You do not have ownership over other people's behavior! They have no inherent obligation to you, and you have no right to demand they behave differently than they want to.
You *can* create boundaries around you own behavior - e.g. "if you make me feel bad, I'll leave"
Other people's right to their behavior does *not* extend to violating other people's rights to theirs; as in, people do not have the right to sexually assault you. Your property, your bodily autonomy, these basic things all 'protected classes' in my eyes.
But besides this:
Your pain is your responsibility, it is created by you, owned by you. Because it's your responsibility, it's also your *right* - you have an unquestionable right to it, it is inherently valid, and nobody can tell you you shouldn't have it.
Other people's pain is *their* responsibility, created by them. You're not responsible for it. But it's also their right, their pain is inherently valid, you can't tell them they shouldn't have it.
Both of you can decide to *not engage* - to leave the room, break up, walk away
I dislike norms where, if one person hurts another, the expectation is the first person immediately apologize, as though they've made a great error or violated some obligation. No, they don't have to. You don't have a right to their behavior, they're not responsible for your pain
It's okay to let the person know you are hurt, and to take steps to prevent them from hurting you again, no matter how trivial it might feel to you. But "yelling at them until they apologize to you" is *controlling their behavior, not yours.* Your pain is your responsibility.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
hearin lots of ppl talkin about how psychedelics can cause harm; this is true, you should be careful - start with small doses and work your way up!
but psychs can also be great, i did a bunch 8 yrs ago and permanently stopped "suffering" - *without* losing contact with reality
For some ppl, psychedelics sort of 'erase' beliefs from your mind; the question is, is your brain the kind to fill in the erased gaps with anything (e.g., "i lost belief in materialism... so there *must* be the supernatural!") or is it the kind of brain to let them stay erased?
My theory is this is the thing that differentiates harmful experiences vs really wonderful experiences like I happened to have. Imo the benefit of starting doses real small and slow is you can figure out which type of brain you have before you hit big doses.
I unapologetically view people who literally believe the stars/planets can predict unrelated things on earth as uniquely bad at thinking (moreso than many other strange beliefs)
But if you don't literally believe this, then astrology seems like it could be really cool. 1/
There's a ton of strange 'power of mind' stuff that probably feels very much like magic, and might need to be approached in a frame of magic for it to work well (similarly how believing in jesus makes spiritual healing work better on you). But it's hard to strike a balance! 2/
As in it can be really hard to let multiple frames overlay your reality at once without picking the mystical one and letting it blend into the predictive one. Mystical experiences can be soul-shatteringly profound, and it's *hard* to not let it interrupt normal truthfinding. 3/
I think sex work changed my relationship to my appearance without me noticing: a thread
Pre sex work, I cared very little about my appearance. My mom picked out all my clothes to buy till I was 16 or so; I wore minimal/rare makeup, looking hot wasnt something i thought much of 1/
I started sex work when I was 20; over the years, caring about my appearance became really important for work. I put a *huge* amount of effort into it, cause it was absolutely crucial for my income levels.
This entire time, I viewed the care as "sex work specific"
As in; I figured "being hot" was an overlay onto my natural, not-caring-about-appearance default, and independent of sex work I wouldn't care much anymore. I think this started out true! But nearly a decade in and I think it's fused with me.
a *sigh* woo clarification thread 1. not all woo is created equal; i think some forms of it are still wrong but not very predictive of curiosity/iq 2. i think its possible to approach woo practices with a framework thats compatible with science, i.e. narrative/placebo/ritual work
to elaborate:
just cause a belief is wrong doesn't make it predictive of the person being incurious. If you lived in a hindu culture, "do you believe in hinduism" wouldnt help much differentiating the smart from the dumb people. It depends on how accessible 'right' info is.
This is why I don't believe thinking 9/11 is an inside job is super predictive of curiosity/iq; it's basically plausible (governments doing practical things in secret), and further determination relies on a bunch of confusing details about material sciences or whatever
Ppl who are real into astrology/conspiracies/woo beliefs *really* trigger me, but it's not because of the beliefs themselves, it's what it indicates about the person.
To me, it implies a profound lack of curiosity in checking to see if their beliefs are true. 1/
They're drawn to woo beliefs because it feels good or serves some meaning purpose for them - which I get, I mean I was raised in religion - but there's a total absence of interest in tests to check other theories for why they might be experiencing this thing 2/
I don't get this! How could you not be curious about other theories, when you *know* other people in the world deeply believe stuff that is clearly wrong? It *must* feel convincing to them, so "feeling convincing" to you shouldn't be sufficient criteria. 3/