Q – What does it take to get people to believe and understand what’s going on in the world?

When people are marginalized and radicalized by media and the govt, it’s difficult to get people to trust that anyone has their interests at heart. The people who should be helping them are oppressing them. The institutions are bureaucratic to the point of actual aid being obsolete.

So of course people lose faith.

Most people say that if you document something, those in charge should care and should want to change. But they don’t. Stories about what happens to people don’t matter, cuzz it’s subjective. And maybe people are lying. Even if they have the same story as many others, it’s not provable. So you move to counting heads, and you realize that numbers and graphs are only as good as the person who reads them. Inventories require liar indexes that can still be cheated by the tested person and the interviewer. Even if the inventory is done by a computer. Data is too easily manipulated. Then you move to pictures and video. But also for all film, there’s someone who could manipulate it. AND now you have the problem of horror and mayhem becoming virtual porn.

Is there a point of collecting this data if the outcome is that it changes nothing for the better and increases frustration on both sides? If it desensitizes the people and bureaucrats? Or excites them?

There is if you can actually develop a way to trust the means of collection and the collector. But that’s not where we’re at now. Covid 19 has shown us that people don’t believe what they don’t want to. Someone can literally die right in front of them and if they don’t want to believe the virus killed them, they’ll look for another explanation. If they feel ill and log all the symptoms of Covid 19, they won’t believe that’s what they have. Or they’ll seek all the oddest things to ‘treat’ themselves, instead of going to their doctor. They’ll listen to deniers sooner than the world’s best scientists. Because the scientists, media and govt are lizard people who are out to replace them. (pfft!)

It is odd/helpful that people who know how data is used and able to be manipulated actually have more faith in it than those who don’t have any education in it. So is there actually something that can be done to de-mystify data forms for ordinary/lesser educated people so it can’t be used to radicalize or grift from them?

Or should we just not let them have access to what social scientists are learning? But then we’re back to the lizard people taking over the world to replace us all…. (sigh)

As you can probably tell, I’m a little frustrated. That is the mood of this post and I’m not the only one feeling it.

Q – How do you support others when they’re going thru a group crisis?

You want to be an ally, right? But there seem to be limits to how you can show support:

• you shouldn’t take over the topic
• you shouldn’t talk over the person
• you aren’t who should call you an ally
• you shouldn’t try to be their saviour
• you shouldn’t claim the story as your own

They should do the work, feel the feels when they’re ready to process them. Whatever they feel. They may feel sad, afraid, frustrated, and even angry. They may feel guilt or shame if they think they participated in the harm done to their people. And maybe they did? But sometimes it’s good to remember that they were surrounded by other influences and stresses. So could they actually have made another decision at the time? As Maya Angelou says, ‘When you know better, you do better.’

And then there’s the history. At what point do you get to separate yourself from the harms that your people did to others? Can you? And can you as the descendent of harm doers ever be a real ally to their victims?

It’s a hard line to create in the sand. And what works in one thing or with one people won’t with others. I hope people will give us grace when they see we’re at least trying.

How is Climate Change Affecting Indigenous Peoples?

1. Food and water scarcity to already marginalized, often impoverished peoples
2. Changes to landscape, ecosphere and traditional food & water gathering methods.
3. Intrusion/war by other peoples and dominant govts. Children orphaned, killed and maimed by chemicals and landmines.
4. Change of cultural practice and belief due to other models
5. Possible loss of ancestral title to their lands. Creating a diaspora that is often homeless/lacking origin.
6. An ecological and cultural genocide. With full knowledge that many things could be done. But they are refused.
7. Living in worsening conditions – rubble to wandering.
8. Religious institutions blame them and say they are being punished by god(s) for some evil(s) they’ve done. Rather than helping/offering aid.
9. Children and women at higher risk of lack of education, health care/vaccines, bodily autonomy & sexual safety, and personal risk of freedom (as domestic servants, gig workers, sex workers/slaves, adoption as child trafficking)
10. It is a pervasive and growing human rights issue.

….. sources

We Forum

UNEP

The Feminism in the sitcom ‘Bewitched’

If you didn’t watch the OG show Bewitched back in the day ( I did some episodes that were syndicated and aired later, but just finished streaming it all), the show is about the marriage of a mortal and a witch and show their lives together.

A lot of the humour is hiding Samantha’s powers from the humans and her family’s annoyance with their marriage. So they take it out on him to try and sabotage the marriage. Which has the opposite effect of bringing the couple closer together.

60s TV reflected the time with the patriarchal relationships. Dad works, SAHM and obedience to his rule.

The show Bewitched has that. But because witchcraft/culture is very female driven/ruled, Samantha and her powers were a show of strength that most women didn’t/couldn’t have then. Yet she supported Darrin’s career as the corporate wife and as a witch wherever she could. And boy did he benefit from her powers/support!

Did Darrin return that? No. He fought her family, the council of witches and even her time as the Queen of the Witches wherever he could. You’d think that would bother her. But she always sided with his rule. As her husband and the father of her kids. The kids also had powers which Samantha and Darrin sought to curb.

Much as Samantha loved her natal family, she resented their intrusion. And much as they claimed they were acting for her and her kids, their intrusions often ended up causing them a LOT of harm/risk. Ultimately, they underestimated Samantha and Darrin’s love for each other. And their commitment to each other and their kids.

It wasn’t just Samantha’s family that was a nuisance though. Darrin’s mom was jealous of her exclusion (as she saw it) from her son and his kids. And jealous of how much time Samantha’s mother got to spend in the house.

It’s easily a relatable show to most couples, who would get along a lot better if they weren’t intruded on as much as ‘well-meaning’ families and neighbours/community do.

Was anything really resolved? In the long run? There were some changes for the better. But no. The conflicts were unresolved. That may have been different if the show had ended naturally. But that’s not what happened. Divorces cause disruption esp when they’re the producing couple’s. It was a nice ending, just not really resolved. IMO

I like slap stick and accidental humour. So it was funny as heck to me. But there was def a bigger psychodrama aspect with the patriarchal and dual culture (mortal and witch) aspect that could be seen as a chance to philosophize about them.

If they were to change anything, they could enter the actual witch culture rather than sticking to magic and gimmicks. I don’t think the era would have withstood it then. It’s quite a change between Bewitched and the OG Charmed show in that. But it’s not really fair to take something out of it’s era. Bewitched was quite open for the time. And one could still see relevant humour and lessons for today.

The ‘Likes’ of X/itter

This may seem like gossip about the Elon-sphere…. But it’s also relevant to other social media.

• How private is private?
• And why DO you want to be private?

…..

I know I often see people requesting to hide their activity.

• It could be they don’t want their partner to see them salivating over some other person.
• Or loving something that doesn’t fit their power role.
• Or listed sexual or gender role.
• Maybe they have a stalker?
• Though some people might actually just want privacy.

…..

But in the Elon-sphere? It’s usually cuzz they’re checking out the hate and fear mongers. They should prob say that with their full chest though. Or get another acct so they can?

…..

What difference does not being able to see the likes make? It’s harder vetting people when you don’t know what they’re into. Isn’t it?

……

Does commenting ‘like’ help make the point that you’re not happy with the policy?
TBH no. In fact it does the opposite. It adds to the site’s active engagement count. Even if it’s to say that you hate the EM so much! Srsly, do you think he’s a. told b. cares if he’s told? I’m sure he has pretty thick skin by now.

…..

At this point, considering the stupid stuff he’s pulled since taking over the site, I’m under the impression that he’s deliberately trying to tank it. There are countries and people groups that have blocked X/itter now. Esp since the porn bots love and comment to spread their boobs all over the site. It makes you wonder how many sex workers have been shadow/banned for posts where they’re not even nude. Only to see nudity as now part of the site’s design. Or doesn’t Elon like the competition? He doesn’t like it when other SM sites have accts on X/itter, does he?

…..

Well, that’s all I can think to say after day 2 of this. Except I’m not a fan. It takes longer to vet people to see if I want to follow them. And the more credible people are being encouraged to leave the site. I’m thinking…. Though I’m not sure I want to leave an int’l site to the dark side. Or leave my fellow resistors behind.

The Artist as an Advocate

The Artist as an Advocate

Many artists, musicians etc start up some form of trust or charity as a tax break for their earnings. And they leave it at that. Let the money work for others, without working for it. Which is fine. Money is good for many causes. They might have a family health thing they want to make sure gets funded. And they don’t really have any expertise to input, so they hire people who do to watch over it. They might visit kids or fans who have the health issue and befriend them. Provide their care and some nice trinkets, up to making sure they have housing. They might put grants into education to support the arts and kids who might not get opportunities otherwise. That’s cool.

Some artists get into social issues they care about. They read up on it, or it’s something they’ve experienced and know the effects, so they give money and may speak or set up forums, give interviews about the cause. Also fine. They can really put a mike on issues with their fan base. It’s great if they’re on the right side of it. As we’ve found out with the pandemic, they aren’t always though. Which puts people in danger for listening to their hero. The cost of this worship can be death.

Their fan base can become a swarm and attack other people in the name of their star. They can dox, stalk, manipulate till their target becomes suicidal.

Some actually go into politics due to their interest in their issue. When they want to change the system itself rather than just help people cope with it.

And some actually go to the battlefield and fight (literally) for their cause. They help with medical teams, rescue, reporting and some become soldiers.

Does this mean that artists are more idealistic? Smarter? Are they doing it themselves or are they being manipulated?

But what if an artist misuses their fan base? Like actually creating a cult? (No I don’t just mean an avid fan base!)

How does or should society buffer their fans when this happens? Can you separate the good behaviours and tolerate them and the bad ones and sanction them? Or stop all such manipulations?

Can society tell artists what they can make to reduce their influence over their fans and society? Should there be censure or restrictions on what artists do (not only in their craft but as people with influence)?

We know that things can get out of control. But we also know that influence can be world changing. If you need an example of that, Charles Dickens is a good one. Some of his writings changed life & laws for poor people. And some artists who thought they were just writing a book changed philosophical thought for centuries.

What we can’t do is underestimate artists. They could be a force for good. Or they can be all that’s cruel and bigoted. But we want to have free expression. So does that mean we have to tolerate everything?

Scientism – vs Anti-science in the US Govt Which Influences Canadian Conservatives

Scientism – vs Anti-science in the US Govt Which Influences Canadian Conservatives

I saw a copy of the aims of Project 2025 out of the USA, which is a Republican document outlining their vision of what they want the US to look like. They’ve apparently been working on it since the time of Reagan. For people who want smaller govt, they can’t achieve that with their stated goals. And the costs will be ridiculous.

…..

What is the biggest problem?

…..

There is such a thing as scientism. Same as their is anti-science.

Most people are rational and scientists are intended to have open minds. Their aim is to explore the world, the universe, the human experience. And help us to control our environment.

Most fields have a philosophy, basically an abstract of definition so you know what they’re looking at.

You can look up what the study req’s are for a doctorate. What courses they’re meant to study and excel in. Where their knowledge comes from. How they gained it and how they shape it.

Just cuzz someone is smart doesn’t mean they know all about everything. They know what they’ve studied and that’s all. But they often get asked for more than their field tolerates.

Fields all have best practices and ethical principles. And they have a governing body and laws to be sure they stick to them. They also have schools of thought and publications that edit their discussions.

They have theorists they admire who have built their field. From when time began to now. The theorists and knowledge only extend to the knowledge of the time and people studied.

Most of what we consider to be known is from European culture. (Which may have been influenced by other lands.) Most of the money and support came from the Catholic Church. Most of the known leaders of the fields were men. That is the bias of many of our ‘experts’.

…..

Can we move beyond that and see a bigger picture?

…..

There are records to help our search. So yes, we could. We could follow the trails of other cultures’ knowledge. We could review their POVs and see how similar they are to ours. And analyse them to see if they hold up at least at par with Europe’s. So it’s not as European and becomes more global.

…..

Should scientists be monitored by the govt?

…..

Most people would agree that oversight is good. Laws should recognize ethical, best practice and make sure that science and technology don’t kill us all. But that doesn’t mean the govt should take over. With the laws in place, the governing bodies of the fields should be responsible for their own. That doesn’t preclude courts being used if they cannot come to an agreement though. But saying that the church or the state should still be rulers over the fields is overbearing. Minimum. The fields were built with the very theorists and religious values the USA says it has. So why do they need more than guidance now? And why by the govt?

The scientists have to live in the world they create and actually do know their fields. The govt doesn’t as a rule. Neither do lay people. They will therefore have limits. They aren’t out to kill us all. The only exception to that is weapons of war. Which the govt asks them for. So maybe the scientists should be overseeing the govt?

This doesn’t mean that every single scientist or theorist is ethical. They do have issues they have to work on: conflict of interest and bias are the biggest ones. And yes there are politics inside their fields too.

…..

But wouldn’t you rather someone who actually knows their stuff inside out determine what’s safe for us and what isn’t? I would.

Reporter Bias

Reporter Bias

Whether you look at media, politics or the social science fields, the same problem keeps rearing it’s head. We know that social events never happen in isolation. We know societies go through cycles. And we know empires and religions spread by oppression and assimilation. We know the rich prey on the poor and how free the poor are varies by how oppressive the rich are (slavery, serfdom, guilds, unions) in their social guardians (military, child protection, police/courts).

But knowing all these things, it doesn’t stop the reporters from discussing systems when they look at cases. They tell a story about the child who failed as if the kid was stupid or had a conduct disorder. The house burned down, but it wasn’t due to construction codes or too few fire fighters in a district. No, they claimed someone left a heater on. They don’t look at the building and see if it was up to code when they’re fighting the fire. Maybe afterwards? A single parent loses their child due to their inability to accept authority, not due to a lack of familial or community support.

Does that even make sense? The reporters will tell you that many people face the same structures but few fail. Which isn’t true. There is more than one way to fail. Like being stressed into illness &/or death, having multiple accidents due to lack of focus, or criminal behaviour. Poverty is a systemic issue, but somehow it’s the individual who is seen as the flaw.

You have school systems that are designed to raise worker bees, soldiers and acolytes for the community’s religion. It’s not child centred. It’s built on the dominant culture’s language, which isn’t necessarily the home language of the child’s family. Yet they’re still supposed to excel. Or it’s their fault.

You have families which are intended by the empires and religions to be heteronormative. But they’re not all that. So the society’s pressures fall on them. And things go wrong. Violence between the parents, child abuse, addictions, divorces, kids running away cuzz they can’t handle the home or the parents throwing them out. The kids end up homeless or it’s adjacent (couch surfing) and since they can’t legally earn, they’re forced to sell drugs or themselves. And of course there are black market systems to catch them. But the fact those systems exist is somehow still the child’s fault.

We know all of this, but how often do you see the story told of centuries of systemic child abuse or neglect and all the kids who died as a direct result? Not often. How often do you hear of the iatrogenic causes of their deaths by their caregivers? More in the past few years because of the light being shone on the residential school graveyards found. But they aren’t the only ones.

So how do we deal with this information and learn it’s lessons if nobody discusses it as system flaws?

How do we solve poverty if we keep building expensive systems, instead of putting the resources into mutual aid communities? Will we ever hear that from conservative, corporate systems that benefit from poverty? Nope. And that is the biggest bias of all. The reporters won’t discuss their own flaws. They need to survive.