Artemis

I'm a bisexual anti-capitalist, artist, & aspiring propagandist. We're not free until we're *all* free.

Guillermo del Toro fan account. Anarchist pep-talks are provided free of charge. Solidarity forever!

Profile pic & banner are images of GI Robot from Creature Commandos

#nobot

Public Key

npub1csfewy4ex8kvllh0wu9v960psleecfw9qx088c8qg8698xdery9q7vhh7f

NIP-05 Address

[email protected]

Profile Code

nprofile1qqsvgyuhz2unrmx0lmhhwzkza8sc0uuuyhzsr8nnursyraznnxu3jzspz4mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerfw36x7tnsw43qz9thwden5te0wfjkccte9ekk7um5wgh8qatz3k343f

Publishing to

Author Public Key

npub1csfewy4ex8kvllh0wu9v960psleecfw9qx088c8qg8698xdery9q7vhh7f

Show more details

Last Notes

2026-07-24 13:53:52 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…tnp4
Yeah, the only reason I watched it is that I couldn't in good faith continue to talk shit without seeing it. And even then, I probably wouldn't have except that the theater we saw it at is part of a local nonprofit group of theaters that I am happy to support because I want them to continue to exist.
So yeah, don't. Spouse & I are kind of enjoying unpacking it together, but it's really not a love to hate or so bad it's good situation. Not worth 3 hours & 10 dollars

2026-07-21 16:56:26 UTC

- reply

That may bear thinking on some more: how does the format of someone's questions impact or not impact the answers they get from the chatbot?
Do chatbots reward the effort of carefully constructing & thinking through the questions you ask or does it feel less satisfying than asking a broader, more generic question?

2026-07-20 13:45:20 UTC

- reply

But what interests me now is that my brain was very actively involved in Nolan films, but I was not occupied with very interesting questions.
I wasn't being challenged to form a perspective on something strange & complex. I wasn't being asked to engage with something that might change me or recontextualize my world: I wasn't even being asked to thoroughly enter the emotionality of the thing, to empathize deeply & resonate on a personal, human level with something nuanced or hard to comprehend.

2026-07-20 13:45:19 UTC

- reply

But yes, I think perhaps my biggest gripe with Nolan as a filmmaker is that I have often left his films with questions I was eager to explore but they are never interrogations of the deeper themes that are implied to surround the narrative. They are always "how does that mechanically work?" & "what factually happened at that specific point or with that specific character?"
It tickles the brain pleasantly. When I did enjoy Chris Nolan, this was why. My brain felt actively involved.

2026-07-17 16:23:24 UTC

- reply

Other things I'm watching for: editing, blocking & camera movement.
Given how short most of his shots are, I'm guessing I won't see a lot of interesting camera movement, but let's see if I can find how the editing serves the storytelling.

2026-07-17 16:23:24 UTC

- reply

My feeling is that his tendency to centre everything may hinder his ability to create contrast in the edit.
It allows for continuity because the eye is always in the same place, but thanks to that, transitions may not feel particularly meaningful, & he may struggle with creating visual emphasis or juxtaposing specific things through cutting from one to another.
If nearly everything is dead center, then the edit can't take advantage of the movement of your eye.

2026-07-17 15:45:37 UTC

- reply

I'm moving in from Batman Begins for a bit. I've seen enough to know that my hypothesis is worth further testing, so we'll start moving forward in his filmography to make sure I'm not hung up strictly on early work.
As I move on, perhaps I will see progression. That's how it often works. Artists mature over time.

2026-07-17 15:41:51 UTC

- reply

I'm hung up on this with Nolan because I constantly see him praised for his visual style. His films are visually "breathtaking" I have been told on many occasions.
So my question is...
Are they?
Not every filmmaker majors in aesthetics. Some are more into plot & character or establishing theme & mood. There is no one right way to make a film.
But I'm told Nolan's visual style is a big part of his greatness, so that's what I'm looking at.

2026-07-17 15:19:41 UTC

- reply

Times when Nolan's habit of centering everything feels detrimental to the storytelling:
it's kind of boring that when Ra's al Ghul is teaching Bruce about the art of distraction & deception that everything is right there in the center of the frame.
This seems like a time that would call for slightly more visual complexity. It also feels like we should just see *more*. These are just very short little insertions with a Liam Neeson voiceover in the middle of a fairly visually dull swordfight.

2026-07-17 15:10:50 UTC

- reply

If it wasn't bad enough to cast a white man to play Ra's al Ghul, Nolan had to pick a fucking violent racist.

2026-07-17 14:59:25 UTC

- reply

Frankly, a lot of what Nolan gets praised for often sounds like "It's a premium format, & I could tell it was very expensive to make." 😬

2026-07-17 14:53:31 UTC

- reply

The difficulty & expense of filming in IMAX like he does means that a film shot in this format must have fucking tons of money behind it & a huge crew to manage everything.
Sure, it can look pretty cool, but how could that possibly be the future of filmmaking?

2026-07-17 14:51:12 UTC

- reply

He talks about IMAX like it's the ultimate in filmmaking, but filming, editing, & projecting IMAX is a horribly inconvenient & expensive process.
The reels of film are so huge & heavy that they require loads of special equipment to assemble & move.
The cameras are so loud that they had to build a gigantic soundproof shell around them to film dialogue scenes. The shell around the camera was so huge that they had to use mirrors so the actors could see their scene partners around the camera.

2026-07-17 14:42:19 UTC

- reply

This tendency to have a short shot length may be part of why he didn't think the costumes for The Odyssey needed detail.
I haven't seen that film, but if it follows his other filmography, the camera probably rarely invites you to take in detail, instead moving from image to image, shot to shot, at a brisk pace.
The costumes look shit when you stop & look, but my guess would be that The Odyssey rarely does, unless it's a departure from his usual habits.

2026-07-17 14:35:48 UTC

- reply

One might suspect one reason for such quick editing is that long, lingering shots invite the audience to scan the whole frame & take it in. If he isn't interested in setting up & framing things, preferring simply to centre everything, that speed may be necessary.
If the camera lingers, there may be nothing new for the audience to take in. All that matters has already been seen.

2026-07-17 14:35:48 UTC

- reply

Nolan's editing is typically very quick.
Best I can tell from a quick look around his average shot length (ASL) hangs out in the range of 3 - 3.5 seconds, only slightly longer than Michael Bay.

2026-07-17 14:26:45 UTC

- reply

There is something about every shot being centred like this that does feel like being spoonfed as an audience-member. You are never in doubt of where to look.
Much of the time this is good (it's not better to be inscrutable), but it feels too *easy*. It requires so little visual engagement from me.

2026-07-17 14:19:10 UTC

- reply

I don't actually have that much sympathy for Thomas & Martha Wayne in this film. Their wealth is obscene.
Bruce Wayne as a character has always been wealthy, but I think Nolan takes that to the *far* upper end of the spectrum.

2026-07-17 14:15:33 UTC

- reply

12 minutes into Batman Begins: so far, so centred. (I'm spelling "centre" the UK way for Nolan).
Side note: Nolan emphasizes the Wayne's family's lavish wealth from the beginning. It's giving me the ick.

2026-07-17 13:55:50 UTC

- reply

By the way, one does not need to master every single possible artistic aspect of filmmaking to create a film that is very much worth watching & enjoying, but I think Nolan's stature & very lengthy critically & financially successful career make it reasonable to scrutinize him closely.
I am being critical of Nolan in a way I simply *would not be* of a smaller filmmaker.

2026-07-17 13:49:10 UTC

- reply

In addition to my faves, I should probably pick something else from an "auteur" that I'm not as biased towards myself.
Name a director you think creates dynamic shots that make great use of the whole frame.
It's not cheating to compare Nolan with the greats in this case, so don't hold back. Suggest a proper auteur if you want. Nolan is hailed as a visual genius as a filmmaker. Making comparisons is reasonable.

2026-07-17 13:49:09 UTC

- reply

I will, of course, have to look at some films from other directors to determine by comparison if this is actually more pronounced in Nolan's work.
I think most fair for me to make a personal aesthetic judgement would be to compare a couple films by my favorite directors, so that I can be sure I'm not criticizing something in Nolan that I would never complain of in the work of my faves.

2026-07-17 13:33:49 UTC

- reply

Again, having specific tendencies that are consistent across your filmography isn't bad by definition. Filmmakers develop their own styles.
But at some point we might ask if simply centering everything significant in every shot (if this is indeed what he does) is less a style than it is a lack of style.
It's obvious & easy. It's what you would do if you just didn't want to be bothered with certain complexities of visual storytelling.

2026-07-17 13:26:32 UTC

- reply

No wonder he prefers an aspect ratio closer to a square.
Widescreen formats don't let you *really* center everything, because the height isn't there to fill the bottom & top around whatever is centered.
To me, The Odyssey trailer looks great in its original aspect ratio, but kind of bland & cramped in any other format because he simply doesn't seem to have framed or blocked things with widescreen in mind.

2026-07-17 13:16:09 UTC

- reply

What do you think? Do you think putting everything smack dab in the middle of the frame is Nolan's default? How do you think this compares with the styles of other "auteur" filmmakers?
If you see this tendency in Nolan, how do you feel about it? Do you like it or even prefer it? Or does it put you off?
My first thoughts are that it seems safe, boring, & maybe a wee bit lazy artistically, but I dunno. A lot of people *really* like his style & think his films look incredible.

2026-07-17 13:11:46 UTC

- reply

The first scenes of Batman Begins are doing nothing to disprove the hypothesis.
There isn't anything inherently wrong with the idea. I think some people would consider it part of Nolan's "naturalistic" style.
But if it is as unvarying as I suspect, it may grow boring over time & Nolan may miss opportunities to create dynamic images or use provocative visual storytelling.

2026-07-17 13:03:08 UTC

Listening to Christopher Nolan talk about how he didn't worry about all the different aspect ratios The Odyssey will be shown in because all of the important stuff happens in the center of the frame (or "centre" I suppose he might say), I have developed a hypothesis that needs testing.
Hypothesis: throughout Nolan's filmography whatever is most significant in the shot will be centered by the camera the vast majority of the time.

2026-07-17 13:03:08 UTC

- reply

If this appears on first blush to be true when looking at a film or two of his, I'm considering covering up the sides of my TV screen with cardboard & seeing if I'm able to watch a Nolan film that way without missing anything.
Spouse said based on scenes he can think of, he believes this hypothesis may be correct, but there is only one way to find out, right?

2026-07-16 18:38:33 UTC

- reply

I'm watching interviews with Christopher Nolan right now, & it is doing nothing to make me appreciate his work more, that's for sure.
He's not one of those filmmakers who radiates a love for films, ya know?

2026-07-16 18:33:13 UTC

Interviewer: how do you keep in mind all the different formats the film will be shown in when framing shots?
Nolan (paraphrasing): Oh, I don't keep that in mind. I make sure to put everything important in the center of the shot though.
Everything important will be in the center? That sounds so booooring.

2026-07-16 14:39:19 UTC

- reply

The "true" format of The Odyssey tells you who this movie is for—who the desired audience is—& it's not for most of us plebes.
I mean, what tf is that?
I'm lucky though, there's one 70mm IMAX theater under 100 miles from me (97 miles in fact). A mere 1 hour 40 minutes to be able to see this film.

2026-07-14 13:51:55 UTC

- reply

So yeah, pardon my skepticism that—even putting ethnicity issues aside—Matt Damon is capable of embodying the character of Odysseus.
Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe it's the greatest performance of his career.
But come on.
The character of Odysseus IS the Odyssey. If you actually want to do a high-minded adaptation, it would require an absolutely magnetic performance from someone.

2026-07-14 13:41:44 UTC

- reply

The most I ever liked Matt Damon was in the Bourne films, where he was playing a character without an identity.
Which is to say...I don't find him to be great at creating fully-realized, engaging characters.

2026-07-14 13:30:22 UTC

Me: casting Matt Damon as Odysseus is ridiculous. If you're going to cast some white, definitely-not-Greek dude, you could at least cast someone who can sell the wit & charm of a trickster kind of character like this. George Clooney would be a far better Odysseus.
Me, remembering that Oh Brother, Where Art Thou? exists: oh yeahhhhh

2026-07-08 20:03:22 UTC

- reply

How do you counter authoritarianism, which encourages people to run to someone else—some "strong" person—to answer every question & decide every outcome?
I have to think it involves learning to listen to ourselves (& teaching others).
It's extremely hard to stand up to "authority" if you don't trust yourself. Your doubts can consume you.
You have to have some sense of "here's what I know in my gut, what I can't deny or ignore, what I will not give up on."

2026-07-08 19:57:01 UTC

- reply

When I look at the times I've actually stood up & held my ground at personal cost to myself, it's either because I couldn't tolerate something for myself or I had no intention of tolerating it happening to someone else.
That's what I mean when I say it makes us ungovernable. When you're ready to dig in & insist "this isn't right. I know this isn't right," even when you are being pressured to sit down & shut up, you become a problem for authoritarians.
So love yourself & spit in their faces.

2026-07-08 19:49:34 UTC

- reply

It's not that you can't understand, love, trust, & accept yourself.
It's that abusers & oppressors on all levels want to avoid that outcome at all costs.
Self love is revolutionary. When we love ourselves & we love each other, we become ungovernable.
It's not your fucking fault that the abusive systems around you have ripped you away from yourself. It's not a personal failing. People—whether knowingly or not (& it varies)—took something from you, took you away from yourself.

2026-07-08 19:44:04 UTC

- reply

Sometimes I'm like "why don't people get curious about themselves & explore what's going on?"
And then I think, "Well, among other things they don't fucking teach this in school. Duh."
I write all this stuff like it's obvious, but it's not, & in fact most of us have been socialized not to get in the weeds & go deep with ourselves. Many of us are taught to fear that more than anything!
You are supposed to be alienated from yourself, because oppressive systems rely on this.

2026-07-08 19:37:12 UTC

- reply

It may be corny to say "the answer was inside of you all along," buuuut
The answer was inside of you all along.
You know you better than anyone else in the whole world does. You just need to fucking give yourself space to observe & share what you know with yourself.
Be honest but also be kind. Think critically but remain curious & open.

2026-07-08 19:32:03 UTC

- reply

Hearing yourself & trusting yourself is hard for a lot of us.
For instance, with my religious background I was gaslit about everything I felt. Emotions were "deceitful" & truth came from "above".
That's a big part of my damage that keeps me from trusting myself, but there are a million different ways this happens.
Look: you aren't perfect or infallible, but you know much more than you realize, & until you get in the habit of listening to yourself, you are going to struggle to access that.

2026-07-08 19:32:03 UTC

- reply

Here's the real secret to making difficult decisions: listen to yourself.
Ask yourself questions. What do you feel? Why? What do you expect will happen? What outcome do you want? What are you hoping for? What are you afraid of? What is acceptable to you in a relationship with a person? What isn't? What's most fair to them? What's most fair to you? How will your actions affect other people? How will they affect YOU?

2026-07-08 19:32:03 UTC

- reply

Question yourself often, but make sure you're asking those questions with curiosity rather than judgment.
Instead of asking questions that undermine your sense of self (like "what is wrong with me?"), ask questions that will help you learn something about yourself.
It's ok to be curious about what's inside of you. It won't all be pretty—that's true of everyone—but there is more to you than you even know. Get to know yourself! You're really cool.

2026-07-08 17:08:25 UTC

- reply

With trusted people it's often good to talk to them about it & give them a chance to do something differently. With some people, you may find it's better to just say "ok, I'm not dealing with you anymore."
Making this choice (deal with it with them or just move on) depends on a lot of other factors too. It's certainly good to ask yourself, do you currently have the capacity to actually deal with this or are you too burnt out?

2026-07-06 13:28:50 UTC

- reply

My path is obviously not the only path to that (please don't think I'm saying "all older siblings are bad people" or something like that! That'd be an awful thing to imply), but it was one path to get there.
Aside from bullying, being a younger sibling in a big fam can give you an opportunity to develop more perspective on the concept of "other people", I think. From birth, you're thrown into a complex world where everyone else has a headstart. You have to be a student of people to survive.

2026-07-06 13:22:40 UTC

- reply

My older sister never thought about how what she did would impact other people (I was going to say "almost never," but when she was a child, it really was never). Lucky me, I got to be the primary person affected by that (until I left for college while she still lived at home, & Apollo got promoted to her main victim).

2026-07-06 13:22:40 UTC

- reply

That fucking sucked, & my parents should have fucking intervened, but it was a "sin" to react in anger, even when deserved, so I got punished when she hurt me. I'm still mad about that.
But I got to learn something she didn't. I learned that even the "little things" hurt. I learned that it fucking sucks to hurt someone & not take responsibility. I (unfortunately) got to see & experience everything I didn't want to be.
It certainly shaped my sense of justice & encouraged me to practice empathy.

2026-07-06 13:16:09 UTC

- reply

Our older siblings were dicks to us a bunch of the time. We were obstacles. We were obnoxious. They didn't like that we 'stole' parental attention away from them. And so on.
That experience sucked, & them being older allowed them to cause us pain.
But when it comes to being able to make actual choices about who we wanted to be, I think we younger kids had a distinct advantage. I think one of our advantages was just simply knowing that: that who we were was a CHOICE we could make.

2026-07-06 13:10:36 UTC

Just said in a reply to someone:
>I think our older sister being kind of a bully & never acknowledging that is a big part of how Apollo (aka Lil Bro) & I ended up being so personally committed to trying to do what's right. She really managed to set the example of everything we didn't want to be.
It's a weird fucking thing about being a younger kid in a big family, I think. Younger kids have the opportunity to sort of see "possible futures" in their older siblings.

2026-07-05 14:27:41 UTC

Watching Creature Commandos: why is Rick Flagg making all these terrible decisions?
Watching Peacemaker Season 2: Oh, because he's an arrogant dumbass! Got it.

2026-07-05 13:59:01 UTC

Reading a long series of interactions of several people with a reply guy in someone else's replies, & it's amazing that this person is telling everyone that they missed their point.
Bud, if everyone is "misunderstanding" you it's likely that either a) you are not communicating your point in a way other people can understand or b) (more likely) YOU don't understand the point you're making & think it has merit & makes sense, & it doesn't
Or c) you're just full of shit. That one's very common.

2026-07-02 14:35:34 UTC

- reply

I'm half joking, but...I really don't think it's a bad idea to get the smart birds who can recognize faces (true story. Crows can do this.) to see me as a friend.

2026-07-02 14:12:18 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…eeh7
You mean, you don't want to spend hundreds of dollars on surveillance glasses & then pay $20/month for very limited use of a fairly common technology? Wild.

2026-07-02 13:04:06 UTC

- reply

Suppose you *could* through constant labor, strenuous planning, & deprivation manage to feed yourself & your family on a tiny budget, that would still be extreme poverty.
I hate that people who aren't in poverty try to explain to those who are "no, really, you can survive. You just need to find a way to suffer a little more."
The problem is not a lack of ingenuity & creativity. The problem is poverty. No one should have to struggle every moment of every day just to live.

2026-07-02 13:04:06 UTC

"You can feed 4 people on $300 a month. In this video, I will show you how to make a thin rice gruel..."
(The first sentence is really from a real person. The second is what I assume came next)

2026-07-02 12:27:43 UTC

- reply

>Conversation Focus, which boosts the audio of the person you're speaking with so you can hear them better in loud environments.
Honestly, this sounds like one of the more useful features of Meta glasses.
You can have 3 hours per month without a subscription or 15 with one. A top limit of 15 hours per month even if you pay makes ktt seem like they don't *want* this feature to be used as an accessibility aid for people who are hard of hearing, even though that's it's most obvious benefit.

2026-07-02 12:27:43 UTC

- reply

>the Conversation Focus feature runs on-device, meaning it doesn't need to head to Meta's servers for AI processing.
So they are limiting a feature they sold that costs them nothing when used.
Yeah, they want to take so much money from the silly people who bought these.

2026-07-02 12:13:15 UTC

This seems like proof that they've exhausted the market of people who want to buy Meta glasses. They now have to try to squeeze their existing customers.
"Meta Is Charging a Subscription for Smart Glasses Features. Welcome to the New Era of Consumer Tech"
https://www.wired.com/story/why-meta-is-charging-a-subscription-for-on-device-smart-glasses-features/

2026-07-01 19:46:01 UTC

- reply

I think Supergirl was really good. I did a whole review thread about what I liked, but let me tell you something: if the movie was "bad", that still wouldn't mean that the creatives who made it "failed". The fact that movies get made at all is sort of a miracle. It's such a complex process involving so many people!
To me, a movie is a creative failure when it is an assembly-line corporate product that was loved by no one who helped make it. THAT is a fucking tragedy.

2026-06-26 13:10:51 UTC

- reply

That's the most important thing to me with both DCU movies so far: tonally they are massively different but in both the evil ultimately is recognizable as the same evil we deal with in our real world.
It turns out that matters to me more than I knew.
I love superhero fantasies, but they are best when the hero is thwarting the kinds of evil things that I WISH we had a Superman or a Supergirl to deal with.

2026-06-26 13:03:47 UTC

- reply

I wouldn't say it was gratuitous. They don't dwell on assault. We don't see it. They don't make a spectacle out of that. They don't really even use it to twist the knife of how evil the bad guys really are.
It's just that they are those kinds of horrible people, & they do horrible things to innocent, defenseless people. It's not glorified or really even dwelt on. It's simply factual.

2026-06-26 13:03:47 UTC

- reply

I'm tired of "escapism" that pretends evil doesn't look the way that we know it does. I'm tired of fantasy good fighting extremely fake fantasy evil. I don't want the evil sanitized out of everything, because in MY fantasies, I want to see villains get their comeuppance.

2026-06-26 12:54:04 UTC

- reply

I've seen some people complain that they don't see why it was necessary for the villains to be implied to be sexually assaulting girls (we don't see it), but I don't know, I think maybe it is necessary that when we tell stories about evil it should look like real life evil, not squeaky clean cartoon "evil."
If you don't feel like dealing with the dark subject matter, it's understandable, but I think a dark superhero film should depict evil that looks like evil.

2026-06-26 12:54:04 UTC

I presume conservatives are going to take issue with Supergirl because the villains are pedophile sex-traffickers which could be interpreted as a political statement.

2026-06-26 12:54:04 UTC

- reply

I really enjoyed Supergirl. I think it was fantastic & stylish, & I hated the villains & loved Kara. I recommend it.
It is far, far darker than Superman. I was surprised they kept the darkness of the comic run it's based on.
I know Craig Gillespie best as the director of Cruella, & that's the energy we got here (fortunately with a better written plot). In my head I keep using the word "stylish" to describe the vibe.

2026-06-23 19:06:19 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…em57
Right on!

2026-06-23 18:39:47 UTC

My goal as a propagandist is to write persuasively enough that if I ever get arrested for my writing, it will be deemed too potent to give me a show trial because they won't want to draw any attention to it.
That's the standard of excellence I am striving for.

2026-06-23 12:48:32 UTC

- reply

"Missed the point" does not cover it.
Anduril & Palantir are active *insults* to the man.
Tolkien was a crusty old bastard. I'm not saying he's my favorite guy or anything, but I wouldn't use his work for toilet paper like these people are doing, wiping their shitty asses all over it.

2026-06-23 12:45:46 UTC

At some point you've gotta ask if the people naming their horrible nightmare-tech companies after things from the Lord of the Rings (Palantir, Anduril) actively hate JRR Tolkien.
I don't even mean "they missed the point." I mean, they must be naming this shit after his work to insult his memory. They must *hate* him.
The man was still salty about the Industrial Revolution, for god's sake! There is no way on Earth he wouldn't be sickened to death by Palantir.

2026-06-23 12:06:26 UTC

I once told my ex-SIL I was on a mood stabilizer medication, & she said that she had taken it to treat her epilepsy.
She had a very bad reaction to the medication, so she tried to convince me that it was bad for me, & I shouldn't be on it.
I'd just like to say to everyone: don't do that.
It was fucking frustrating to get lectured about a medication that was helping me because SHE had a bad reaction when it was prescribed to HER for a *completely* different reason.

2026-06-22 20:00:07 UTC

- reply

To be a "critical thinker" in a meaningful sense is to devise ways of falsifying your own beliefs.
You have to ask "how would I find out if I am wrong about this?"
And typically the answer involves gathering information from outside of your own head.

2026-06-22 20:00:07 UTC

- reply

I learned the phrase "I don't think I'm always right, but I always think I'm right," from someone I despise, but it's actually a fairly good reminder that we only ever understand things to the best of our abilities, & sometimes we're going to have to relearn things because we aren't *always* right.

2026-06-22 19:53:40 UTC

- reply

This is essentially the basis of the scientific method.
A lot of things that appear "obviously" true aren't.
A lot of conclusions that appear "logically" certain don't align with what actually happens.
The human mind is so fucking powerful, but (out of necessity) it runs on assumptions & generalizations & "good enough" ideas about the things that happen around us.
To discern our intuitions from reality we have to find ways to test them out.

2026-06-22 19:43:12 UTC

- reply

"It's only rational."
Ok...how much data did you put in before you ran through all of the "logical" possibilities? How did you check for the things you may have failed to consider?
I don't know whether this person actually fell into this trap or not, but I know it is a trap that a lot of quite clever people fall into, & I suggest checking your brain on this from time to time.
When you are drawing "rational" conclusions, ask yourself what unverified assumptions you may have made.

2026-06-22 17:15:20 UTC

Presumably Trump just signed that deal with Iran to do more market manipulation...
The US represented in that deal that it could & would control its "ally" Israel, which it obviously can't & won't.
I keep seeing reporters say things like "Iran believes that the US is responsible for what Israel does," but Trump agreed to that. It's not simply some confusion on the part of the IR.

2026-06-22 14:03:50 UTC

- reply

Love does not seek to dominate.
Love doesn't demand control.

2026-06-22 14:02:49 UTC

- reply

It really disgusts me that I was trained to think of my fellow humans in this manner.
I was never comfortable with it, but I was for a time convinced that's just how things had to be.
But it's really a belief whose purpose is to keep us from lifting each other up, to keep us in fear of each other, to keep us from changing anything, & perhaps most importantly to keep us committed to the lie that everyone's situation in life (good or bad) is earned & deserved.

2026-06-22 13:53:49 UTC

I was taught by Christian conservatism that one should never give help to an impoverished person with no strings attached.
In that philosophy, being in a position to need help means that others have the right to control you. Giving "aid" under that schema is using poverty in the way oppressors intended: as a way to dominate others.
Being impoverished is a function of oppression, not a personal failing, & exerting control over someone will not relieve the conditions that got them to this point.

2026-06-19 12:05:59 UTC

Reading an article talking about JD Vance, & an ad with an image of a sofa pops up... 🤔

2026-06-18 16:44:35 UTC

- reply

Wow.
I fucking *hated* writing this thread.

2026-06-18 16:42:42 UTC

- reply

We come to believe the stories we tell ourselves about who we are, & if the story we tell ourselves is "I am too lazy, selfish, &/or cowardly to make a good choice when I feel pressured," what's the plan there?
You've already concluded that is who you *are*, & you keep repeating & reinforcing it over & over & over.

2026-06-18 16:35:47 UTC

- reply

You're entitled to your feelings about other people's choices. You're entitled to believe that they are bad choices, if that's how you really feel. You can feel upset that you've been trying really hard when others haven't.
You're allowed to say all that too.
It's not your responsibility to convince anyone else to change either.
But that has no bearing on the fact that the path to change requires people to get out of their shame & actually imagine themselves moving forward.

2026-06-17 19:48:07 UTC

- reply

This thread brought to you by:
my therapist asking me yesterday why I feel so afraid to be vulnerable & ask my friends for support when I need it.
None of this came up in that conversation, but I'm pretty sure that's what kicked it loose.

2026-06-17 19:40:21 UTC

- reply

I knew I was starting to get free of my abusive marriage when someone at church asked me where my then-husband was & why he hadn't been to church in weeks, & I just said "you should ask him the next time you see him."
The real answer was that he was severely hungover, & I couldn't wake him, so whenever anyone asked me a question like that I felt that I had to lie. It was great to just decide "nope. Not telling lies to cover for this man anymore."

2026-06-17 19:36:33 UTC

- reply

In general, as I learned in my marriage to an alcoholic who had no interest in changing, once you start keeping secrets for your partner to protect their reputation or to avoid people "interfering" in your relationship, it is hard to stop.

2026-06-17 19:33:03 UTC

- reply

And he WAS isolating me. Fortunately I had some friends who saw through his bullshit but would never have abandoned *me*.

2026-06-17 19:31:48 UTC

- reply

One way a manipulative person can isolate you is by pushing your moral boundaries.
If they get you to tolerate or ignore things that don't align with your values, they are actually driving a wedge between you & the people in your life most likely to help you get out of a shitty relationship.
Those people would probably support you if you went to them & told the truth, but the problem is that in that situation it's incredibly hard to tell them.
It's not just pushing boundaries. It's a trap.

2026-06-17 19:11:28 UTC

- reply

I think one thing I can say to anyone in a similar situation is that I will always support anyone who makes a choice to move towards living in ways that are consistent with a commitment to equity, justice, & solidarity with their fellow humans.
We are apes with anxiety. Sometimes we find ourselves in positions that we know we shouldn't be in. The best thing we can ever do is to try to do better.
Don't get trapped in a pit of shame. Move forward. I promise you it's not too late!

2026-06-17 19:02:16 UTC

- reply

But yeah, the worst part of that relationship is all the shame I still carry with me.

2026-06-17 19:00:08 UTC

- reply

I realized in this instance that I couldn't fully trust he wouldn't become violent or aggressive.
After I made the decision to break up with him, I told Spouse that I was "pretty sure that he probably wouldn't do anything extreme," & had the realization that the lack of certainty was all the reason I needed to NOT have that conversation in person, even though a lot of people will tell you it's "the right thing to do."

2026-06-17 00:30:48 UTC

I'm going to a corporate themed murder mystery party as a new hire who is determined to network with everyone.
Give me your most obnoxious, LinkedIn bro networking ideas & conversation starters, please.
#FediHelp #FediAdvice

2026-06-16 19:32:28 UTC

"People should have to use their real name/identity online."
Cool, cool, so if I wanted to write about my childhood trauma, I would effectively have to "name & shame" my parents & siblings?
Among many things that would do, it would make it impossible to be honest about abuse & trauma without also angering people you know or hurting people you love.
It's almost like certain people would really love it if we just shut up about abuse & oppression. Almost...

2026-06-16 18:21:21 UTC

- reply

There are so many more interesting applications of the Purge than simply killing people, especially if the rich are going to hole up in bunkers with armed guards.
Climate defenders could get a lot done on Purge night.

2026-06-16 18:18:05 UTC

- reply

The Purge: Revolution
Can you be charged with conspiracy if you do your conspiring on Purge night?

2026-06-16 18:17:06 UTC

Movie pitch:
The Purge: Reappropriation
I know we see that rich people hire people to defend them & their assets during the Purge, but they can't be guarding everything at once, & must be stretched pretty thin.
Why not pillage Amazon warehouses during the Purge instead of murdering people?

2026-06-16 16:51:13 UTC

- reply

They try to extort so much free labor & push for ever-increasing "productivity" through the fiction of promotion.
My spouse is never getting promoted. He is *excellent* at his job, but after 11 years in the same position it's been made extremely clear to him he's reached the ceiling.
He's not going to "go above & beyond" for false promises.

2026-06-16 16:48:06 UTC

- reply

Spouse's boss told him yesterday that he needed to start treating him more like a boss, not a friend.
When his boss says "you should treat me like your boss" he means Spouse should stop complaining to him so much & be more "respectful" of his position.
I don't think he *actually* wants my spouse to "treat him like a boss". He's right about one thing: the boss ain't your friend..
Spouse is difficult enough as is. He could be a *lot* more difficult without even putting his job in jeopardy.

2026-06-16 16:37:17 UTC

- reply

>Good boy, you're working exactly as intended
Has the penny dropped? You're never gonna get it
Unrewarded for all of your defendin'
From your loneliness epidemic
Good boy, has any of the money trickled down yet?
You say one day you'll be rich? Well, tell me how then
Unpaid marketing department for the power
Good boy, good boy

2026-06-16 16:34:58 UTC

I cannot believe how long it took me to check out Paris Paloma.
Spouse was talking about his boss who completely buys into the bullshit corporate hierarchy & believes—against all past evidence of the company's hiring & promotion practices—that if he just works hard enough & demonstrates enough loyalty, he will be able to move up.
"Good Boy" was running through my head through that whole conversation.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=5NfyIpE4zaw
#ParisPaloma

2026-06-16 15:31:37 UTC

Encouraging my spouse to think of radicalizing his coworkers as his "real job" & his work as a Store Manager as a cover.

2026-06-16 14:59:32 UTC

- reply

The moment in Bury Your Gays where the Ace character is able to act unpredictably & defeat the baddies who have collected data to be able to predict what everyone will do is a fucking awesome & triumphant reversal (asexual people are virtually invisible to the baddies due to the lack of representation in media).
Asexual erasure sucks, but it was nice to see a character exploiting that to totally destroy the Big Bad in a glorious moment of badassery.