#you have a bias based in ableism and you need to work on it just because its a dude with an impressive career who likes to talk

[lupismaris]

Truly most infuriating aspect of being audhd in the workplace is interviewing someone who is clearly on various spectrums like you and being the only person who can tell and having no problems with them or their vibe and everyone else is like "wow get a load of this blowhard what a weirdo"

Like folks

I'm not gonna say it

But I'm very close

[hiiragi7]

I often see people saying things like "DID fakers have made it impossible to get professionally diagnosed with DID" or "endogenic systems have made it harder for DID systems to be believed by mental health professionals" and while I understand how frustrating it is to not be believed (especially if you are seeking accomodations or a therapist willing to work with DID patients) this blame is entirely misplaced.

Endogenic plurals and "DID fakers" are not the issue. What truly needs to be asked is:

How can people receive appropriate mental health care when care providers go into their work with a biased view on who can and cannot have certain mental disorders? What does it mean for the psychiatric field as a whole that care providers are far more interested in diagnostic labels and "spotting fakers" than in withholding their own bias and working with their clients' lived experiences to help them regardless?

How did we get to a place where diagnostic labels are treated as more important than individual experience? Why is so much emphasis placed on diagnosis in mental health care to the point it is more important than the clients themselves?

As far as accomodations, why is a diagnostic label even required to get basic disability accomodations in the first place? Why are accomodations not free for everyone from the start? Why do you have to jump through all these hurdles just to prove you're disabled and need accomodations?

If health care professionals are refusing to treat clients with histories of severe trauma based on the narrative that "DID is becoming a trend", what does that say about the field's fixation on diagnosis and clinical symptomology over helping survivors of trauma regardless of what language they use or how they see themselves?

If endogenic plurals and "DID fakers" have truly changed how medical professionals view DID and have severely impacted their ability to treat people with DID or "take them seriously", is it not reasonable to assume there were already major issues in the way disorders are approached in mental health care and in clinical awareness (or unawareness) of DID that are way bigger than whatever this is?

And why the fuck are we blaming all these big systemic issues on endogenic plurals and "fakers" when it's clear that these issues and ableism have existed in the field of mental health care and psychiatry for a very long time, and exists across all disorders and areas of mental health care, not just DID?

And lastly, if someone needs mental health care, surely they should be able to access it without issue, regardless of whether they are endogenic, have a non-typical presentation of DID, or are truly faking? Surely there are real issues there which need care and appropriate treatment like any other client, regardless of what the diagnostic label is or isn't? Why is anyone being denied mental health care based on diagnostic controversy?

What the issues actually are and what we need to improve things is a far larger conversation than any individual group, and it's more complicated than the questions I've touched on here. And it's fine if you are not in a place to think about these things or engage in these conversations, but blaming endogenic plurals or "fakers" or what have you does not help anyone, and in fact only feeds into ableism, bullying, and harassment.

If mental health care professionals are throwing a tantrum about the legitimacy of DID, it is due to ableism, not individuals like endogenic plurals or "fakers". DID has always been a controversial diagnosis within the mental health field and professionals in that field have always been a dick about people with DID, regardless of whether they perfectly fit a stereotype or not. It's not new and people have got to quit acting like it is.

[dark-bear-productions]

Writing Discusion: Appearance as a Marker of Virtue

(I WELCOME DISSENT!)

One of the first things I learned as a writer was also one of the most problematic and that's Appearance as a Marker of Virtue; let's call it Amov (the extra a's looked bad, ironically).

You know the thing: Hero's body is entirely "pristine", Villain has some "disturbing" feature like a scar (Blofeld in From Russia with Love), a clubfoot (Larys Strong in House of the Dragon), or albinism (Silas in The Da Vinci Code). They have a "defect", either visually revealing something that broke them, something that happened to them because of their own evil deeds, or some sign at birth that they were "wrong" through and through.

There's an interesting argument to be had about Amov's place in the Nature vs Nurture debate. If Larys had not grown up in a world expecting him to be a brave knight while physically unable to be so, would he have been as conniving as he is? Was Silas always a monster, or was he treated as one for so long he became one? I don't want to suggest that any single author using Amov -- or, indeed, just having a villainous character with some unconventional physical trait -- is problematic. Context is always key.

(As an aside, I've always liked the metaphor that says genetics load the gun, upbringing cocks the hammer, surroundings pull the trigger. You can have the genetics of the most brutal serial killer in history but if the people who raise you do well and you manage to stay in an environment that treats you as a person should be treated, you'll never know what you might have been capable of.)

When you take the body of fiction as a whole, however, I do feel that there's a very distinct pattern of using physical "abnormalities" for shock, horror, comedy, foreshadowing, what have you. It's an old trope, one steeped in religious bias, but a powerful one that we can't quite seem to shake.

(As another aside, the religious bias I'm referring to is the belief that the Devil could take a human form, but never a fully "correct" one, always having some marker such as missing an eye, having a misshapen hand, etc., etc. This was of course fertile soil for ableism, but whether the belief or the ableism came first might be a bit of a chicken-and-egg debate, though that is a poor analogy as the answer to that debate is clearly egg.)

My personal solution is to try and avoid literal physical descriptions wherever possible. If I do mention specific traits, it almost certainly has some relevance to the plot I'm trying to build, or some message I'm trying to slide in. (For instance, a small and slight Master Hunter who easily defeats a Beast five times their size because a Master Hunter has so much skill they don't need brawn.)

However, this doesn't work for every style of story. In From the Bay of Fangs, which is a series of in-world reports of monster hunts written by and for Hunters, it's fine, as the Hunters wouldn't bother writing down what their Siblings look like. In By the Wayside, the upcoming anthology of stories diving into the background and aftermath of the stories in From the Bay of Fangs, the omission of appearance sometimes felt less natural, and I had to pivot to describing vibes, clothing, and character relevant details such as unshaven cheeks or tightly bound hair.

Another sollution I really like is to use abstract descriptions. Calling someone beautiful without describing their specific features works, but describing someone by saying "He looked like a failed soldier. Dirt seemed so worked into him that the lines of his face were like writing." (China Miéville, This Census-Taker) has a lot of impact on me and I think I'm going to experiment with that in the near future.

All in all, I think what I want to say is: don't feel bad for using appearance in your writing, nor even for falling into Amov as it is so very prevalent in our fiction, but inspect why you describe your characters the way that you do and make an informed decision based on that.

(And, to immediately undercut myself: wonder how visual character design, specifically in animation, can overcome Amov without losing the powerful and immediate visual impact that makes animation so uniquely awesome.)

[popcornpieispissedoff]

idk the full story of everything in your latest helluva boss post about apologizing to the fandom so feel free to correct me (i do remember your initial post and actually did agree with parts of the meme which summarized some of my own frustrations with viv, but i also felt parts of the meme as well as your post description went beyond a critique and into a personal vent.)

but i just wanna say this…

it’s ok for both sides to have opinions on how much of a “fraud” or “spoiled” viv is or isn’t. bc at the end of the day *none of us know her personally.* not even her fanbase.

we can each only theorize based on how she acts, what she creates, and what we see. some ppl see behavior they perceive as spoiled or fraudulent while other ppl see behavior they perceive as selfless or hard-working.

maybe you acted unnecessarily angry, but the angry behavior is what should be called out, and the only thing you need to assess about your opinions is whether or not they were influenced by bias. if they weren’t, you’re allowed to have them. if they were, reconsider where it comes from. having angry feelings is valid, blaming others for that anger is not, but good on you for acknowledging it.

alla y’all should let ppl express their opinions regardless of “what side” they’re on. bc even those believing in the best of her are still making a judgment based off their own opinions/feelings/perceptions.

none of us know the full story.

Yeah, I fully acknowledge that it's over for me.

I let my mask slip. I called out Vivzie never changing, but this is how I have always been. The amount of communities I have been kicked out of is more than I've let on. I've been sexist. I've been ableist. I have been banned from Tumblr before for being prejudiced against members of the right-wing.

What I said wasn't okay. Period. Ableism IS NEVER OKAY. Sexism is NEVER OKAY. What I called the Spindlehorse team was never going to be okay. But nothing I can say can save my skin. Tumblr has seen who I really am. I can basically never take that back.

Time to start thinking of my new internet name.

[myrskyscum]

Some stances that get me ostracized.

1: I am anti-mental-intuition and anti-psychiatric-wards, because it is proven that those treatments don't benefit schizophrenic people (to get rights stripped from you in some cases, rampant medical abuse in certain mental hospitals.).

2: I am not anti-NPD, nor do I do promote ableism towards NPD so many people though who are anti-psychiatry are anti-npd so sometimes I feel like I'm going to crash out because NPD treatment is not widely available thanks to the false narrative of "Narc abuse" which is literally just abuse.

3: I believe in RAMCOA, although it can be hard for people to exactly pin-point if they have it or not. I think people should be allowed to create new programs based on their own trauma's or inflicting certain trauma's in transharmful sense.

4: Su/c/de should not be seen as morally wrong of a person to have committed, not that it doesn't hurt people who care for that person but you have to realize most people who have committed it know its an avenue and some already know their life will not improve nor can they do anything to fix it. Sometimes, it's the best option even if it's heartbreaking or losing a good life.

5: I really hate the 'Ai' debate, as an artist I struggle with digital art a lot and it looks pathetic when I attempt it. People who know how to code Ai or know how it works intrigue me as well because I am bad at coding or writing in scripts (I've tried in rentry) and I often feel cursed by technology.

You can totally dislike Ai but the people going super far are not correct and not suitable to be listened to, also art styles change so even if your artwork was used then it will eventually become old enough for someone to disregard it as their skills improve.

6: I'm tired of the racial hierchary in some leftist spaces and it's not something for me to really support. Also harassing people for charity donations or guilt tripping is disgusting and using real peoples trauma for your own bias (I am not arguing whether the bias is right or not, it's just something that does happen.). Any sort of hierchary assuming a person of colour existing is wrong for not being born into the group is silly as well because Asians don't owe you their asianness just because they are Trace nor would any other race, if just existing is racist in peoples believes then I am not apologizing for being seen as a racist 'fetishist'.

7: Trigger warnings are important in fics or even mentioned a few times is fine, but if they exclude them then I don't see why people should defend the fic. I am not against fluff pieces or any other sort of story although there is only a slither of information you need to provide. (Some one is not bad for writing their interests or kinks, but some viewers could be disturbed by the content itself so this can also lend you a lot of power if some one tries to harass you.).

8: Self silencing some of the time is a powerful tool for when people try to harass you or it levies people to try to defend you. Some thoughts can divide people in fandom culture for example, where people can take things too far. Even if it's a joke at times, saying you hate someone based on gender or racial categories is silly and slimey.

[creativeprojectsophie]

ARTIST RESEARCH

Within my work I plan to use text, exploring the misconceptions and ableist terms used against neurodivergent people and so I plan to research a variety of artists that use text.

I also plan to make art that is interactive and immersive for the viewer and so I plan to research immersive artworks and the different ways works can be interactive for the viewer.

I would also like to research neurodivergent and disabled artists that explore their disability and experiences within their artwork.

Mel Bochner

I particularly liked Bochner’s work where he used vulgar words, I liked how they contrasted with the colour pallets he used. He has inspired me to explore words relevant to my concept that I could work with in a similar way, perhaps repeating ableist words over and over again showing the frequency that we hear these words.

Simone Wojciechowski

Bel Pye

Kyla Yager

Mahlia Amatina

CONTEXTUAL RESEARCH

What is neurodiversity/neurodivergent?

As an autistic person with dyslexia, I have a good amount of knowledge of what neurodiversity is, although I felt it was important for me as an artist who wishes to explore this, to research into it further and fully understand what neurodiversity is. I was also curious as to what my findings would be, if I would discover any new information I hadn’t already known.

According to the BBC neurodiversity is a word used to describe the different thinking tstoles that affect how people communicate with the world around them. It is an umbrella term that sums up many things, it included autism, ADHD, dyslexia, dyspraxia, dyscalulia and tourists.

Neurodivergent - the word comes from two parts neurological and divergent. It is a term for things to do with our brain and divergent is about moving away from a set path, it is used to describe people who have a different thinking or communicating styles.

We also often describe the ‘average’ person as neurotypical as this is a term to describe a person with the typical way of thinking, processing and communicating.

neurodiverse is an other common word used, these words neurodiverse and neurodivergent were introduced in the 90s by autistic sociologist Just Singer as an alternative to defect-based language such as ‘disorder’. (Defect based language is avoided as it is harmful to those who don’t have the ‘typical’ brain, defect based language leads us to believe there is something ‘wrong’ with the person or that they need to be ‘fixed’. Neurodivergent is a much better term as this word shows we are different and not ‘wrong’).

Ableist comments/slurs

Within my project I want to explore using text, specifically looking at slurs and ableist comments used against neurodivergent people. Misconceptions and other statements we constantly hear and so I decided to begin researching into these types of words and comments, as much as I already know some and have a good idea of what these comments are, I wanted to do further research into this, exploring the experience of other neurodivergent people.

I first questioned what actually is ableism, according to disability awareness, ableism is any prejudice, bias or discrimination directed towards people living with disabilities. This can be as simple as phrases such as “but you don’t look autistic, you look normal”

internalised ableism is also possible any many disabled people, by definition it is when a disabled person absorbs the opinions and viewpoints of the ableist society. This can be by comparing to neurotypical and placing unrealistic exceptions on one’s self.

other examples of ableism, belittling the need for mobility devices, accessible parking, assistive technology, support workers, the need to take medication. Other examples consist of signalling to a neurodivergent individual they’re not understanding because they’re not thinking in neurotypical ways - comments like “why don’t you understand?”, making casual embarks that rivalries disability like “I’m so OCD about my desk””I’m so autistic today” “I can’t read I’m so dyslexic”, highlighting and making light of neurodivergent behaviour “they’re definitely on the spectrum””they must be autistic”. Many of these statements I have heard everyday in my life, from my experiences these types of comments make me feel my disability is insignificant, minimises my disability and experiences, make me feel misunderstood and often uncomfortable around these types of people. It also often makes me feels like all my efforts to get to where I am are not good enough and in the neurotypical view I will never be deemed good enough or trying hard enough, I will always be less than.

Other ableist words I came across in my research were words such as: stupid, insane, crazy, dumb, slow, r*tard (a slur as another term for stupid, historically used as a clinical term but formed into a derogatory one), Moron (once used to describe people with mild intellectual disabilities), spastic (used when someone is behaving chaotic or erratic), crippled, psycho, crazy, lazy, obsessed, mongo (stupid).

The puzzle sign

I decided I wanted to do research into the puzzle sign which is the ableist symbol for autism, i plan to involve the puzzle sign, puzzle imagery and it's ableism into my work and so I wanted to dive deeper into the history behind it and the ableist group 'autism speaks".

intheloopaboutneurodiversity.wordpress.com

This site explains that a lot of neurotypicals believe the puzzle piece is a positive symbol for autism and use this to show their support for their friends and family however a large majority of autistic people do not identify with this symbol.

autismspeaks.org

https://www.autismspeaks.org/autism-symbol

From my research into autism speaks, the puzzle piece originated as an autism symbol in 1963 when it was developed to raise awareness for autism which was long before autism speaks was founded in 2005.

The symbol has been selected by autism speaks as its current logo which is presented with a spectrum of colours which is meant to represent "the spectrum of perspectives and experiences autistic people may have On their site they say that they believe the updated and more colourful puzzle piece represents inclusivity and optimism as they "look towards a future of progress for those on the autism spectrum"

- i found it humorous that they say it represents the perspectives and experiences of autistic people but they are commonly known for disregarding autistic individuals struggles and instead focusing on the research and bringing stereotyped awareness focused towards families and neurotypicals.

The autism speaks group is described as a hate group that seeks to find a cure for autism, that specific word was only removed from its website in 2016 for backlash and has now described themselves as

"committed to personalised healthcare, interventions and supports.

The puzzle piece

it was originally designed by Gerald Gaston in 1963, a parent and board member of the national autistic society in London. The puzzle piece was used as it symbolises how some people thought autism was a 'puzzling' condition. The original design featured a child crying inside the puzzle piece which was to present the sadness from the burden that autism was considered to put on a child's life - which is quite controversial and stereotyped to assume an autistic child is burdened when in reality many autistic children live a very happy life (it's the lack of support and understanding that burdens them!)

However its meaning was then changed and people assumed it meant that autistic individuals had a piece missing.

the puzzle piece is deemed inappropriate as it was created without input or feedback from actual autistic individuals, conveniently designed by neurotypicals. The missing piece idea is very problematic and implies that an autistic person is incomplete and need fixing which of course is not true.

although despite the negative connotations and ableist history, some people have claimed that their autism diagnosis has completed their puzzle - which o feel is a beautiful way to look at it.

The correct symbol to use - created by neurodivergent people

The infinity symbol is the most popular used by the community.

There are two symbols - the rainbow one often represents neurodiversity as a whole, whilst the gold one represented autistic people specifically.

This symbol was created by neurodiversity advocates who wanted the symbol to feel inclusive and the idea behind the infinity sign is that the autism spectrum is linear. It also represents that autism is not a disease that can be cured - it is a disability and the infinity symbol stands for acceptance in that.

This site was very helpful in my research as I learned some things I didn't know already:

https://www.cloudberries.co.uk/news/the-puzzle-piece-symbol-and-autism-why-its-controversial/?

(Some of the links from my research aren’t uploading to tumblr sorry!)

Researching the term “wired” differently

I was initially interested in the term wired differently, as this is a common term I have heard being used around neurodivergence and I began wondering where this term came from and if there was any history behind the term.

From my research from various different cites, the word wired/wiring links to brain cells that are connected to each other and sending electrical sing in all via nerve fibres, these signals send information just like a wired computer and so the metaphor wires are used to describe this carry of information similar to how information and electricity travels through actual wires.

“Wired differently” is a figurative speech and refers to the different ways of thinking and the ways that our brains processes and signals information differently. Depending on the context this term can be derogatory.

Some understand the term wired differently by linking it to this context: electrical equipment must be wired currently so that they can work correctly (behave normally), or they will malfunction and behave in a non-planned way. And so if you are weirded differently, then you don’t behave like other people.

As mentioned before, depending on the context the term can be derogatory. Some neurodivergent people find the term hurtful as it makes them feel they aren’t ‘made correctly’ or that they are ‘faulty’ similar to how a literal item wired differently would be deemed. When we think about something being wired differently we think of it as broken, wrong and not as it should be and therefore undesired and so depending on how individuals view this term it could be deemed harmful or positive.

https://www.baen.com/wireddifferently#:~:text=It's%20a%20common%20attitude%20in,abilities%2C%20and%20even%20neurological%20disorders.

https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/67639/whats-the-meaning-of-wired

Sensory seeking, hyper sensitivity and colour perception

Considering I am interested in exploring sensory works, works that are of particular interest to neurodivergent individuals as to textures, colours and sound - I thought it would be beneficial to research sensory seeking behaviour, what this consists of, why certain colours textures, lights etc are stimulating for neurodivergent brains.

I first looked at how does colour help individuals with dyslexia to read better:

there are many different types of coloured filter that can aid reading for people with dyslexia but how do they work? They work by making text stand out - giving the illusion that the text is on a coloured background. Both coloured reading aids and coloured background help by altering the wavelength of each colour, recalibrating the speed that signals are passed from the eye to the brain, according to exceptional individual’s dyslexia coloured overlays article 2021. Although one colour combination may be more effective than the other depending on the individual. The reason that it’s often difficult for dyslexics to read black text against white paper is because their visual context is oversensitive to certain wavelengths. Overlays or tinted glasses can not only make text easier to read but also clears headaches and migraines.

exceptionalindividuals.com/about-us/blog/dyslexia-glasses-coloured-overlays-how-do-they-work-exceptional-individuals

I then researched the science of colour perception in autism, specifically how people with autism perceive colours differently:

The sensory processing differences for autistic individuals can make certain colours appear more intense or overwhelming such as the colour yellow can be joyful but could be uncomfortable for a person with autism. Research has shown that specifically children with autism often prefer certain colour hues (although I feel this should be inclusive for adults with autism too) that colours that are softer and less intense with duller tones, pastels and muted shade are generally more comforting and have a calming affect, helping reduce feelings of anxiety or overstimulation. Bright and intense colours such as vivid reds or neon on shades are typically less favoured and viewed as too stimulating and may lead to sensory overload. Although it’s important to note that this may be different to any individual.

Notes: specific colours like green and blue are often cited as colours that can help and relax individuals with autism as these colours remind us of nature and can help create a peaceful environment.

light sensitivity is also something to consider - those with asd often have sensitivities to bright or flickering lights and preferences for natural light are common.

www.mywellnesshub.in/blog/color-preferences-in-children-with-autism/

[themoonbutspooky]

Psychiatric justice, reform of the current psychiatric system, and opposing medical abuse both as it intersects with psychiatric abuse and in general are all parts of anti-psychiatry. So is solidarity with all abuse victims and victims of medical mistreatment and ableism.

I’m still learning about the history and the specific politics of current anti-psych and related communities so I can only speak for what I mean when I say I’m anti-psychiatry and I hope OP, some-stars, the 23 other people who reblogged this and anyone else who sees this takes a moment to read what I have to say.

I do not want to take tools out of the hands of people trying to help themselves. I don’t want to take away anyone’s CBT work book or prozac prescription. I don’t even want to take people out of hospitals they want to be in. In fact I want medical insurance to cover cheaper easier less biased access to these tools.

The thing is I also want everyone to have access to everything else they need to make their own decisions about their well being. This includes information In a form they can most easily understand that is as accurate and complete as possible. It includes the time space and resources to process that information and make those decisions under as little economic and social pressure as possible.

It also includes the legal right to follow through on those decisions.

Psychiatry as a system does not share that last goal with me. One of the core purposes of psychiatry is to deny some people that legal right. You cannot separate psychiatry as a historical and present day practice from the hierarchal categorization of people. You cannot separate it from the emotional, physical and social harm caused by the enforcement of that hierarchy.

Say we were able to account for bias (racial, gendered, economic, etc) in diagnosis and treatment. Say Black men weren’t over diagnosed with schizophrenia compared to white peers with the same medical history and symptoms. Say racial and gender bias weren’t factors in the diagnosis of BPD which just so happens to be diagnosed more in Black women than other groups. Say we identify and eliminate completely bunk diagnosis like ODD. Say we’re on to the DSM twelve and all these specific issues have been resolved.

Unfairness would still be present in diagnosis and treatment because it didn’t arise from innocent scientific mistakes. Unfairness, psychiatric violence, and unequal access arise from an inherently and intentionally biased definition of what it means to be a person. A crazy person. A healthy person. An adult. A citizen.

Diagnosis aren’t strictly biological categories they are political ones. Psychiatrists hold the legal power to approve, deny, and force treatment based on those political categories. They are routinely called upon to do so for the sake of a political agenda.

Even if some individual psychiatrists, some offices or some organizations are doing good lifesaving work it is in spite of the structure as a whole not as a consequence of it.

Who is and isn’t “crazy” or “anxious” or “psychotic” or “suicidal” or “hysterical”? What counts as “Trauma”? How normal and acceptable are suicidal urges? intents? Actions? What do I owe to a suffering member of my community and what does my community owe me when I suffer? Whose job is it to fix and explain that suffering?

At their core these are questions about what it means to be a person and have a mind. Psychiatry is one framework that can be used to answer them. I don’t like the answers it’s come up with.

I’m anti-psychiatry because I’m committed to finding better answers.

i have zero fucking patience for "anti psychiatry" people. period. medical abuse exists everywhere. i agree that we need widespread medical reform. but by specifically targeting psychiatry you are regurgitating scientology talking points and perpetuating stigma about mental illness and psychiatric medication

[blindbeta]

Why “It Was Just a Question” and “It Was Just a Joke” Are Not Defenses For Ableism And Why Your Reaction Is the Most Important Thing

When someone is disabled, neurodiverse, etc people can sometimes ask really ignorant, invasive, or invalidating questions that take emotional labor to answer. And sometimes there is a lot of pressure to answer. This is even worse if it is a joke instead, and the options are to ignore it or say something and risk being yelled at because “it was just a joke, gosh.” Confronting people and setting boundaries gets you called over-sensitive, over-reacting, childish, etc.

I’ll make this clear: it isn’t about your questions or jokes - it is about the assumptions you made when you opened your mouth and the reaction you had when you were corrected.

Let’s Talk About Questions.

I first want to say, I started this blog because I wanted to. You are more free to ask me questions than random blind people on the street. The questions I receive here are also good, researched questions where I can tell someone has read my blog or some articles. I’m not posting to give my followers or anyone else anxiety. The whole point is that these people don’t have an interest in learning, doing any of their own work, or challenging their false beliefs. They want me to endure them and confirm them. I haven’t had to do that here and if I did, it would be easier than in real life because I can choose not to answer a question by deleting it. My followers are also already respectful of and educated on blind people, and so if I have a response that is less than perfectly polite, readers will know why. That is not true outside of this blog.

Now let’s talk about questions and why they can be used in a bad way. What makes a question bad? What is the difference between a genuine and ignorant question? What if you don’t have time to research?

A Bad question here is one that is based on a usually false assumption that prompts a desired answer. An example would be, “Are you really sad that you can’t read?” or “Why would a blind person need a phone when they can’t use it?”

I see a lot of these on tumblr. For example, one blog I followed received an ask that basically said blind people couldn’t be in the orchestra because such and such limitation. These questions have, at best, an obvious assumption along with, at times, a confrontational tone. This person does not want education. They want to defend their belief. A better way to truly ask such a question would be something such as, “I read that people in orchestras and choir have to sight read music. How do blind people navigate this?” No assumption is made about a blind person’s ability. The question is asked in an open manner. The asker has done some research.

Now, in real life, people don’t always preface it with how much research they have done. And let’s be real, it usually isn’t much. But someone asking, “Do you prefer Braille or do you use a computer to read?” shows at least some knowledge. They aren’t trying to put me into a box or use me for confirmation bias. It isn’t so much about getting the perfect wording. It’s about not expecting the blind person to confirm something for you, argue with you, or educate you without you putting in any effort. Even “I was wondering how you do assignments,” is open and allows for my response. If you aren’t able to research in the moment, make your question open or be transparent. To be honest, I feel better about people not doing research in person than online, because being online usually shows you have some time and tools to research. If resources are not available to you and you don’t have the internet for long periods of time, preface your question with that and acknowledge that the person does not have to respond if your question is offensive. Again,it isn’t about getting it 100% right, but truly trying and prioritizing the comfort of the person you are asking.

When I confront people for asking a question with an assumption, I often receive an angry response. The fault is placed on me for not educating people, for not being cooperative, for being mean. This happens whether I answer or not. If I try to explain to someone assuming I can’t read that I, in fact, can read or use a phone or whatever, this is seen as rude or not cooperative. Even confrontational. This person comes away from the conversation now believing blind people are rude and angry. Usually they assume the blind person is jealous of them for being able to see. Which, in that instance, would not be true.

Making assumptions that a person cannot possibly do something because of their disability, especially when you are ignoring what that person says, is ableist. Pointing this out is not attacking you or even, necessarily, judging you. They are not calling you any other name, no matter what else you claim it means to you. (I once had someone claim that when I said the word ableism or ableist she heard the word bitch.)

Let’s Talk About Jokes.

This one is much harder to navigate, especially because blind people often make jokes themselves. However, I want to continue to consider the underlying assumption and judgement some jokes can contain. The joke is usually bad when it contains an ignorant assumption and falls apart when that assumption is corrected.

One example is that picture that often goes around with a person holding a white cane is using a phone. The joke asks what’s wrong with the picture. The problem is not that it’s a joke, as most people assume. The problem is the assumption underneath this particular example, which, by the way, can result in blind people being harassed and even hurt. Read my post here.

But it isn’t even the joke that is the problem. The reaction is. Instead of being accused to attacking someone for an innocent question, someone who points out the problem with a joke or even that it was hurtful, gets someone accused of not having a sense of humor or being mean. I wouldn’t feel comfortable doing that in real life, not outside of this blog. It is, honestly, too difficult and too uncomfortable.

The reaction people sometimes have is one of defense. They aren’t ableist, it was just a joke, can’t you take a joke?, why are you so serious?, you are ruining the joke, etc. People also assume disabled people can’t tell when someone has made a mistake and when they are genuinely asking a question or trying to call attention to something by making a joke. Disabled people are not trying to take all jokes away. They just want to point out when something is harmful. Doubling down about how that person can’t take a joke is a big problem.

Again, it isn’t that someone made a joke about disabled people. It’s the assumptions inside the joke itself that are harmful. For example, jokes about blind people going to cinemas don’t land because blind people do watch movies. The joke falls apart when you remove the assumption - and not knowing that it was an assumption is part of the problem in the first place.

What Now?

Again, this post was never about not asking questions or not making jokes. It is about ways they can go wrong and how people can make it worse by getting defensive instead of being open to learning and moving on. Everyone makes assumptions or repeats jokes sometimes, and whether or not it becomes an argument is about being open to learning.

Disabled people aren’t out there looking for people to confront. Most of the time, they just want to go about their day or have a nice time with friends. If someone corrects you, no matter the setting, treat it as an opportunity for your growth and to make others feel more comfortable. Listen, apologize, acknowledge your mistake, and change your behavior.

My aim here is not to complain or to make people feel bad or even worry excessively. My goal was simply to share my thoughts on why these things can be a problem and offer suggestions on how to avoid them.

I hope this helps.

-BlindBeta

Note: I provide sensitivity reading for blind characters. See my Pinned Post for information.

[thevirgodoll]

Is it possible to be neuro-typical and still have mental health obstacles/issues? Like honestly…I am AWFUL at self-discipline. I lack focus and sometimes I have to force myself to finish things (even if last minute). But, I genuinely, truly, deeply at the bottom of my heart, DON’T believe I struggle with any mental disorders. Whenever I do research for things like adhd and what not, and I interact with fellow classmates with adhd, I don’t find myself relating to those issues on a deep profound level other than lack of focus/discipline and occasional anxiety.

It is definitely possible, but I think you're comparing yourself too much to Internet articles and your peers. I will give you facts just for your own convenience and you can decide on your own. It doesn't hurt to think about it.

Everyone with ADHD represents differently, considering there's ADHD Inattentive Type, ADHD Hyperactive-Impulsive Type, and ADHD Combined (that's all of it together, which is me!). This creates a stark difference in all of us with the disorder. Primarily Inattentive especially presents drastically different due to the low population of those who have it. It creates imposter syndrome, when it's not any less debilitating. There are even uncommon symptoms that go under the radar, that we didn't even know was ADHD.

Another thing to consider is if you are POC, AFAB, or identify as a woman, it's severely under diagnosed in these populations due to the stigma. And to speak to my demographic, Black women, we do not notice there's something off until we find difficulty in late adulthood due to the ableism and bias in healthcare. Most BW will believe ADHD is something different than what it actually is, and avoid getting knowledge from the right sources (because most are for children, or little boys...). We downplay a lot of our symptoms with mental illness.

The thing is, ADHD is specifically unique because it's a disorder that is neurologically based and developmentally based.

Let me explain executive function!

Executive function helps us manage time efficiently, switch between tasks without conscious effort, problem solve, avoid impulsivity, retrieve information, and regulate emotions. ADHD impacts the development of executive function through neurological structures of our brain, so that becomes executive dysfunction - peep this comic from ADHD-Alien to see it in a situation played out. And another!

I like to use the analogy of neurotypical's dopamine neurotransmitters (thousands of them) completing their job at work while ours don't even show up, even though they really want to. Here's an example of how severe the symptoms are in a comic from ADHD-Alien.

Therefore, it's a deficiency in dopamine and norepinephrine. This is why medication becomes important for a lot of people with ADHD to bring it back up. Beforehand, self medication is usually an issue, through other stimulants like coffee. The low chemicals in our brain will cause those of us afflicted with ADHD to seek stimuli to compensate for that, usually involuntarily.

Tasks with high stimulus are more attractive to our brains. What has some sort of incentive is at the forefront of your brain, and that's why you're not able to do things that you should do. Your brain legit screams, "Do something else, or I'm turning off!!!" This is also why those of us with it have endless amounts of hobbies because we go through various phases of what is the most interesting.

Before diagnosis, most people will be told they're lazy, just need to try focusing/try harder, or that everyone has this same problem. That is all due to professionals not advocating for ADHD properly, having a view that ADHD is just a little boy kicking, being hyper, screaming, and a belief that ADHD is tied to poor academic performance/low intelligence. This all prevents people from seeking treatment and creates internalized ableism. This also leads to feeling like the ADHD diagnosis is invalid due to childhood symptoms being suppressed until adulthood.

I must also mention... it's well known people with ADHD WILL have AT LEAST one co-morbidity... which means it can attribute to the development of these disorders if the symptoms go unnoticed. Depression, OCD, Anxiety, Bipolar Disorder, PTSD, Substance Use Disorder, and more. Autism and ADHD counts as well, and often people have an overlap because they are basically brother and sister in casual speech.

A lot of us were already diagnosed with a co-morbidity, anyway. So our brain already had to seek chemicals and that can make it even harder for diagnosis to occur and make it easier for misdiagnosis or increase risks. ADHD also creates the likelihood of suicide, doesn't matter the age bracket.

There is a lifetime prevalence for other disorders for those of us with ADHD either way, because of how difficult it is. So, even if you feel you may be "milder" in presentation, that's not invalid, and don't be put astray by TikToks or Twitter posts. Know your facts and be careful, because social media will say everything is an ADHD symptom, when it's not, especially TikTok. They will also use the wrong words or invalidate less common symptoms. Don't buy into that.

TL;DR: Though you may have mild anxiety to begin with or depression, my concern is that executive function requires the ability to self regulate. Through this you have the ability to essentially force your reward system, so that way you can prime your brain for a greater reward in the future. Anyone with executive dysfunction has a deeper problem than they realize, and I would've been doing my brand of mental health and improvement a disservice if I didn't at least try to define the reasons why you should also consider that you may display lesser known symptoms. Even if you are neurotypical in your world view, mental illness has been defined so concretely by certain people that it becomes confusion. I can tell you're having difficulty. It seems you're having trouble either way with something, so you should seek services if you are able, as well as think more about what's been going on lately.

[a-spoonful-of-pain]

July is Disability Pride Month which is a great time for disabled people to come together and celebrate their disabilities, however it's also important that we use Disability Pride Month to motivate change within our society and raise awareness of the inequalities disabled people face on a daily basis.

This Disability Pride Month, here's 5 things you need to know:

1. Disabled People do not have marriage equality.

2. Disabled People are far more likely to be victims of abuse.

3. Disabled People make up 15% of the World's Population

4. Disabled People are around twice as likely to be unemployed.

5. Disabled People Face Extra Costs of £583 Per Month

Of course, there are a lot more inequalities than the ones listed here, and these have only increased with the recent treatment of disabled people during the pandemic. As disabled people, we will continue to fight for our rights and equality, and hope that abled people will support us in this.

Disability Pride Month is far less celebrated and publicised than other (equally important) pride events, which unfortunately means it has less of an impact than others. For example, during LGBTQ+ Pride Month, many brands and businesses promoted the month with limited edition products and events, which in turn raises awareness and helps to encourage change.

If you're abled and reading this, here are just a couple of things you can do to support Disability Pride Month:

- Listen to the experiences of disabled people and their stories. Awareness is the start of change.

- Boost disabled people's voices. Share their posts on Social Media or tell your friends and family about the inequalities disabled people face.

- Educate yourself. Do a quick search on Social Media or Google to learn more about Disability Pride Month, find out the meaning behind the flag or the history behind Disability Pride.

- Hold yourself accountable. Be aware of your privilege, ignorance and unconscious bias.

Image Descriptions:

Slide 1:

Green background with white text reading "Disability Pride Month". Below in brown text reads "5 things you should know about Disability Pride Month". Below is an image of a brown woman using a wheelchair with one arm raised in a fist and the other holding a megaphone. An image of a white woman with a prosthetic leg stands beside her, holding the Disability Pride flag above her head with one arm. The flag has a black background with zig zag multicoloured stripes going diagonally from the top left to the bottom right corner.

Slide 2:

Green background with white text reading "Disabled People Do Not Have Marriage Equality". Below, brown text reads "If a disabled person chooses to get married within the UK, they are at risk of losing their financial support, and many are encouraged not to get married or cohabit in order to maintain financial stability. Although the disability benefit in the UK is unaffected, any benefits that are means tested will be impacted by sharing a home with a partner. Therefore those who are unable to work due to their disability will lose their financial support if they cohabit, with the assumption that the partner will make up for the lack of income." Cream text centered below reads "Disabled people often feel they have to choose between marriage and financial security"

Slide 3:

Green background with white text reading "Disabled People Are More Likely to be Victims of Abuse". Below, brown text reads "Statistics found that 14.3% of disabled people were victims of domestic abuse last year, compared to 5.1% of abled people (ONS, 2020). With disabled people almost three times more likely to be victims of abuse, it is clear that they are significantly more vulnerable. In 2017/18 only around 10% of violent hate crimes against disabled people resulted in a charge or summons." Cream text centered below reads "Not only are disabled people more likely to be victims of crime than abled people, these crimes are very rarely punished by law."

Slide 4:

Green background with white text reading "Disabled People Make Up 15% of the World's Population" Below, brown text reads "It is more likely that this statistic is a lot higher, as many disabled people are not registered disabled due to lack of diagnosis, familial and societal discrimination, and many other factors. In the UK, there are 14.1 million registered disabled people. 19% of working age adults in the UK are disabled, that is almost 1 in 5. Nobody is immune from disability, yet so many abled people don't fight for disability rights because they believe it doesn't impact them." Cream text centered below reads "Disability can happen to anyone at any time."

Slide 5:

Green background with white text reading "Disabled People Are Around Twice As Likely to be Unemployed" Below, brown text reads "As well as the questions this raises about inaccessibility and discrimination in the work place, it also reiterates the financial issues that arise from being disabled. Although it is illegal to reject a person's job application due to their disability, it is far too easy to blame the rejection on something else, so it is almost impossible to prove that employment was denied based on disability." Cream text centered below reads "Employed Disabled People often experience a significant amount of ableism within the workplace."

Slide 6:

Green background with white text reading "Disabled People Face Extra Costs of £583 Per Month" Below, brown text reads "On average, it costs £583 a month MORE to be disabled, with 1 in 5 disabled people facing over £1000. Considering the disability employment and pay gap, the failing benefits systems and marriage inequalities, disabled people are already at risk of poverty. For anyone who believes disabled people have equality - just imagine having to pay out an extra £583 a month purely because you have a disability / health condition." Cream text centered below reads "The financial support from the government rarely covers these costs."

Slide 7:

Green background with white text reading "How to Support Disability Pride Month as an Ally" Below, brown text reads "Listen to the experiences of disabled people and their stories. Awareness is the start of change. Boost disabled people's voices. Share their posts on Social Media or tell your friends and family about the inequalities disabled people face. Educate yourself. Do a quick search on Social Media or Google to learn more about Disability Pride Month, find out the meaning behind the flag or the history behind Disability Pride." Cream text centered below reads "Hold yourself accountable. Be aware of your privilege, ignorance and unconscious bias."

Slide 8:

Green background with white text reading "Disability Pride Month is a Celebration" Below, brown text reads "Disability Pride Month isn't all negative. It is an opportunity to come together to share experiences, raise awareness and celebrate why we are PROUD to be Disabled." Below is an image of a brown man with no visible disability wearing striped trousers holding hands with a white woman sitting in a wheelchair wearing a yellow dress. They are facing eachother with their free hands pointing up to the text above it.

[djsherriff-responses]

TBH I do think the game itself doesn’t quite lend with the horror of what happened to these kids, in that we only get to know them through biased reports of the Playtime employees and what became of them after being turned into monsters that look like toys. Besides Riley and Jack (and maybe Theo), we don’t have a frame of reference who these people were before being experimented on , so we never really grapple with the loss of personhood outside of “poor faceless orphan no one wanted to adopt : (“

Like, look at this marketable plushie! How could you not wanna pet him and give him treats?!

”He can be humanized WITHOUT dumbing down what he has done to the kids, especially Quinn.” YES! YES EXACTLY!!! Harley CAN be a complex person with positives traits and relationships who cares about others and a child abuser, the two don’t cancel each other out!

Like fair enough making an au where the child torture nonsense never even happened, but when I see stuff about office romance drama or such happening in the canon setting it is such a whiplash to me? Like “Finally Leith and Harley are out of the closet and confident enough to attend pride together , don’t pay any mind to the basement full of abused orphans they’re profiting off! Or the fact the orphans have resorted to cannibalism to not starve!” I wish more people played that for laughs , at least to acknowledge the absurdity of the set up

I will admit to bias for the toy shipping because I do wanna make toy ship stuff but even besides that, the excuses people make against shipping toys is ..… really ableist to be blunt? People make comparisons to the kids inside the FNAF animatronics but those kids are dead, they’re ghosts! The kids in Poppy Playtime weren’t killed to become the toys, they underwent surgery , you still grow and develop post surgery! Like yes there’s some argument of stunted development or communication issues for some of the characters, but even in Yarnaby’s case saying “you can’t ship him because he can’t communicate to consent!” Just throws disabled people who need communication aids right under the bus

Doey is one of the characters who gets the worst of this treatment. Like you said he’s been taking care of the other toys for over a decade (even longer depending on Matthew’s situation pre-Doey), some of which are likely far younger than what three boys who made him were , yet people lose their minds over the possibility of him wanting romance and intimacy. He’s simultaneously infantilised for displaying traits that stem from his trauma (or even just being neurodivergent) and parentified for being one of the few characters who takes responsibility to help others, it’s like he’s not allowed to be anything not corporate approved. I personally do not have DID or similar conditions so I can’t speak on this too much but the whole “splitting Doey into the three boys” or aus where the “mascot” version of him has three sons (while also coincidentally not having any symptoms of DID) rub me the wrong way. Again I do not have the experience to speak on the topic and I don’t wanna assume the worst out of people just having fun. It’s likely just a symptom of how casual ableism is in modern society than anything outright malicious also I personally find splitting Doey so god damn boring he’s interesting BECAUSE he has so much inner conflict going on!!!

As well, in FNAF the child ghosts’ personalities does not affect the personality of the animatronics (last I checked anyways) outside of game mechanics. The character the animatronics is based on are usually treated as their own separate character anyways, especially in fan works

However, you can’t separate the toys from the orphans they were made from the same way. Not saying you can’t make a mascot au where it’s separate from the horror of canon, but the personality of the “mascot” in actual canon only exists in the cut outs. Everything outside of those come straight from the orphans the toy is made from. Huggy Wuggy the character is a friendly guy who just wants to hug people, but people still apply the monster’s traits onto the mascot in mascot only aus, even though those traits comes the orphan he’s made out of

I wait with anticipation for the horrible child abomination

I wonder if people would still like Dr Sawyer or make fanworks of Yarnaby being his pet the same way if the Poppy Playtime monsters weren’t designed to resemble cute kids toys? If the monsters’ appearance was more apparent that they were children twisted and disfigured into inhuman shapes by a mad scientist who found joy in their suffering

Like,this is literally what Sawyer did to Yarnaby and several other children of his own free will

[genevulva]

hey i have a question, how do i subtly introduce radfem & gender critical ideas to my friends? bc i want to be able to discuss stuff w them without immediately being called a terf lmao. like what are some basic books / talking points i can start off with?

One of my favourite books to recommend people read is “Invisible Women: Data Biases in a World Designed for Men.” It goes into how deeply ingrained sex based oppression is in our society. As a disabled women, the chapter on medical bias hits especially hard. Gender bias in medicine is a particularly interesting topic to look into, and I’m sure there’s other books.

I can’t really give much advice since I don’t know what you particularly believe or what your friends are like, but I can tell you about how I did it.

I personally don’t have any disdain towards trans people and I do still have trans friends, and other LGBT friends. I once shared my personal experiences struggling with a “genital preference”. I told them how I would cry and do everything I could to fix this, but that I just couldn’t. I made it clear that I still respect peoples gender identities, but that I couldn’t help this part of me and I tried so hard to. It was true as well. My friends irl understood and comforted me, telling me that that was fine and that I had no obligation to. Some even expressed their own “preferences”.

My online friends? They weren’t as understanding. I think a lot of them were too fearful of what that could mean. I used to be deep in the queer community too, and it’s scary when you start to question the world around you. It makes you scared that you will lose the only community you think you’ll ever have. Interactions via a screen can also make people more bold. I got blocked and sent death threats on anon. But I made new online friends and I couldn’t be happier.

I think anti porn stuff is another really good way to introduce radical feminism. The porn industry is incredibly abusive and exploitative. It’s filled with sexism, homophobia, racism, ableism, child abuse, and even transphobia. I always approach every topic with nuance and compassion and empathy for those who are being harmed. And I think that’s how most things should be. I’m always up for respectful conversations about it. After introducing them to the horrors of porn, it can be easy to start talking about sex work in general and how it preys on vulnerable women and other minorities.

At the end of the day though, you’re going to lose some friends most likely. But personally, I wouldn’t want to be friends with someone who is so quick to judge, or who isn’t capable of understanding nuance and complexities. Your friends don’t need to agree 100% with you on every topic, I know me and my friends don’t. But as long as you have the same core values and respect for one another, it’ll be okay. And if you lose friends, you’ll find new ones. But don’t rush if you’re feeling like you can’t handle the struggles that come along with being out about this stuff.

I hope this rambling helped a little bit. Sorry if it wasn’t helpful. I’m still trying to learn my way through the world, just as you are. Sending love your way nonny ❤️

[seaswalllow]

okay, so. incoming observations about the inaccessibility of healthcare, how it affects providers, and how it affects clients.

i'll put the rest below the cut because it got long. please keep in mind there are warnings for brief discussion of patient neglect.

this is not meant to be much more than a series of observations. this was spurred by a comment i read from twitter abt the inaccessibility of the healthcare field from the provider side encouraging rampant ableism; which i vehemently agree with.

so basically: healthcare? nightmare field to be involved with. the programs themselves are incredibly grueling, and even programs with good graduation rates see incredibly low rates; for a personal example, i knew a class that had started out with ~40 people. about five people graduated. now granted: this was an accelerated, two-year nursing program, and this does not consider people who wound up simply graduating a semester or two later. but: 5/40 people made it to the two year mark and graduated.

and like. this speaks to how fucking breakneck the speed is. all-nighters are common; even bragged about. college students with part time jobs are barely hanging on; if you've got a family? nd? disabled? working full-time with other concerns? you are Fucked, plainly speaking. so already you've got a disadvantage at who has the time and resources to even compete in these incredibly ruthless fields.

you're cutting down on the potential pool of candidates and nursing + the medical industry is already a field that Needs to hire more. and like: if you argue with me that "oh it's to weed out those not fit for the field" i will get to that issue. i will get to it. because holy god no i swear to god you can be competent it's just we have very unhealthy standards and the work environment is unnecessarily hostile which actually makes it WORSE for the patients

because the patients. dear gods the patients. holy god do they get the short end of the stick.

they face bias from their providers on every front: both the providers being hella overworked and the providers still lacking sensitivity to identify cultural like. differences. (yes, most nursing colleges probably have diversity training. there's something to be said about the rn makeup being so uniform that the training still doesn't catch the nuances. if you are white, oftentimes middleclass- which 80% of the nursing base is- you will still miss the more nuanced results of cultural upbringing. eg. pain tolerance, patient to provider communication, etc)

and even without the bias of being mostly treated by able-bodied, nt white ppl; the nurses are ridiculously overworked. 14 hour shifts, i've seen more happen. very high patient to provider load. i have seen patients that go without being bathed or cared for for days. i have seen (and heard of) overworked nurses attempting to help fill the roles of their peers, at the cost of the safety of their patients, or mismanaging medication completely on accident. i have seen patients miss meals because their presiding nurse or cna has been helping elsewhere.

this isn't to roast them for that, although i do recognize their culpability here and that nothing excuses patient neglect. this is to point out that the unnecessary "hustle culture" weeds out people who would've been a wonderful, wonderful asset to the field and damages not just the nurses but the patients!! because now there are less nurses to provide their input and assistance to the field, there are more patients, and everybody suffers in the end; especially the patients whom this entire healthcare model should be based around in the first place.

it's so weird. this healthcare model should be based around ensuring that patients get the best, individualized healthcare and yet they suffer the most because of this.

tldr the medical field is wholly inaccessible except to a very specific subsection and altho it's slowly slowly getting better it's not getting better quick enough and both providers and patients but especially patients suffer for it due to RAMPANT understaffing as a result of this

(yes, i know that it's so much more complicated than "hustle culture" but i was speaking towards a specific aspect that worsened patient care)

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Pluralistic: 16 Mar 2020 (Trump wants a US-only vaccine, Covid at Home, tips for laid-off techies, Tiktok's secret moderation guidelines, Corona Bar Mitzvah, Shmoocon 2020 videos)

Today's links

Covid At Home: A guide for isolation, illness and recovery

Trump wants a US-only vaccine: Reality has a well-known globalist/collectivist bias.

Folding@Home to beat covid: 23 distcomp projects to give your CPU to.

Italian hospitals fix their ventilators with 3D printed parts: Fablabs to the rescue.

How to prepare for coming layoffs: A guide for techies junior, senior and prickly.

Leaked Tiktok moderation guidelines are a censoring mess: No poors or ugly people welcome.

Canceled Bar Mitzvah is still a mitzvah: Today I am a mensch.

Shmoocon 2020 videos online: Hours of entertainment and infosec funnies.

This day in history:

Colophon: Recent publications, current writing projects, upcoming appearances, current reading

Covid At Home (permalink)

Dutch hacker and XS4ALL cofounder Rop Gonggrijp and artist Vera Wilde have produced Covid At Home, an open-access guide to staying healthy, treating illness, and general pandemic preparedness.

https://covid-at-home.info/ It's an excellent, sober, accessible guide, produced with help from medical professionals.

They're seeking help to translate it into other languages as well. German edition coming next.

Trump wants a US-only vaccine (permalink)

The Trump administration has offered "large sums" to a German manufacturer for US-only access to a potential covid-19 vaccine

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/mar/15/trump-offers-large-sums-for-exclusive-access-to-coronavirus-vaccine

According to Die Welt, Curevac has made progress on the vaccine, and the Trump admin is seeking access "but for the US only."

The company's recently departed CEO, Daniel Menichella, is a US citizen who recently visited the White House.

The Trump administration's failure to understand our shared collective microbial destiny is emblematic. Trump epitomizes the neoliberal sociopathy of "enlightened self-interest" and "meritocracy" and the belief that "there is no such thing as society." It's a pathology as dangerous as any virus, and could yet kill us all. Immunizing America against coronavirus only works if

The vaccine is perfect (they never are) and

The US blocks all entry into the country by unvaccinated people (which it cannot do).

Instead of figuring out how to orient 100% of US capacity to producing enough vaccine to eliminate the virus worldwide, Trump is engaged in isolationist, superstitious fantasies.

https://twitter.com/doctorow/status/1238180609899429889

Within hours, Curvac had told Trump to go fuck himself and announced that any vaccine they produce will be available worldwide.

https://twitter.com/SWRAktuellBW/status/1239225432739844097

Folding@Home to beat covid (permalink)

Since the year 2000 (!), Folding@Home has been harnessing the power of idle personal computers to do scientific work on protein folding, using donated cycles to improve science. Now they're running 23 (!!) projects to help improve our scientific understanding of covid-19.

"We're simulating the dynamics of COVID-19 proteins to hunt for new therapeutic opportunities."

They've already used this to locate sites in the Ebola protein that can be targeted by therapeutics.

https://foldingathome.org/2020/03/15/coronavirus-what-were-doing-and-how-you-can-help-in-simple-terms/

Download your Folding@Home client here (Mac/Win/Lin)

https://foldingathome.org/start-folding/

Then choose your simulation from here. Be prepared to wait for your computer to be given work – they're overwhelmed with cycles at the moment.

https://apps.foldingathome.org/psummary

Italian hospitals fix their ventilators with 3D printed parts (permalink)

A Brescia hospital urgenty needed valves for their ventilators. A journalist contacted the local Fablab, who contacted a local 3D printing expert who came to the hospital, redesigned the part, and printed a replacement on the spot.

https://www.3dprintingmedia.network/covid-19-3d-printed-valve-for-reanimation-device/

Within a day, 10 patients were breathing with respirators incorporating 3D printed parts.

How to prepare for coming layoffs (permalink)

It's not outlandish to prepare for a recession (and hence layoffs) as a result of Covid-19. And while techies have a robust labor-market relative to other sectors, tech-workers are not immune from mass layoffs when their employers contract sharply or shut down altogether.

Jacob Kaplan-Moss has been here before and has some tips for techies to prepare for unemployment. He points out that the highest layoff risk comes to juniors (unprotected and easy to jettison), seniors (highest paid), and prickly people (politically easier to lay off) and underperformers (obvs).

https://jacobian.org/2020/mar/13/layoffs-are-coming/

How do you prep for layoffs? First, try to have 1 year's savings in the bank (advice from the 2000 dotcom crash). You probably can't do this, but start saving now. Cancel all nonessential expenses.

Next, update your resume. When layoffs start cascading, being ready to start applying for jobs can give you a head-start over your competition.

Kaplan-Moss suggests setting aside an hour every quarter to update your CV – this is good advice generally, as you never know when someone will ask for your resume (periodically I have to produce one for a visa or a grant, for example).

Practice interviews, using online resources, like this one:

https://eng-hiring.18f.gov/

In addition, contact your "professional network" and start feeling them out;Tb and brush up on your tech skills.

Leaked Tiktok moderation guidelines are a censoring mess (permalink)

There's a lot going on in The Intercept's deep dive into two leaked set of moderation guidelines from Bytedance, parent company of Tiktok, ably reported (as ever) by Sam Biddle.

https://theintercept.com/2020/03/16/tiktok-app-moderators-users-discrimination/

First is a confirmaton of Tiktok's policy of telling moderators to downrank videos from unattractive, fat, old or poor people, and signs of poverty. Homes need to have "no obvious slummy charactor" (sic), without a "crack on the wall" or "old and disreputable decorations."

The reasoning is clear "This kind of environment is not that suitable for new users for being less fancy and appealing" (overweight, poor, old or unattractive users lower the tone). Tiktok spox Josh Gartner said these were to prevent bullying, (but they don't mention bullying).

The leaks are pretty frank about their ableism and lookism, banning "low quality" traits including "abnormal body shape," "ugly facial looks," dwarfism, "obvious beer belly," "too many wrinkles," and "eye disorders."

They also ban "slums, rural fields" and "dilapidated housing."

The flipside of this is that Tiktok mods secretly contacting influencers to clue them in on secret moderation criteria that might get them downranked or banned, creating a group of insiders who are protected from the arbitrary, shadow regulation regime other Tiktokers never see.

That shadow regime is documented in a second set of leaks, which details the subjects and views that can get you kicked, suspended or downranked from the platform. Anything that embarrasses or upsets China is obviously out, like Falun Gong or Tiananmen.

Beyond that, livestreams of encounters with cops, videos that criticize the military, or criticism Tiktok itself are all lifetime bannable offenses – while racism and hate speech get you a one-month suspension.

Also revealed: Tiktok has a bunch of fake accounts maintained by its own staff, who gank influencer videos from Instagram that look classy and fun, as a way of shifting the content mix on the platform.

But even as these accounts were focusing on tags like "#BeachGirl," actual Tiktok users who posted pictures of themselves in swimwear faced temporary or permanent bans.

(You can get a permanent ban for wearing a garment that reveals "outline of female nipples").

There's also a "voice vulgarity" category of guidelines, including bans for "Singing or playing music pornography contents, sexual cues, etc," or "discussing the topic of sexual reproduction." You can also get banned for flipping the bird – but only if you do it more than twice.

Tiktok's appeal is that they use secret sauce to elevate accounts with few followers and share them with millions of viewers. The legend is that this is a way to rocket the humble but meretricious to fame, but the leaks reveal that no olds, fats, or poors need apply.

Canceled Bar Mitzvah is still a mitzvah (permalink)

A heartwarming story of "Covered Dish" behavior in the time of coronavirus! "Friends canceled their son's Bar Mitzvah this weekend but decided to keep the contract with their caterer, a tiny Hmong-owned business. They delivered the food to friends in quarantine & sent pans home with others."

https://twitter.com/mrotzie/status/1239249970458484736

(Image: Eli, CC BY)

Shmoocon 2020 videos online (permalink)

It's been years since I last attended a Shmoocon, but holy moly, is it ever a great annual infosec con. They've just put the 2020 videos online, which affords you plenty of viewing for your lockdown pleasure.

You might have already heard about Samantha Mosely's presentation about how she and her teen friends defeat Instagram's privacy invasions:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTCBEimhXMM

Here's some gnarly stuff: securing satellites and space-base comms, presented by three researchers styling themselves Yakko, Wakko and Dot (swoon!).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WR_H9_pnyDc

Feed your inner technothriller writer with this one, on "anti-forensics" ("the practice of modifying or removing data so that others cannot find it later during an investigation").

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eSmsiSvvAQs

How NGOs – and you at home – can use "open source intelligence" to help support human rights and survivors of human rights abuses.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRzGiR4DS7w

A Choose-Your-Own-Adventure guide to surviving ransomware attacks, using data gleaned from real attacks and recoveries.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkNFUQrg_GA

Analyzing the effects of 200 data-breaches on public companies' share prices (shareholder capitalism won't save us from overcollection, overretention and bad security).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdxiwpACwYc

This day in history (permalink)

#15yrsago Apple steals iTunes customers' paid-for rights to stream https://web.archive.org/web/20050405225837/http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=21866

#15yrago My talk from ETECH: All Complex Ecosystems Have Parasites https://craphound.com/complexecosystems.txt

#15yrsago ETECH Notes: Folksonomy, or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Mess (Schachter, Wales, Shirky and Butterfield) https://craphound.com/etech2005-folksonomy.txt

#15yrsago ETECH Notes: Feral Robotics and Some Other Quacking, Shaking, Bubbling Robots (Natalie Jeremijenko) https://craphound.com/etech05-feral.txt

#10yrsago Downloadable 3D cover for MAKERS is now also an article of commerce https://www.shapeways.com/product/Z55YYHW5P/cory-doctorow-makers-cover-3d-print

Colophon (permalink)

Today's top sources: Geoff MacDougall (https://twitter.com/taliesan), Bleeping Computer (https://www.bleepingcomputer.com), Javier Candiera (https://twitter.com/candeira), Four Short Links (https://www.oreilly.com/feed/four-short-links), Naked Capitalism (https://nakedcapitalism.com/).

Currently writing: I've just finished rewrites on a short story, "The Canadian Miracle," for MIT Tech Review. It's a story set in the world of my next novel, "The Lost Cause," a post-GND novel about truth and reconciliation. I've also just completed "Baby Twitter," a piece of design fiction also set in The Lost Cause's prehistory, for a British think-tank. I'm getting geared up to start work on the novel next.

Currently reading: Just started Lauren Beukes's forthcoming Afterland: it's Y the Last Man plus plus, and two chapters in, it's amazeballs. Last month, I finished Andrea Bernstein's "American Oligarchs"; it's a magnificent history of the Kushner and Trump families, showing how they cheated, stole and lied their way into power. I'm getting really into Anna Weiner's memoir about tech, "Uncanny Valley." I just loaded Matt Stoller's "Goliath" onto my underwater MP3 player and I'm listening to it as I swim laps.

Latest podcast: When Sysadmins Ruled the Earth https://craphound.com/podcast/2020/03/13/when-sysadmins-ruled-the-earth-2/

Upcoming books: "Poesy the Monster Slayer" (Jul 2020), a picture book about monsters, bedtime, gender, and kicking ass. Pre-order here: https://us.macmillan.com/books/9781626723627?utm_source=socialmedia&utm_medium=socialpost&utm_term=na-poesycorypreorder&utm_content=na-preorder-buynow&utm_campaign=9781626723627

(we're having a launch for it in Burbank on July 11 at Dark Delicacies and you can get me AND Poesy to sign it and Dark Del will ship it to the monster kids in your life in time for the release date).

"Attack Surface": The third Little Brother book, Oct 20, 2020. https://us.macmillan.com/books/9781250757531

"Little Brother/Homeland": A reissue omnibus edition with a new introduction by Edward Snowden: https://us.macmillan.com/books/9781250774583

[delistylehardcore]

random brain farting about n. gin and his thoughts on morality n good n evil n working for the bad guys

ive long determined, going by the fact that gin went to EVIL SCHOOL and so probably his parents sent him there, that n. gin comes from a long lineage of igors. EVERYONE in his family is a sniveling, hunchbacked, one-squinty-eyed, peter lorre-voiced sycophant. because that’s fucking hilarious. to be a respected and accomplished member of the gin bloodline is base your career around groveling at the feet of a reviled evil genius. n. gin COMES from an evil-aligned family. it was made clear to him that he needed to help make the world a worse place in order to make his folks proud. but if you put the canon tidbits of “went to evil school” and “was always considered a disappointment by his parents” together, you get... "probably sucks at being evil.” hell, he probably flunked out of amberly’s eventually.

n. gin is not really a good person, and he was never hero material even as a Nice Little Boy, but he is thoughtful, mild, and gentle by nature. he’s not very empathetic, but he can’t help but take note of people around him and find himself analyzing them and their actions. he’s very observant and decidedly not self-centered. he doesn’t know what all of it means, but over time he’s learned to connect certain symptoms he observes to certain causes, just through experience. he’s very good at reading people, and inferring what’s probably going through their head. combine that with the fact that he also has an immense capacity to take pity on those who strike him as truly suffering, and you get something approximating compassion. he cares because he understands. he notices, observes, and understands too much around him to be able to ignore it.

he never wanted to be an igor to some big-shot bad guy. that never interested him. as a child he was interested in physics and astronomy. he wanted to work at NASA when he grew up and design the rocket that would bring the first humans to mars. that never ended up happening, but he did end up a rocket scientist. just... not one making the kind of rockets that go into space. rather, the kind that, uh, kill people.

it’s really tough for me to make any kind of call on how he actually feels about directing his research towards military purposes. he made a name for himself there, and it’s entirely possible that he was happy there. in my own anti-militarism bias i just want to believe that he would’ve rather been working in astrophysics lmao. i can believe that he loves things that go boom, and has a deep interest in firearms and artillery and thinks that stuff’s interesting, but yeah entirely out of personal bias i’m inclined to hc that he always wanted to do bigger, grander things but this is where he ended up, and he ended up being successful here, so he stayed.

then the accident happened and everything started rapidly going downhill. his employers let him go pretty soon after, deemed him disabled and unfit for the job, probably mostly just an excuse to not have to shell out obscene amounts of cash for his medical insurance as per company policy. those hospital bills were SKYROCKETING (no pun intended). and of course nobody will fucking hire him. his resume would make anyone jealous, he’s an accomplished physicist anyone would be proud to call their employee, but nobody wants to have a walking bomb in their offices and nobody wants to have to spend all day looking at THAT. he’s unemployed, he’s swamped in debt, his health is incredibly fragile, things are looking really bad. and he’s so fucking mad. it’s not fair. it’s just rejection everywhere he turns, well, because ableism essentially! fantastic cartoon ableism, but that’s basically what it boils down to! he’s a freak, nobody wants to give him a chance, nobody wants to even LOOK at him, he’s always been a prime target for dickheaddery - sensitive, total type B personality, kind of inherently pitiful despite his accomplishments - but this is a new level. it’s just mindblowing to him how cruel people are towards him now. he couldn’t fathom that kind of absolute absence of compassion until he’d had it pointed at him.

he’s at a complete dead end, he can’t find anywhere else to turn, and then cortex shows up with an offer he can’t refuse. he’s literally gonna fucking die if he doesn’t find a job that will cover his medical expenses. 

and to be honest, when cortex first tells him ‘okay, so here’s the deal, we’re going to take every single human being on earth, seven billion people, and take away their free will, destroy their minds, make them not people anymore, we’re going to turn all life on the planet into vegetables’, he’d kind of rather die than help something so horrific come to fruition, to destroy billions of innocent lives like that. he has enough blood on his hands from the job he just lost.

but he’s been so terribly wronged and he knows it. he’s heartbroken and he’s livid beyond words. he had never felt hatred like that before. but there’s a big part of him, impossible to ignore, that wants more than anything for everyone to just know what it feels like. he wishes he could just somehow bounce everything he’s feeling back onto everyone who inflicted that on him. he wants them to know and understand intimately what they did to him. and cortex uses that to just play him like a damn fiddle. promises him the opportunity to punish the entire society that wronged him, promises him the opportunity to pave the way for a whole new world where that will never happen again, where he’ll be treated like a human being. and the proposition is just fucking intoxicating to him. he doesn’t have the brain power to say no. he takes the bait like an idiot. combine that with the fact that he now literally owes his life to cortex for taking him in when no one else would and giving him the means to literally keep himself alive and you’ve got hook line and sinker. he’s in.

and he’s being strung along nice and smooth for a while, not questioning anything, doing everything he’s told like a good igor, it’s all gonna pay off soon he’s sure, but then a humble little human cloning project codenamed “nina” comes along and starts changing everything. 

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

There is no “ableism” here, sweetie. Stupid ad hominems will get you nowhere. I’m not one who is cowed by your nonsensical attempts to insult me. That only works on people who are insecure, in need of social approval, and therefore susceptible to social manipulation. I do not suffer from that affliction.

Rather, there is only you fetishizing mental illness. One should really want people to be able to function well in society without distress, both through abandoning superstitious beliefs, and through therapy or medication. Both with the objective of experiencing a full life. Expecting people to suffer through life under the delusion that they are at risk of being sentenced to a fiery torment by the same creature that supposedly invented it in the first place, or endure a life of personal demons and torment in the here and now - for the purposes of some form of misguided nobility - is the problem here, not suggesting that such lives can be markedly improved by eliminating both types of delusion. That this is something you would object to is indicative, but not of myself.

It’s telling that you went straight to calling me names (Ad Hominem Fallacy) instead of dealing with what I had say; relied entirely on the Anecdotal Fallacy for the purpose of defending yourself, rather than doing anything to justify the argument that science and “faith” are comparable or compatible; and then closed with the Genetic Fallacy to try to pretend that not being a biological fantasist means everything I have to say is automatically ignorable anyway.

The problem, and you have demonstrated it in spades, occurs right here:

“To ignore one thing completely and say you’re “being critical of it” (when you’re merely just being derogatory), while being entirely trusting in the other just IS egotistical,“

This demonstrates quite well that despite your bleating to the contrary, you don’t have the foggiest clue what science is. Science is a tool, a method, a process. Science is an activity, a thing you do. It is a way to separate false ideas from true ones. It is a way to test those ideas, discard them or improve them.

Something with which religionists have a major problem, as they are encouraged to adopt supernatural superstitions as core to their identity due to inculcation and emotional and cultural reasons, rather than merely as ideas they accept as true, and thus discovering new information and abandoning those ideas is threatening to their identity. This is, after all, the origin of the "yOu wErE nEvEr a TrUe ChRiStIaN!!" slogan, which is about obfuscating the reality that religions are just ideas people can think their way out of. A reality that threatens the identity of the believer, and thus must be rationalized or otherwise handwaved away.

Scientists, on the other hand, don’t form their ideas based entirely on their identity, or sink their identity into them. Or at least, if they do, they’re no longer doing science. One scientist can't simply go "yOu wErE nEvEr a TrUe ScIeNtIsT!!" when a scientific result is falsified, unreproducible or otherwise flawed in order to sustain that result.

Science: If you don't make mistakes, you're doing it wrong. If you don't correct those mistakes, you're doing it really wrong. If you can't accept that you're mistaken, you're not doing it at all.

-- Richard Feynman

When and how does a religionist accept that they were mistaken in their faith? That seems a straightforward and important question, yet one that religionists seem wholly unwilling or unable to answer. Perhaps providing that very answer.

scientists biases affecting results or activities

This is the exact cognitive flaw of humans that science was created to correct. This is not a fault of science, but of humans. You fix this with more science, not less.

Here's the problem though: you see the possibility of personal bias in scientific discovery, for which we have a process of bias detection and removal. But science is not the people. It's the process.

Simultaneously, you act as though religious beliefs are not subject to such bias. Are religionists immune? If not, why are they uniquely immune? If they are, how do you figure out which religions are true? Is there any way to discover which ones are true?

Yes, I saw what you did there. I'll give you props for having the nerve to try and pull something so blatant. You tried to disparage the scientific process as being prone to bias - ignoring that it's a process that actively encourages the eradication of bias - while studiously avoiding that religion is entirely powered by personal bias.

"I feel god in my heart" is the highest standard of evidence for the faithful. Which is why every god is unique to each believer, even among nominally homogenous denominations. Because religion is bias. Every god is exactly how the believer decides it to be. Every verse of scripture means what the believer says it means, rather than being believed as what it says. On the other hand, every scientist has the same conception of gravity, electricity, motion, and atomic and molecular interactions. There are equations you can use, and when you conduct the same experiment - the Cavendish experiment, for example - you get the same result.

How does religion eliminate bias? If bias is the enemy, as you make inordinately clear, how do you eliminate bias in religion? What is the process for finding and removing religious bias?

I trust science. Because it has earned that trust. Because we can show that it works. Not simply because I have "faith" or because my parents sang songs about it or because we prayed to science over our dinner or because my parents threatened me with being locked in the basement if I didn't believe.

“[Science] works! Planes fly. Cars drive. Computers compute. If you base medicine on science, you cure people. If you base the design of planes on science, they fly. If you base the design of rockets on science, they reach the moon. It works… bitches.”

-- Richard Dawkins

It's remarkable that the scientific process, with all this bias you think it is infused with, still somehow manages to reliably produce planes that fly, an internet you use every day, the medicines that you want to be prescribing, and the buildings and roads that surround you every day. With all this "bias affecting results or activities" it must just be luck or coincidence, right? Millions of little coincidences that have lined up to make a world that works, despite this intrinsic lack of objectivity. /sarcasm

Religion offers no method of correction. Other than believers simply changing their gods over time. The bible still describes the Earth as flat, and not just endorses, but prescribes slavery. These were objectively true. Until they weren't. Until humans made them metaphors or no longer applied, or were for a different time, or any of a dozen weak apologetics I could rattle off, and patched god so that these were no longer divine concerns. If religious belief is reliable, why is it that you don’t trust it like you trust science? Why don't you own slaves and worry about the stars falling to Earth? Are you an egotist, putting your imperfect human morality above the perfect, divine wisdom of your god? Or is it because you know that it’s false, while still saying the same thing it says when it was written 1700 years ago?

We know what would disprove evolution: find a pre-Cambrian rabbit. Or find a bat with bird DNA. We know what would disprove gravity: find an astronomical object which does not exhibit attraction proportionate to mass, or a spot on Earth where things released from your grasp just float, unaided. 

What would falsify your belief in your god? Anything? Every believer says they have faith. Every believer says that other faith-based beliefs are false. Every believer says that their faith-based belief is true. But they can't all be true, although they can all be false. But none of them can figure out which, because they just apply more faith, which is the intellectual equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and going “lalalalala”.

If there is no mechanism for correction, then you don’t care about the truth of your god or your religion. If you can’t tell when it’s wrong, you can’t assert that it’s right. Without any method of distinguishing correct beliefs from incorrect beliefs, correct incorrect are indistinguishable, and your faith is “not even wrong,” aka incoherent.

Here is a great lecture on how faith cannot discover truth. Not just does not, but cannot. The operation of faith-based thought precludes the conclusion that it can determine correct answers.

And this is the problem you don’t understand. Science is not about what, it’s about how. How did you figure it out, how do you know it’s correct, how do you know it’s not incorrect, and how can we reliably reproduce your results?

Religion takes the exact opposite approach. Faith is unfalsifiable by design ("nothing could convince me my god is not real"), untestable by design ("god cannot be tested", "god is outside our reality", "god is beyond human conception" - which on its own is a refutation of any claim to knowledge), subjective ("I feel god in my heart") and ultimately an unreliable way to know the world. There is no belief of any kind that cannot be asserted and held entirely by faith alone. Is there any belief where someone cannot just say “well, I just have faith”? An invisible unicorn living in your garage? Aliens sending telepathic messages from Pluto every evening at midnight? All the thousands of other gods you already dismiss?

When truth is not your priority, you will pick and choose what you accept as true based on your own feelings. You become the arbiter of reality. A parallel universe of your own making, your own preferences, your own wishes. Science that you dislike will be ignored, and bible scripture you find distasteful will be dismissed. They are still there, but you will pretend that they are not. But they are. Others can understand the science you dislike, and read the scripture your prefer to ignore.

So, not only do you not understand that science is a method explicitly created to minimize human bias, but this exact same bias is what perpetuates your own religious belief. If you had the intellectual integrity, you would examine your mystical, supernatural religionist beliefs with the same consistency. But you won’t.

Science does not ask for faith. It asks to be understood. You can test it and see that it works. Religion requires faith, because it has no evidence, no process for verification, no method for correction; if you had evidence, you wouldn't need faith at all. Faith is not a subset of knowledge. It's what you use to avoid knowledge, to circumvent discovery of uncomfortable objective truth and sustain delusional belief.

With that in mind, it’s no wonder you believe - incorrectly - that religion and science can co-exist. They are incompatible not (solely) because of their claims, but because they are opposing ways, processes, methods of knowing the world. The fact that you believe you can resolve it is not evidence that they are compatible, it’s evidence that humans can compartmentalize, invent, rationalize, and live with cognitive dissonance. It’s evidence of exactly why the toolkit of science was developed in the first place, to take away your preferences and your intellectual dishonesty and simply discover what is.

I can’t think of anything more egotistical than making yourself ascendant to both your god and the entirety of human knowledge. You are, after all, in charge of your god and what it is capable of and its qualities and preferences. It may interest you to know, given your professed acceptance of science, that science has tested your god and found that it and its beliefs originate from within your own ego. Literally. When you think about “god,” you’re literally thinking about you.

Believers' estimates of God's beliefs are more egocentric than estimates of other people's beliefs

Which is to say that the problem is not that I’m too critical of religion, it’s that you’re insufficiently critical. I hold religion to the same standard as I hold religion. Science produces ideas, religions are specific ideas. I ask for evidence, and I expect coherent claims and reasoned arguments. Unsurprisingly, the asymmetry of what I get back from each camp shapes my views.

The problem is religionists and their incoherent, unevidenced, baseless myths and legends, not non-believers who find it all a bit fishy. The problem is that you hold your religion to a different, lower standard, because yo already know it cannot meet it. The problem is your inconsistent skepticism, your inconsistent epistemology, your inconsistent way of knowing the world.

For example, if you accept that evolution is the way that species have diversified over millions of years, then you also accept that the Genesis tale is, from beginning to end, a myth. The universe was not created instantaneously from nothing, the Earth was not formed in a handful of days - with the other billions of billions of billions of astronomical phenomena created in a single day - Adam and Eve did not exist, and the Noahic flood never happened. If, for no other reason than the fate of the penguins and the kangaroos who had to travel from their native lands to the Middle Eastern desert, and then back again. It is then necessary to recognize that if Jesus had existed - and we have no reason to think that he did - then he died for a myth.

The bible is clear, albeit inconsistently, about his ancestry through a direct line of descent back to Adam. The descendants of myths are most likely myths themselves, unless they are misguided and delusional; one hopes that a god made flesh is not prone to confusing a fictional character for its long-dead relative, although this psychosis might go some way to explaining the rest of the story.

Recognition of evolution necessarily eliminates Xianity. Not merely the peripheral stories of talking donkeys, murderous she-bears and fig-tree cursing tantrums, but the most important claim of all: Jesus Christ as crucified and risen savior, the pathway to salvation for fallen man. Thus, the Xian who "believes" in evolution and yet remains committed to Jesus Christ as their lord and savior has likewise necessarily lied to themselves about evolution, about Xianity, or both. Halfway between truth and a lie is still a lie. The science they "believe" in is a science that is, like their god, of their own fabrication.

Science has earned the trust I give it. Religion has not.

You already understand this, as you trust the scientific principles that relay your silly prattle around the world to my screen, that power the devices you use to send it, and the device you assume I have which will show it. On the other hand, you do not trust the mere “faith” of a Muslim, Hindu or Zoroastrian to reliably tell you anything.

You look at Flat Earthers and scoff at them and are probably even derogatory to such silly beliefs as well. They believe based on faith, and yet you likely find it so absurdly and obviously false that it merits no respect.

Your objection isn’t me being inconsistent, it’s me being completely consistent. Your superstitions need special treatment (see: Special Pleading) to be protected, and I don’t - and will not - afford that undeserved protection.

P.S. It is terrifying that you claim to be going into the medical field, when your perception of “healthcare” is drugging and giving cosmetic surgery to children in psychological and emotional distress (aka puberty, depression, autism, homosexuality, general sex-stereotype non-conformance). It would be like giving a stomach staple and liposuction to someone with anorexia. It's not "healthcare" to tell a kid that they should feel distressed, that they should even make an identity out of that feeling. Do we tell people with anorexia they're right to feel like they're too fat, that they should build their identity around that feeling, and they could maybe stand to lose a few more kgs? It's not "healthcare" to unquestioningly pop out the genital saw and inject them with wrong-sex hormones that can cause irreversible damage. It is healthcare to get to the bottom of people's distress, for why they feel that way, and to help them resolve it, however that may be.

When it comes to your supernatural faith-based beliefs, the fact you eschew intellectually honest questions like “how do you know this?” and “what other explanations might there be?” is important, but only of existential concern. In medicine, the same faith-based approach which ideologically refuses to ask these same questions of patients who have presented with their own internet social-media self-diagnosis constitutes medical malpractice and negligence on a scale never before seen.

“I’ve done a lot of reading and research about religion, because it’s something that fascinates me. What fascinates me is the compulsion or need for many to believe in this nonsense.

A great deal of us seem to have this need to fall back on this crutch of faith and belief. People say to me “Well, it’s all a matter of faith. You don’t need proof.”

Well, faith for me in that sense becomes a synonym for believing a lie and that’s no explanation at all.“

– Steven Wilson