While Some People Who Take Away Help And Aids Are Just Bullies Motivated By Cruelty, I Think Others Are

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.

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 do not have good ventilation. Coughing without a mask or spraying toxic aerosols everywhere is not good for other people.

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

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?

I have some thoughts about the whole trans athletes ban bs.

When I played soccer in school we often scrimmaged against and with actual boys twice my size (I was under 5' and about 105lbs at the time) and we even had a co-ed varsity team. Never ONCE did I or any of the girls complain or think it was unfair. The girls on the co-ed varsity team were incredible and completely equal in ability to the best of the boys. (If not better imo) They won many games. I remember watching those girls play with great admiration. I am now trans-nonbinary and it amazes me how quickly transphobes will accept and parrot the lie that women and girls are inferior in every way to men if it means trans people will suffer. The girls on our team were fucking TOUGH and would have thrown a FIT had you insinuated that to them! "ANYTHING YOU CAN DO, I CAN DO BETTER!" Until trans people are involved, apparently. Then suddenly they're poor, pitiful victims who just can’t be expected to compete with “men”. GET A GRIP, LADIES!

**I have been corrected by a friend who was also on the team at the time (and the coach's daughter)** Our soccer team was completely co-ed until our sophomore year of high school when the girls team was established. I started in 7th grade and don't remember ever hearing any complaints.

I was not personally very good at soccer but neither were some of the boys. Your assigned sex at birth plays NO part in your athletic ability! Just let people play sports! I find it especially telling that they even separate sports like CHESS on the basis of gender and want to ban trans people from that, as well. It's not just athletic ability transphobes believe sex assigned at birth gives you an unfair advantage or disadvantage to, but intelligence too! The internalized misogyny is so sad and pathetic.

I grew up with commercials like this. So many people who also grew up with this message and were taught to embrace that "fuck you energy" in sports and life are now crying about how "unfair" it is that they may have to play against a trans person??? BOO fucking HOO, princess!

My thoughts on this:

What if we lived in a world with reversed gender roles? If he never got to see breasts because they were hidden behind comfortable shirts? If he never was encouraged to objectify women but rather himself, make himself a desirable sex object for women regardless of his own comfort? And he never got to approach women but had often quite ugly women in his face, groping him? What would he think of breasts then?

modern empath crisis of faith

The mistake is thinking that no men would be into this. Au contraire, I can direct you to whole forums of feminine straight men who would love a gal like her.

Trapeze artist, strongwoman, and all around badass Laverie Vallee, stage name Charmion, flexes for the camera in this (colorized) picture from around 1905. Born in 1875 in Sacramento, Charmion was a pioneer. She shocked conservative Victorian/Edwardian men with her daring "Trapeze Disrobing Act" (which was the subject of one of Thomas Edison's first films) and her insanely jacked body. But the ladies loved her, and her performances, which were viewed as practically pornographic by the extreme standards of the time period, were mostly attended by women. Throughout her career, she inspired women to exercise and to free themselves of the restrictions society placed on them. Charmion criticized the prudish attitudes of the time and told women they could be just as strong as men (this was a radical claim for that era, but her own body was the proof). A brilliant woman, she was fluent in six languages and regularly lectured and wrote newspaper articles about fitness. She was the highest-earning performer on the vaudeville circuit for much of her career, sometimes earning as much as $500 per week (equivalent to almost $20,000 today). Charmion was known to curl 70-pound dumbbells as part of her workout regimen and she could walk 12 miles without feeling fatigued. Charmion's biceps reportedly were almost exactly the same size as those of Eugen Sandow, who was widely considered the world's strongest man, and in a friendly sparring match she fought on an equal footing with the then-famous boxer Terry McGovern. She retired in 1912 and lived a quiet life outside the limelight until her death in 1949.

EDIT: I made a second post with some more info about Charmion if anyone's interested:

Tumblr

washingtonmarvel

Since my first post about Charmion only scratched the surface, I thought I'd give some more info about a few different aspects of her story