Two thoughts just collided in my head.

One:  The crisis of China not wanting our trash any more. We haven't actually been recycling stuff, just selling it to someone else.  Millions of tons of it.

Two: The crisis of landfills filling up.  If you think about it, this translates to "We're running out of holes in the ground." 

Collision results:

If our trash is worth shipping to the other side of the planet, it's worth shipping somewhere closer. 

Like, some place that still has holes in the ground. 

So we can put the carbon back in the ground where it came from.

EXACTLY where it came from.

Commentary:  I don't know if I'm brilliant or stupid this morning.  I'll finish my coffee now.

There's a reason why cis people don't understand what trans people get so upset about pronouns.

I'm here to break that, so we can stop hurting people. 

Now, before you cis types get all defensive, saying, "But I don't mean to be rude, it's just a hard habit to break." let me tell you this.  Misgendering someone by accident makes it worse.

If you have read any of my other posts on social issues, you know that my prescribed cure for ANY ignorant attitudes is to get to know people.  Get out there, meet people, talk to them, and especially, listen to them.  

I have gotten to know some wonderful people, who don't fit any stereotype, he, she, they, mugwump, and more.   I concentrated on using correct pronouns to be polite.   That's the wrong reason to get the pronouns right.   It's not about being "polite".  Listening to trans people talking among themselves, I hear them objecting to pronouns, not because of the implied social role, or a sense of discrimination, but something much deeper. Let's dive.

When we try to understand someone, we look for a point of contact. We do this by asking ourselves how we would feel in a similar situation.

"How would I feel if I wasn't allowed to marry the person I love?"

"What would I do if someone wouldn't hire me because I have freckles, and the courts backed them up?"

"Could I cope if all my tax forms were in braille, and I couldn't get them in plain text because nearly everone else could read braille?"

So, we naturally ask ourselves, "How do I feel when someone calls me by a pronoun I don't identify with?"

But that's the wrong question. 

The cis answer to that question varies from "Can't that idiot see I'm wearing a dress?", to "How dare they call me a girl!"   Most often, though, it's not an extreme reaction. 

But, the trans folks I know feel very deeply about it.  These aren't hysterical people.  They're not the sort to freak out because someone bumped them, or demand free coffee because their name wasn't spelled right.  These are just regular people, who get along as well as anyone else.  Seeing a trans man tear up when he tells how his "supportive" family still refers to him as "she", I have to find the right question. 

When someone tells me I can't fix a car because I'm a woman, they're not denying I'm a woman.  When my doctor dismisses my pain because I'm fat, they're not denying I'm fat.  What similar situation then, can I imagine for transgender?  

Calling someone by a word they know in their soul does not apply to them...

How about, if someone snaps their fingers, or whistles to get my attention, as though I were an animal?

I think that is the right question a cis person should ask themselves about pronouns.

"What if everyone talks to me and about me as though I were a dog?"

That's why cis people don't get so upset by pronouns.  We haven't been treated to a constant background of this sort of treatment.  We get misgendered once in a while, by individuals we can easily dismiss as assholes or idiots.  Trans people have been misgendered constantly, by the entire world.  Even though the message might be "Good dog!" it's still the wrong words. 

Which gets to why doing it accidentally makes it worse.   

Once someone has told you their pronoun, they have basically told you they are not a dog.  If you use the wrong pronoun in the future, even though they keep correcting you, you are essentially saying, "Of course you're a person you cute little doggie!"  

I want to thank all the patient trans folx who put up with my cis shit, you're good friends, I love you all dearly.

I know I'm approaching wisdom, because I feel really, really stupid right now.

.

First, the source of the question.

part one: I complained to my eye doctor about a twitching eyelid.  She asked If there was any pain, and I told her there wasn't.   Examining my eye, she found an eyelash growing downward, scraping across the surface of my eye, causing ulceration and scarring.  She plucked the hair out.  I would have sworn I was not feeling pain, but I felt the relief immensely.  

Part two: I have been diagnosed for years with depression, the symptoms being crying randomly, and lack of motivation or physical activity.

The Question:  I am aware that emotional issues can manifest as physical pain, is it possible for that to work the other way?

In other words, is it possible that my "depression" is actually physical pain from something I am percieving as a mere annoyance, like the eyelash? 


.

 ---
"We have a choice of whether we are hurt by words."

I heard someone say this about an hour ago. 

I see their point... but the idea makes me uneasy.

There are certainly times when it's pretty clear that the speaker did not intend to hurt.   Forgetting that a name or status has changed.  Misreading someone's social flagging. Customary word usage that means something different in another culture.*  Those are cases where there is certainly a choice of whether or not to take offense. 

But, some words are meant to hurt.  They aren't just a slip or an error, they are a deliberate poke.  Surely the choice is different in those cases.  If someone calls me a "***", should I just blow it off?

 I don't think so. The choice would be what to do about the insult,  not whether to be hurt.

This is what bothers me about the idea.   I tell the toxic person not to call me a "***".  They then fall back on, "well, it was your choice to be hurt about it." or "I didn't mean that as an insult, it was supposed to be a joke."  They can then feel righteous, while I have been insulted a second time by being accused of being over-sensitive.

It's the difference between someone making punching motions with their fists into the air, and someone actually punching you.   One, you can laugh at, but the other really does hurt, and you really need to do something about.  At the very least, put that person on your "do not call" list.
 ---

* There was an interesting kerfuffle when a British friend offered to "come 'round and knock you up"

What most people need for home defense isn't a handgun, it's a taser.  I'll tell you why.

A taser won't put a hole in your woodwork.

Very few people who buy a handgun for home defense train with the gun.  (Some of you sensible people do, but most people don't)  So, they're more likely to miss the intruder than hit them.  There's a chance the intruder will take the gun away.


After all, home defense is about making the intruder stop intruding.  They don't have to die to do that, laying down and twitching is just as good.  Plus you don't have to pay for having the carpet cleaned by a special hazmat crew.

If your nosy teenage kids try to impress their friends by showing off your weapon, there's less likely to be a tragic ending.

Certainly, there are special cases, and individuals who have special security needs, but these people have access to tools and training.

For the average suburban homeowner who just wants a weapon for home defense, a taser is much more practical.

Besides, it's quieter, and won't get complaints from your neighbors.

IT'S HATE SPEECH!




IT'S HATE IMAGERY!

I have been seeing videos of people behaving badly being shared "to shame the bad people".  The preacher who burst into a children's storytime to rail about transgender; the lawyer in the coffee shop yelling at someone not speaking English; the woman attacking a black teenager at the swimming pool.
These videos are a trick to keep thoughtful people inactive.  We feel like we have done something by posting a negative response to these.  What is really happening, is that images of these behaviors are being seen by more people.  The masses of individuals who don't think deeply just see the video. That's what sticks in people's minds.  The negative commentary doesn't.
You know this, if you think about it.  YouTube is full of idiots imitating stunts badly, and making their own versions of popular videos.
Sharing or commenting on hateful videos SPREADS THE HATE.
Don't post, share or comment on these videos.  Report them, flag them, take them down.
We're being tricked into promoting evil.

Stop now!

 

Why everyone should read Uncle Tom's Cabin.

I know, you think you know all about that book. It has been called racist, and Tom has been denounced as servile and weak.

That's not how it is. Those complaints apply to movies and plays based (loosely) on the book. The story that people are familiar with is only a small part of the book, and Uncle Tom is a strong character. Tom was debased for popular consumption in the plays and movies.

It's not racist, it's about racism. This book is nothing less than a top-to-bottom, wall-to-wall expose of the institution of slavery in the US.

To understand the motives behind this book, it's important to understand some things about the time. Citizens were not divided sharply into Pro-slavery and Abolitionist. Most people were ambivalent about it. Slavery had been a part of their lives since birth. It was the basis of large sections of the economy. It had the glaze of normalcy that familiarity brings.

Abolishing slavery was an intimidating prospect. Even some slaves were anxious about such a large change. There was a possibility that "freedom" meant starving to death, because there would be no work, and no place to live.

The closest thing in the US today to the slavery debate is animal rights. On one extreme, we have people who see animals only as a resource. On the other extreme, we have vegans, who think we should not use animals at all. Most people are somewhere in between, having varying views along the lines of, "At least we should treat them well."

This is similar to how many people felt about slavery at the time. There was much discussion about laws to protect the welfare of slaves. Many apologists insisted that the cruelties described by Abolitionists were rare exceptions, and most slaves were well treated.

Harriet Beecher Stowe got fed up with it, and wrote this book.

She starts with Uncle Tom, who is in the situation apologists consider "ideal" for a slave. His position is more that of "old family retainer", than "property". He has been treated well all his life, and has had religious teaching. (This is the Victorian Era, remember, and Ms. Stowe, as a Christian, is concerned about the soul) Tom has helped raise the family's children, and has fatherly feelings toward them. They return this familial affection. Even though they are grown now, they still go to Tom for advice, as though he really were their Uncle.

At one point, the master of the house sends Tom into town to conduct a business transaction. He gives Tom a large sum of cash, and a pass. Tom does the business and returns. Other slaves ask him why he didn't run away. Tom, while he is intelligent, is not given to deep introspection, so all he can reply is, "It wouldn't be right."

This scene is what detractors of the book use to make "Uncle Tom" an insult. They claim that Tom is saying that slavery is "right", and he knows his place. Stowe makes it quite clear that this is not the case. Tom is an honorable man. He was entrusted with a task, and did not betray this trust. Besides, running away would mean abandoning his lifelong home and his family, to go somewhere strange, where he may or may not be able to find a place. These strong emotional ties were important to him.

The trouble starts when Tom's master gets into a financial bind, and sells him. Oh, he has every intention of buying him back, once he has straightened things out, and has sold Tom to a friend who promises to take good care of him. But, the reader knows this is not going to happen.

This is the beginning of a spiritual journey for Tom, who, while a good man, has never been tried.

Stowe uses this journey to carry us through every aspect of the institution of slavery. She even touches, in a coded Victorian way, upon sexual abuses. Through many stories, she methodically demolishes each argument apologists used to say slavery could be made "ok" through protective laws. She points out that, no matter how much affection or respect there may be between people, the simple fact that one has a financial value to the other poisons the relationship.

Step by step, Stowe exposes all the hidden workings of the industry of slavery. The cruelties are more emotional and spiritual than physical, and there are plenty of them. She keeps the story interesting, but includes a lot of sentimental Victorian tropes, such as the "child too good to live". If you like Victorian writing, you'll love these parts.

She gets in a dig at Northern Abolitionists who are terribly racist, and makes some rather pointed feminist remarks along the way. She shoots down the idea that slaves are somehow less than human, and don't suffer the way "real people" do, with the story of Eliza stealing her son and escaping with her husband to Canada.

Eventually, Tom winds up in the deepest pits of slavery, a cotton plantation. Here slaves are literally worked to death. After all the hidden cruelties heaped upon each other, it's almost a relief to get to someplace where it's out in the open, and easy to see. Then Stowe slams her readers with the ultimate horror.

These poor souls have had no religious teaching at all. When they die, their suffering will not be over, because they will be condemned to Hell.
(I know most of you aren't Christian, but remember that, to Harriet Beecher Stowe, and her culture, this was all very real, and a genuine horror.)

I highly recommend reading this book. It became a best seller for good reasons.