erinchavi

[erinchavi]

[erinchavi]

Suzanne collins wrote a trilogy where a main media propaganda strategy was to market a horrific act of violence as a love story to distract ppl and then it got adapted into a box office breaking movie and ppl made it all about the love triangle. so then since they didn’t get the point the first time Suzanne collins wrote a prequel story about the main dictator and she makes it so that you as a reader want it to be a genuine love story so badly even tho it’s so very clearly not and instead feels extremely unsettling to make her point even more meta which then gets adapted into another box office breaking film and now ppl are making romantic snowbaird tik toks. do u think she’s gonna write another book that’s somehow even more blatant or just give up and start executing ppl? hard to say but I wouldn’t blame her for the second one

[erinchavi]

it's august someone post mary oliver

[erinchavi]

tv used to have smart people flirting

[erinchavi]

[erinchavi]

remember to eat all of the delicious summertime fruits you can before theyre no longer in season. my final message. goodbye

[erinchavi]

youre not yaoiful at all

[erinchavi]

I don't care if Mike is hard and don't call me lemonade

[erinchavi]

ilove when someone posts about an issue that's supposedly plaguing society and it's painfully obvious that said issue is not a thing that matters if youre not on tiktok

[erinchavi]

pro tip: you can think about the subject matter of your choice when falling asleep. but watch out!

[erinchavi]

The new ‘AI’ Scottish voice being used by ScotRail is being used without the consent of the voice actor.

Professional VA, Gayanne Potter wrote the following on Facebook.

[erinchavi]

[erinchavi]

when i was a kid rummaging thru my mums cd collection to steal Good Stuff i accidentally stumbled across one called ‘songs for bonking’ which was coloured awful negative neon picture of ppls feet on top of each other in a bed and ALL the songs were like fucking ska punk 

[erinchavi]

[erinchavi]

dump his ass. move to a walkable city. start hormones. get into fiber crafts. dye your hair weird. grow an herb garden. foster a distrustful cat. take a welding class. invite your friends over for tea and cake. get way too into obscure media. explore a new cuisine. lie to the police. protest in the streets. life has so many possibilities don't it?

[erinchavi]

Something everyone should know either as an authority or as a person labouring under an authority, being anywhere from a babysitter to a parent to a government entity, is that establishing a rule of any kind is incredibly labour-intensive and difficult to enforce.

So if you're going to make something into a rule, it HAS to be something you can both Verify and Enforce- if you can Verify but not Enforce, it's essentially just a suggestion. If it's something you can Enforce but not Verify, you're going to waste a lot of energy and time becoming an authoritarian dictator that nobody likes.

And because the process of Verification and Enforcement BOTH take a LOT of work, it makes no sense to waste all that work on establishing a Rule which has no Function.

For this reason, every Rule you set must perform a Function which gives you a return that is, if not greater, then at least EQUAL to the energy it takes to maintain, in one way or another. Otherwise, the whole system collapses.

Any authority that exists has limited time and limited resources, so it must prioritize rules that minimize the MOST HARM, that are EASIEST TO VERIFY, and are MOST ENFORCEABLE.

So, before you CREATE a rule, you must ask yourself:

What does this rule accomplish?

Is the reward of this rule greater than the expense of establishing it?

Can I verify when this rule has been violated?

Can I feasibly discipline one to violates this rule?

And, what I would argue is almost MOST important after all that,

5. How do I explain this rule in a way that people will want to follow it?

As a parent, for example, "do not set a campfire in the living room" is a good rule, because it is easily explained as a risk to personal safety and property, it's a rare enough situation to come up, it's easy to tell when it's happened, and a consequence like "you will not be left unsupervised for an extended period of time" or "you will write a report on house fires" could be implemented as discipline.

But as a parent, "no eating outside of meal times" is not a great rule in most circumstances. For one, food is easy to access, the harm that can come from snacking between meals is almost zero, it's almost impossible to prove, and there is no feasible way to stop someone from doing it OR make them WANT to follow it without lowering yourself to abuse.

So, if there is a behaviour an authority wants you to follow, it must first ask itself Why. Then decide if that is reasonable. Then decide if it should be a Rule or a Suggestion.

If the desired rule is not verifiable, or enforceable, then the authority must make peace with the fact that it will be taken as a suggestion. It has no other choice but to become an enemy, and slowly lose all respect and credibility.

You cannot make "no snacking" into a rule. But you CAN say, "this is how you keep a balanced diet, this is how you stay healthy, please don't take more than you'll eat at dinner, save leftovers for later".

You CAN make "no fire pits indoors" into a rule, and you can remain vigilant that it doesn't happen and give it your full focus when it does.

This is where laws based on social or religious judgement fail.

You cannot Verify or Enforce against drugs, crossdressing, homosexuality, sodomy, satanism, tattoos, prostitution, oral sex, or abortion. Not in any way that matters. Not in any way that Protects more than it Harms. It's difficult to prove, difficult to enforce, and it happens too much and too consensually to universally oppose. You can only expend energy and cultivate a population that distrusts you in trying.

You CAN Verify and Enforce against violence, abuse, theft, fraud, embezzlement, discrimination, and murder. Because it DOES Protect more than it Harms, and you can justify the expenses. Because these are things that happen nonconsentually, and can be prioritized, because there are Victims who experience Harm. Enforcing these rules can cultivate safety and trust instead of suspicion, cooperation instead of opposition within a populace.

Which is why laws against anything that does not cause harm, in my opinion, is doomed.

Because I've been raised and raised kids and seen kids raised in both ways, and I know that "because I said so" does nothing.

If you cannot Verify or Enforce, then the best you can do is Educate, provide safe options, and build a system to heal and recover for any potential fallout.

But that’s just my opinion.

[erinchavi]

have you lot heard about the tiktoker who’s taking on the actual government over a parking ticket? because she’s a hero