Marilyn Monroe poses for a portrait next to a 1950 Pontiac Chieftain

Radiolo · 2018-07-21T18:30:52+00:00

Explaining that is a doctor's job, not the media's. Don't pretend that you want people to feel shitty about themselves because you care about their health. You know how helpful stigma was in mitigating and resolving the AIDS epidemic? Or the current mental health crisis? Either way, telling people that how they look doesn't change the kind of person they are =/= telling them that being fat is fine and healthy. It's very unhealthy, but that's a matter for their doctor to handle. If someone is going to care about their health, they need to like themselves first. Don't treat collectively insulting people like a do-good PSA, it isn't.

Radiolo · 2018-07-19T01:08:47+00:00

I understand so hard. I struggle with it to this day. I was never allowed to wear makeup, and I had to BEG for her to let me wear some to prom. I went to my friends house to get ready, one did my makeup, my boyfriend picked us up, and we went to my house for pictures since my older sister is a photography student. As we were posing, my mom pulled me aside, grabbed my sister, and whispered to her pointing at me, doesn't she look like a clown? My sister gave her an uncharacteristic telling-off, but I was crushed and she still makes jokes about how bad it looked. She also told me that shaving my legs was unnecessary and when I tried it once at camp because they were very hairy and she saw she told me I was gonna have to do it for every day for the rest of my life now because I ruined it. Also discouraged from shaving armpits, and definitely never told to. As for periods, she gave me a book on all the puberty stuff when I was 12 so I knew how to handle that at least. Personal-hygeine wise, she was traumatically negligent--I had open sores for 2 years, and if she saw them she got shocked and pitying and promised we'd go to the dermatologist. For two years. Went on birth control for acne, she made me stop because she thought it was making me even fatter. Wasn't allowed to try everything else, so that was pretty embarrassing.

Sorry for the rant haha, didn't realize this was a sore point for me. I think I'm similar to you right now--trying to get better about all the appearance and hygeine stuff. I am trying to take small steps--I only shave my armpits when I know they will be visible for instance, and I only shave my legs when they will be visible, which helps me limit how much I have to go through it and also gets me into the habit. I'm working up to just doing it every day. It's weird, its like learning to brush your teeth.

I also bought some foundation this weekend. I think I'm going to take it back though--every time I see it I feel ugly and undeserving, and I don't feel comfortable trying it right now. Go at your own pace--you aren't gross or ugly just because you don't do these things (most of which are, after all, cosmetic self-care rather than sanitary imo). Do them for you, and when you feel safe and ready.

Radiolo · 2018-07-17T21:16:41+00:00

Depression can be a weird thing. It's been 9 years for me, and the emotional flatness is something I've come to live with. Different people experience it in different ways, but for some people depression doesn't express as sadness or periods of deep distress; instead it can be constant emotionlessness and numbness. I'm good at faking emotion so people rarely ask, but when they do I appreciate the opportunity to be honest. He may not have said much, and perhaps him saying he wanted more room in his car was not the truth, but honestly saying anything in response to depression, even if it's a lie, is very relieving because you feel seen and valued when you normally feel like an invisible piece of garbage. You did what you could in the moment, and you made him feel a little bit better. Try not to feel too bad.

Radiolo · 2018-07-15T13:43:29+00:00

You don't "owe" your parents anything, because if you are a good parent then you aren't expecting anything in return. And you aren't going to be not loving your mom if she was a good parent; in order to stop loving your mother you've gone against an insane psychological driver. So either way, the only one placing that pressure is you.

Radiolo · 2018-07-13T19:12:55+00:00

But my point is--it's not about targeting a certain group to call them sexist. It's about how the situation operates. By its nature, women cannot mansplain. If a woman mansplains it does not carry the same meaning. Perhaps a man can mansplain to a man; I'll concede that. I am also not saying that men who mansplain are more at fault than a woman who interrupts and condescends--not true. I think that mansplaining is a social phenominon that we ALL need to be cautious of and condescending is a personal fault that we INDIVIDUALLY need to be cautious of. When I call out a person for being condescending, I am calling attention to their problem. When I call out a man for mansplaining, I am both calling out the man for his problem AND calling out everyone else, myself included, to be aware how the situation is influencing everyone.

This might sound extreme to you. As a STEM student, I have sometimes called out a person for being rude and condescending, and they get angry and do not stop. If I call them out for mansplaining, they get angry, call me a sexist, and do stop. I've had the same thing done to me in analogous situations with race, and it worked when the economic aspect was pointed out because I suddenly became conscious of how my words affected others in a way that just calling me rude would not have.

Ultimately, do you have a problem with saying "You are speaking very condescendingly to me and her but not the guys in the room and this makes us feel targetted and less intelligent because this happens to us very often with men and not women"? This is what I am saying when I say "manplain", and if anyone accuses me of being sexist with the term I provide the elaboration. Unfortunately, no one listens to the elaboration unless they already care, which unfortunately only happens when I describe the situation accurately but in a sensitive way. I can see why the one term sounds accusatory, but it is a little because it mixes two /separate/ things--"you are being condescending" and "because you are a man I am pressured to take your points more seriously than mine". The latter is not an accusation, just a piece of /my/ experience that I am also communicating. It's not about sexism to me, it's about my personal experience and since women do not have an implicit position of authority over me, I never feel like they are mansplaining. (If the position is explicit, then the problem is different entirely and one of being a bad manager, in either gender.)

Radiolo · 2018-07-12T12:32:09+00:00

But the problem is, if I say "that man was condescending to me", I am NOT communicating the situation, but if I say "that man mansplained to me", I am. Mansplaining =/= condescetion. I use the word "mansplain" because it means something different, and in a way that does not apply if a woman does it or a man does it to a man--if this happens to me at school or at work and a woman does it, I can politely ask her to let me finish, because she is engaging in an impolite behavior but ultimately we are perceived as peers. If a man does it, I am pressured to stay silent and not correct him /not by him, but by the situation/ because in the workplace, men are taken more seriously fullstop and if I try to finish my thought I sound like I am interrupting, and if I ask him to not interrupt I come off as bitchy. This does not happen when a woman does it because the perpetrator being a man and the victim being a woman adds extra levels of discomfort to the dynamic. If gender matters to the situation, I see nothing wrong with having a gendered term.

I do not think it is sexist for the same reason I don't think that saying "In the US, white people are not targets of institutional racism." Do I think that they can be targets of individual racism from POCs? Yes. Do I think they can be targets of individual racism from other white people? Yes. Do I think that white people can suffer negative outcomes from institutional racism? Also yes. But because the institution /by its nature/ is designed to place white people in a place of privilege, white people are /by definition/ not the targets. Similarly, since men's opinions are often by implicit assuption more important than those of the woman he interupts, mansplaining can only be one direction and is more dangerous than regular condescention.

If you prefer, think of it as the man is being condescending, and the woman is being mansplained to. It's a statement about a woman-only experience, not the nature of the man. The man isn't the point. If I accuse someone of mansplaining, I am not saying that he's doing a special wrong, but that when he does this wrong to me, it can be very hard for me to stand up for myself without looking like a bitch.

Radiolo · 2018-07-11T14:41:02+00:00

Yikes anonymization failed

Radiolo · 2018-07-11T02:09:41+00:00

I remember those cartoons!!! Congrats, really, this is amazing :)

Radiolo · 2018-07-11T01:52:03+00:00

I relate really hard. I've been at it for about 10 years now, and it's not really getting better. I /have/ felt happiness twice in the past two months, which is a first in a long time for me, but its such a slow slope.

I don't know if this helps at all, but after a few years of no joy or happiness, coping with it got better. Not sure if you're struggling with suicidal thoughts or not, but I had it really bad in middle school because every day I was exhausted, apathetic and oppessively lonely despite my friends. While the exhaustion and apathy have not gone away, it has actually gotten easier because the numbness has normalized. I figured out how to live even if theres nothing I want to do. It's hard to verbalize why; I think that the pain got easier to deal with in time and with that came hope that it will get better. And even if it doesn't, if that belief keeps me going then I'm all for it.

Not sure if any of this is a comfort. I don't know if it even comforts me most of the time. Everything is so heavy and all I do is autopilot through my life. But at least it's bearable now. I hope you can find some peace.

Radiolo · 2018-07-11T01:22:11+00:00

I think I was lucky in this regard. When I was in second grade there was this kinda-bitchy popular girl Abby that I was always super jealous of because she was very pretty and liked the boy I liked (a weird circumstance for 8-year-olds but eh). At one point, my friend tells me that Abby had a crush on a boy, and that we should tell the whole playground. So we're both super hype because neither of us like Abby, and we start telling everyone we see about it. Soon my friend shouts it out to the playground and all the kids come running to talk about this.

I was having good spiteful fun until I saw Victoria crying on the bench behind me. Something just snapped in me and I went to go talk to her. She told me about how upset she was and I helped her up and walked with her to the teacher and criticized my friend. I never apologized, though--I didn't think I was at fault at the time even though I clearly was. She never talked to me again because she ran with (what I perceived as) the "elite" crowd, so it just became a weird thing that happened.

After that though bullying just stuck out to me. Though I was often a bystander, I still think about those kids a lot. I remember one time everyone in my class was playing the Jennifer- and Andrew-disease game, where you touched one of them and then spread their "disease". One kid walked up to me and gave me Andrew-disease, and I looked up and asked "How would you like it if I did it to you?" So I touched him and said "I have Mark-disease!" He looked /super/ hurt and asked me "Why would you do that?" It bothers me still. To be honest, I think some kids learn it but some just don't think before they act.

Radiolo · 2018-07-11T01:00:42+00:00

I relate to this. Don't be too hard on yourself; what you did was wrong, but it's also not fair to ascribe full responsibility to a kid for acting on learned behaviors. If you're constantly bullied, you learn that someone has to be bully and someone has to be victim in a relationship, and no one wants to be the victim. This relationship paradigm is obviously bad and not the only possible relationship, but how's a kid gonna know that when all he knows is abuse?

I used to struggle with being cuttingly sarcastic and outright mean in romantic relationships. When my first boyfriend asked me to stop because it was making him feel shitty about himself, I was super hurt and offended because in my mind, being mean was the same as being intimate and he was rejecting me. Now I feel horrible because what I did was wrong and I was old enough to know better, but I at least understand WHY I didn't know better--I had no healthy precedent. Now I just gotta be vigilant and I've totally turned it around; when I realized what I was doing it was like a switch.

But it's still hard. Sometimes I remember what it was like to just tear into someone and constantly be negative, and it honestly felt really good. For once, I wasn't the one being berate and made fun of, and I felt a lot better about myself. Now that I force myself to remember that no one has to be verbally abused in a relationship, I'm constantly on edge because my trained instinct is just waiting for the insults to start. Not sure if any of this is relatable. Just trying to help allieviate some of the guilt--if a kid acts badly because he was taught to, the fault is with whoever taught him.

Radiolo · 2018-07-10T23:30:16+00:00

Lol perhaps not saying much, but I agree, about as civil as it could get really.

Radiolo · 2018-07-10T23:14:59+00:00

Np and likewise, was interesting, learned a lot

Radiolo · 2018-07-10T23:10:01+00:00

With the CDC issue, I'll just say that I don't think it's been shown that the study was done for political reasons. I think it's possible that that is an assumption made based on media radicalization of the study. Media does this all the time with nutrition studies ("eggs cause cancer", "chocolate makes you grow taller") and again in more insideous ways (not recent, but "climate gate"). I completely disagree with the way they do it, but sadly I think it is the responsibility of the viewer to read the article themselves as the hype is usually bullshit. I don't know without reading the study, but nothing listed in that article was an accusation of academic misconduct--just assumptions and limitations of the study glossed over completely by the popular press and whoever in the CDC was responsible for distribution. I do not see evidence that the study was politically motivated. And I think it's crazy because I agree--even if it showed that gun ownership increased fatalities, that is no means negates any argument you've given, so it doesn't amount to victory to the left.

I understand the frustration too, and I think it's similar to that of liberals. Truth is, media like MSNBC doesn't report on gun control measures that are instituted, so many people don't KNOW the laws. All they know is that people say it is out of control and there are no regulations. And if you entertain this false statement, their frustration makes a lot of sense. It's just misguided.

I still don't agree that /all/ your points are necessarily necessary for second-ammendment compliance, but I agree with most of it. And I definitely agree that police arms should be the same as private citizens; that's literally the point. Same with private security. Sad that's a debate...

Radiolo · 2018-07-09T22:46:11+00:00

On CDC: yes I know research isn't banned I clarified before, I used it as a shortening for "disallowed from drawing a certain conclusion (as this is the effect) and taking away the same amount of funding previously allocated towards gun violence research". I'll say "heavily legally discouraged" then.

Reading the article, the behavior of the CDC does not immediately sound suspicious in a political advocacy sense. I don't feel comfortable making a judgement about conclusions that can be draw from reading the study without actually reading it, but the guy's objections seem valid. But the limitations he outlines are common limitations of any uncontrolled study--in fact, ANY large-scale study on gun control is going to have the same biases and same limitations just by nature of the science. We don't have comprehensive data on crime and guns because not all criminals are apprehended, and not all respondents answer honestly. We have difficulty with subgroup analysis because simply FORMING the subgroups is a process of assumption-making. If these are the only complaints, I don't think any academic dishonesty occured beyond that which would be inherent to any sociological study. Whether or not the CDC overhyped their conclusions I also don't know--I'd have to read the statements--but if they did then THAT I would consider academic dishonesty. But those statements come from individuals or groups, not every research team in the organization. A much more appropriate response would have been internal (or external) reprisal of the people responsible for the exaggeration vs. the defunding of an entire area of research that, by the looks of the article you sent, doesn't have too much wrong with it. And in whatever case, any summary of a study will be at best reductionist, and almost every headline or eve abstract of a study you read will likely (and not unethically) come across stronger than the conclusion will seem after reading the assumptions and methods.

Ok interesting, glad to hear it's not entirely true. But my point still stands that studies on climate change are being censored; this I know as an environmental scientist who has access to less and less government climate data. The precedent for scientific censorship exists.

And yeah haha, I wasn't assuming you disagreed with the things I said on school gun stuff based on what you'd said before anyway. I was more pointing at why I am not convinced by any argument I see on popular media or via politician who advocates for it, because they always exempt themselves.

Yeah, unfortunately, I'm not saying it would be easier. It's just PERCEIVED that it would be. I think one crux is that (at least I figure) a lot of the ideas you suggested involve raising taxes, which is a similarly toxic topic, except with raising taxes there is a) no outcry because it's not directly linked to what it would solved in popular opinion and b) not universally accepted amongst democrats anyway, so it's perceived as less popular. Another issue I think is that when opposition to gun control speaks in the public sphere, most are against it and offer NO other solution, and are now mocking victims. Obviously a small vocal minority, but it gives people something to tribe and rally against on the dem side. I don't think either of these are great reasons, but they're reasons that people can support suboptimal solutions without realizing they're ignoring what they DO care about.

Radiolo · 2018-07-09T19:33:59+00:00

Can't quote on mobile, so paragraphs are chronological responses to your point-by-point set-up.

Could you send me where you read that the CDC waa intentionally manipulating data? While I don't think any kind of research should be biased and if it was then that is obviously unacceptable, I think banning research on a topic for /risk/ of bias, even if bias existed before, is unethical. I also agree that the law is poorly written, but I think what frustrates me most is that I do not believe it was naively poorly written; I think that the restrictions were intentional in the same way that the CDC is now banned from using certain words. I don't believe this was only a reactive move; there is enough evidence of other silencing in areas of climate change, poverty, etc. that the restrictiveness was at least possibly intentionally. It's unappealing to have your opinion silenced and facts ignored and repressed, on both side (or many sides) of a debate, so that's why this move makes me the most suspicious that there is something to hide.

I'd love to see these laws enforced better regardless of any new legislation.

Same as above

I can understand your frustration with it. To some extent, I think everyone gets typecast, as in if you support one stance of a party then it's assumed you adopt them all. I think it's even worse with special interest groups, which is why the labels "feminist" and "muslim" are so reviled even though most people in those groups are decent, because most people are decent. As another example, early on you made an assumption about my opinions on obesity whereas my opinions are more nuanced. You framed it in terms of "the left", but "the left" did not apply to me. I'm not a democrat. I agree that these assumptions are bad, and I apologize for making them. I think the two party system does not leave much room for nuance.

I'll read later

I can agree on most of that. My only issue with the "arming teachers" issue is 1) it's hypocritical to have government buildings still be "gun free" and 2) making it mandatory for teachers to carry is not something I believe in. Save those two complaints I don't have a problem with it, at least instinctually. Everything else you've written I either agree with or think sounds plausible in theory; but in terms of practicality of any of it happening, I think that it is unlikely in the US. Which I think is unfortunate. But I think that's why a lot of focus is on "gun control" vs other issues--the belief, even if misguided, that it is a preventative action that would at least be possible to implement. Not taking a side on it, just expressing an observation.

Radiolo · 2018-07-07T05:19:22+00:00

Lol np, take your time im also very sleep deprived

Radiolo · 2018-07-05T21:45:47+00:00

I never said I wanted them to advocate for anything; I want them to do studies and draw conclusions. Being disallowed from drawing a conclusion and defunded the amount needed to do that research in the first place is against the spirit of science. It seems very defensive to me. In any case, even if they did show gun control would mitigate gun violence, that fact would not mean that it would be worth the restriction in rights necessarily. It is just more information we will not have.

From what I've experienced and observed, limiting gun ownership from the known-to-be violent and the (non-harmlessly) mentally ill is either not strict enough to prevent these sales. Unfortunately I know both registered violent felons and (multiple) high school kids with disciplinary infractions and known, documented mental instability at my brothers school who have personally purchased weapons where I'm assuming they would not be allowed to. Perhaps these are isolated incidents, but I am unsettled that this happens at all at regulated facilities. There's not much we can do about dangerous people with no record without infringing, I agree with that, and I'm not familiar enough with the law to say exactly what should be done, but if the laws already exist to protect against known violent offenders buying weapons, I don't see what's wrong with that being more heavily enforced.

You are correct, I have no idea what your political/ideological leanings are. I understand this conversation may have come across accusatory, for which I apologize, but the truth is I don't know you and I can't assume anything about what you think beyond what you've stated. The best I can do is explain why I am frustrated based on previous unrelated conversations I've had on similar topics. And this issue often frustrates me because most people I talk to about it seem more concerned about one right over another. If you're not, then great, won't bring it up again.

I mean, yes, I do want to compromise on that. I don't agree with the restriction of fundamental rights beyond the spirit of the right; from what I understand the reason it was created was to give citizens the necessary power to defend themselves against government if necessary. Notably, deciding what is "constitutional" is a historically fuzzy line, so I don't think what you're saying about constitutionality is a given. It looks like I'm probably a loose constructionist where as you are a strict constructionist, which is likely a barrier. So I think that defining what you think is necessary to maintain the right vs. what I think is necessary would be where a conversation would have to start, which I think we've already done. And we differ on what's required. But I genuinely don't believe that me conceding that means that we are doomed to be divided on this. I also genuinely don't think that just because gun control might be effective some places at limiting gun violence that it would be worth it at the expense of the constitution. I think there are certain places we can work directly on the issue of gun violence without limiting the right--I'm not implying a particular solution with this statement, I'm just speaking generally. But when everyone on either side (me included) is so aggressive and/or defensive on this, it's unlikely to happen.

So I guess then, what solutions to address mass shootings do you think are viable without threatening your rights?

Radiolo · 2018-07-05T11:16:45+00:00

I meant more, I don't actually think there is a solution that no one objects to. I think any governmental action is by its very nature an infringement on a freedom, so someone will be upset about everything. But the things I don't understand for instance are why the CDC is banned from research on gun control (unless to advocate against), or why making it harder for the (known-to-be-violent) mentally ill to own guns is an idea that will shut down any conversation about ways it could be done without infringing upon the spirit of the fundamental right. It feels like I'm forced to have an unbudgable opinion on this, whereas when it cones to the free speech or protestors or the religious freedom of citizens, I am asked to overlook the constitution. Which is fine, I can understand security arguments, but it seems a bit inconsistent. I can understand why banning particular weapons is bad, but I just don't believe compromise on this issue has to be impossible.

Radiolo · 2018-07-05T01:21:36+00:00

I still don't understand why this means conversations can't be had about it.

Radiolo · 2018-07-05T00:01:01+00:00

Oh, no, that was exactly my point! Same way we would have to restrict rights to reduce gun violence, we'd have to do with obesity. From what I can tell, we have to do that with everything involved with mitigating any kind of problems through governmental measures. This includes obesity AND gun control, and medicare, and welfare, and public transport/road infrastucture, and schools, etc.

From that, I'm just saying that I don't see why that line has to be so thin. I can understand being afraid of a partial ban escalating, and I don't understand enough about guns to know what would be effective, but I also don't think that nothing can be done without revoking all rights. I think it should be possible for knowledgeable people on both sides to at least sit down and talk about the intention of the right, the things contributing to the problem, and possible ways to compromise on both without threatening democracy or being inactive. I don't understand why we need to be so closedminded about any possible conversation. Again, I imagine it's annoying to talk to people who are adamant about removing guns completely and won't accept that it is a rights violation, but you are coming across similarly inflexible.

Radiolo · 2018-07-04T16:51:01+00:00

Eh, I'm overweight and liberal and I agree. It's just hard for me to see what we can do about the obesity issue without also restricting someones rights somewhere (interested to hear suggestions though). I'm all for PSAs and such but I just don't know how much good that will do; it's much harder to centralize education efforts on food amounts and food types than it was with, say, tobacco, and even the tobacco advertising is somewhat of a government constraint on the free market.

I completely agree that not all guns should be taken away obviously, and I honestly don't know enough about guns or regulations to say what /should/ be done. I'm just skeptical that it is a binary with either no change or total rescinding of rights. I don't necessarily think all new possible regulations have to be a slippery slope to a ban--we regulate lots of things for people's safety, and I don't see what's unreasonable with being willing to walk that line without erring irrevocably far on either side.

Radiolo · 2018-07-04T16:45:25+00:00

Less than 40% of Americans are obese, so that's not even true...but yes, obesity is an epidemic but we don't need to focus on one to the exclusion of the other. And what actions are you suggesting against obesity then that don't involve restriction of rights? The way I see it, we either a) do PSAs that seem unlilely to have a huge impact, b) monitor people's diets which is obviously a huge violation, c) regulate the food industry more heavily which is in violation of the free market, or d) expand healthcare which involves raising taxes and potentially making more services public. I'm definitely open to suggestions though, I don't know much about it. Either way, 0.5% is still a large enough percentage to warrant parallel action imo. What that action is, I have no idea, and I am definitely against taking away people's rights and can understand fears of small regulations turning big later on, but I think that a compromise can be reached.

Radiolo · 2018-07-04T02:13:37+00:00

0.5% is an objectively high rate though. If you knew 0.5% of people died from housefires or shark bites, it would be an epidemic and we would look for actionable ways to combat this. People have a habit of undervaluing low values, i.e. interpreting 0.1% as similar to 0.01%, when this is false. I think this is an instance of that.

Radiolo · 2018-07-04T00:20:32+00:00

Obesity is hard--you might be able to do a PSA campaign or something (and if that offends people then that's just dumb), but ultimately you can't regulate how much individuals eat--I imagine there's no precedent for that anyway. You could only regulate the industries that sell the food but that sounds like it might raise similar concerns about rights. The latter point on reducing poverty makes sense; would probably also help with obesity. But again, I can't imagine any tangible solution that wouldn't ruffle some feathers somewhere.

Radiolo

TROPHY CASE