, above all else: while these are important conversations, you are never obligated to accept verbal abuse. You have a right to have your boundaries respected just as much as they do. If the person you are talking to name-calls, uses bigoted language, mocks you, wishes bad things on you, etc, it is okay to walk away. Maybe they'll be ready to hear it one day, maybe not, but you don't need to set yourself on fire to keep anyone warm here.

I hope that this guide helps you if you are interested in discussing vaccine hesitancy and refusal! Please let me know if you need anything clarified.

I might add that at least some of this is experienced by anyone in a marginalized group of any kind. Being oppressed is stressful, and telling someone to “challenge thoughts” about real and present dangers is gaslighting.

As an Autistic Person, I spent years trying to overcome my anxiety, only to realise that I was an autistic person in a non-autistic world....

Neurodivergent_lou

Crows are scavengers, they get a bad rap similar to vultures. But scavengers perform an ecological function similar to dung beetles, cleaning up waste. Corvids also are very smart birds, they have been observed using tools and even inventing new ones for a specific task. (Reaching inaccessible seeds, they’re omnivorous). As scavengers they have learned what situations are likely to generate dead bodies, following predators and even soldiers on the way to battle.

So maybe the crows follow around a villain character because they figured out he is likely to unalive someone. Nothing personal, they just are waiting for him to prepare their dinner.

logically I understand that crows have lots of folklore about them where they’re tricky and backstabbing and evil and that’s why they’re usually associated with characters who do at least one of those things but it always makes me :( because I am first and foremost a huge crow defender

yes they’re suspicious little shits. but they also have incredible communication abilities and strong social bonds. they’re intelligent opportunistic creatures just like humans, what do you expect?