I looked up at him, his gilet buffeted by the salty wind. His big and worn hands clasped on my shivering form. He stared intently, knowing I wanted to take asylum in his strong arms. He whispered, "call me the Clandestine Threat Commander."
"Storm my dinghy daddy" I whispered.
He slowly removed his utility belt and undid his mobile phone holster. I waited with baited breath for an hour. An exciting hour. He revealed the tattoo on his calf, a picture of Winston Churchill. He could fight on my beaches I thought. Far above Priti watched, I liked it.
Reducing meat intake/milk intake has benefits for the planet, but do NOT bring in the neurodiverse and or/autistic community into your damn marketing you plebs.
As a further note, my reference of those within these communities may not be correct and I would encourage them to further guide me and how they wish to identify. It is not my aim to mislabel or speak for such specific things. I will happily take education on this subject.
Think twitter needs to add another response button other than "comment, retweet and like." Feel sometimes "liking" tragic news doesnt seem that sensitive. Not sure what we could add for that situation, maybe a flower or other mark of respect. A black band? Thoughts?
I'll be honest and say that for almost 10 weeks I have not been anxious or low thanks to therapy and medication. The actions of these people hurt on a deep level, make me feel fraudulent and impotent. Knowing countertransferance I am able to recognise why, but it sucks.
Over the last years I have worked my hardest to help my patients, normalise mental illness, written in national newspapers about my experiences, combated fake information, and advocated for the rights of those who perceived to have been harmed.
These people would rather watch me burn as a sacrifice to their agenda than recognise the work and motivation I have given them. Twitter can be ugly, and this is the face of it. I forgive them as I know this isn't about me, but it hurts.
Two years ago, I wrote a small number of articles for a science group who approached me. I received roughly 20 dollars for it. Since then it has been brought to my attention that the site hosted some ugly articles and one of the people associated made some ugly tweets.
The content of the articles was based on neuroscience explaining new findings in neurology and research. If I remember correctly, it was about the use of attenuated polio strains in the treatment of tumours. My articles were limited to science and I thought I was doing good.
The group themselves stand accused of conflicts of interest. I am not a lawyer, not part of the accusation, so I will not comment on the legitimacy of these claims. Since 2018, I have not written for them and don't plan to again. I have contacted the owner and asked my articles..
Political disagreement and group thinking: a thread.
Twitter, like any potentially anonymised social modality, presents opportunities to explain and understand the dynamics of group thinking and the examples of behaviours associated with it. This should explain a few things.
One example is the idea of a centralized belief system, where all members must share it or they are excluded. Free debate is stifled within the group to ensure compliance with the ideal. Anyone who speaks out is labelled a traitor. So immediately the group cannot change or adapt.
@Sci_Phile consider the basilisk as an optimiser, then preventing it would enable future death. As its purpose is to prevent all deaths possible, its utalitarian ideology would mean that it doesnt matter what we do, it would create itself using the same powers.
If it has the power to influence past humans, it has the same power, by extension, to influence a small intelligent and resourceful group to build it and minimise torture of others. This would be more optimal than rokos hypothesis.
So its building is either inevitable and secret, or impossible and irrelevant. The basilisk is prevented from the apogee of its destructive powers by its own morality. The premise of optimisation is flawed.
Ill be clear on the term "antipsychiatry"; I wont use it. It risks confusing a heterogenous set of ideas and approaches, most fair criticisms by those harmed, others of an agenda that seeks to destroy a profession and risks patients.
We need to listen to the criticisms and consider their value, especially when coming from patients. But we must also challenge disinformation designed to push forward other less honest agendas, which I have seen to also manipulate vulnerable groups. That is our job.
One difficulty I have encountered is how to advocate for those beliefs I agree with, when they are perpetrated as part of grander and more seditious approaches. How do you differentiate between the harmed and a malicious agent with a hidden agenda?
I know the return of COVID-19 is scary, and I know we have been through a lot as both individuals and as a people. But we have done so well to respond to threat, that this can be seen as another trial to be overcome. I won't portend to cite nationalistic sentiment, but more you.
You have survived an ordeal, months of drastic changes to your life. You have worked from home, worn a facemask, stepped out when you needed to, sacrificed your time and interests for the benefit of others. You have given the #NHS a lifeline to help those less fortunate.
When it comes down to it, every person has made a choice to engage with what has needed to be done. Sure, there may be doubts about the data, this is natural in science, and especially with something new. A year from now we will know much more. Thats how it works,