Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
ā Live Streamingā Interactive Chatā Private Showsā HD Qualityā Free Actions
Free to watch ā¢ No registration required ā¢ HD streaming
People continue to fall back on harmful assumptions about the link between body shape and personality.
The formal connection between personality and body type in academic research goes back to 1940, when the psychologist William Sheldon established the somatotypes, which are three generalized body shapes that he theorized could be linked biogenetically to personality: ectomorphs, mesomorphs, and endomorphs. Ectomorphs are people who are tall and thin, and Sheldon expected them to be shy and anxious. Mesomorphs are muscular and broad, and theyāre expected to be domineering and competitive. Endomorphs are soft and round, and theyāre assumed to be lazy and affection-seeking.
Since 1940, the somatotypesā links to personality have been broadly debunked on a scientific level, with everything from Sheldonās study methods to his assumptions about personality being called into question. And for good reason: Somatotypes were a direct result of the academic popularity of anthropometry and eugenics before World War II.
So fatphobic stereotypes trace back to discredited bad science and eugenics! How (not) surprising.
Just remembered something from long time ago. I had a blog in russian that I had since high school. And when I was in uni some person with unidentified blog (no description and no posts) went through it till the beginning, liked almost all of the posts and commented on some. I thought it was creepy cause even though I wasn't a teenager anymore I had really personal stuff out there that I wrote when I was a child. So at some point I just commented something like "what is the purpose of all that, I dont understand why are you interested in my childhood ramblibgs" and they got offended and left. Yeah, I didn't explicitly say you can't read old posts but they didn't have to interact with them like that. I know it could be innocent but I couldn't verify that so I was creeped out. Reflecting back I think I was right. And I deleted that blog after a while.
I just had the most offensive shit idea in my dream. Prisonworld, like disneyworld, where rich people can come and interact with the most dangerous criminals without any bars like with animals in petting zoo and it was an SNL sketch š¤®š¤® it was so ridiculous, unfunny and cringe (like most snl shit tbh). In the end one girl was with her parents and they encouraged her to scratch one guy's stomach and he said "ah, whatever, scratch me, little bitch". I'm shocked, it's so on brand for snl, why did my brain show me this shit? And yeah, everyone was white š cause, again, snl sketch.
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
ā Live Streamingā Interactive Chatā Private Showsā HD Qualityā Free Actions
Free to watch ā¢ No registration required ā¢ HD streaming
I'll let you in on a secret. I have a doctorate in education, but the fieldās basically just a 100 years old. We donāt really know what weāre doing. Our scholarly understanding of how learning happens is like astronomy 2000 years ago.
Most classroom practice is astrology.
Before the late 19th century, no human society had ever attempted to formally educate the entire populace. It was either aristocracy, meritocracy, or a blend. And always male.
Weāre still smack-dab in the middle of the largest experiment on children ever done.
Most teachers perpetuate the ābankingā model (Freire) used on them by their teachers, who likewise inherited it from theirs, etc.
Thus the elite āLyceumā style of instruction continues even though itās ineffectual with most kids.
Whatās worse, the key strategies weāve discovered, driven by cognitive science & child psychology, are quite regularly dismissed by pencil-pushing, test-driven administrators. Much like Trump ignores science, the majority of principals & superintendents Iāve known flout research.
Some definitions:
Banking model --> kids are like piggy banks: empty till you fill them with knowledge that you're the expert in.
Lyceum --> originally Aristotle's school, where the sons of land-owning citizens learned through lectures and research.
Things we (scholars) DO know:
-Homework doesn't really help, especially younger kids.
-Students don't learn a thing from testing. Most teachers don't either (it's supposed to help them tweak instruction, but that rarely happens).
-Spending too much time on weak subjects HURTS.
Do you want kids to learn? Here's something we've discovered: kids learn things that matter to them, either because the knowledge and skills are "cool," or because .... they give the kids tools to liberate themselves and their communities.
Maintaining the status quo? Nope.
Kids are acutely aware of injustice and by nature rebellious against the systems of authority that keep autonomy away from them.
If you're perpetuating those systems, teachers, you've already freaking lost.
They won't be learning much from you. Except what not to become. Sure, you can wear them down. That's what happened to most of you, isn't it? You saw the hideous flaw in the world and wanted to heal it. But year after numbing year, they made you learn their dogma by rote.
And now many of you are breaking the souls of children, too.
For what?
It's all smoke and mirrors. All the carefully crafted objectives, units and exams.
WE. DON'T. KNOW. HOW. PEOPLE. LEARN.
We barely understand the physical mechanisms behind MEMORY. But we DO know kids aren't empty piggy banks. They are BRIMMING with thought.
The last and most disgusting reality? The thing I hear in classroom after freaking classroom?
Education is all about capitalism.
"You need to learn these skills to get a good job." To be a good laborer. To help the wealthy generate more wealth, while you get scraps.
THAT is why modern education is a failure.
Its basic premise is monstrous.
"Why should I learn to read, Dr. Bowles?"
Because reading is magical. It makes life worth living. And being able to read, you can decode the strategies of your oppressors & stop them w/ their own words.
"Something I've learned while in law school is about the social construction of crime. I work in a legal clinic on wage theft cases, where employers have "improperly paid" workers by not paying, paying below min wage, withholding overtime, paid sick time, etc.
Most theft is wage theft. Meaning, the dollar value of stolen wages is greater than the value, each year, of all burglaries + robberies, shoplifting, auto theft, combined. Yet, wage theft is not a crime."
Below this tweet is an image comparing the cost of robbery, auto theft, burglary, larceny and wage theft in billions. Robbery only hits 0.34 billion, auto theft 3.8 billion, burglary 4.1 billion, larceny 5.3 billion, and wage theft accounts for greater than 19 billion dollars. The data is sourced from the FBI and EPF.
"If you steal $100 from your employer, you will get arrested. If you call the police because your paycheck is $100 light, the police will tell you to file a complaint with the AG, and the AG will settle the case for between $50 and $200.
(That's actually not true, because AG's only take on big cases where thousands of dollars are at stake, but they will settle big cases by typically requiring the employer to properly pay what is owed. No jail, no criminal record.)
If the AG doesn't want to take the case, it will give you a Private Right of Action to sue the employer in civil court for what you are owed, plus damages. It can take a 6 to 18 months to win at trial, and months or years to collect on the judgement if you win.
This is what we mean when we say crime is socially constructed. Not all social harms are criminalized. Not all actors committing social harm are criminalized.
I settled a case for $27k for three clients last year. We spent a MONTH negotiating the non-disclosure agreement because the employer stated if all his employees sued him and settled like this, he would go BANKRUPT. His business model DEPENDED on wage theft.
These employers go on to hold elected office. 45 famously used wage theft to improve his finances on construction projects, leaving a trail of victims in his wake. Some sued and he had to pay them. Others didn't have resources to pursue multi-year litigation + got nothing."
Then the user responds to someone else asking a question.
The question:
"Can you explain this reasoning? Why expanding criminal liability is a bad idea? For whom?"
The user replies:
"What should we do about it? Criminalize employers or decriminalize theft or something else?
Wage theft shows that we believe restitution is important. Giving the money back is important. Currently, AG keeps track of bad actors and will increase future penalties for bad actors.
It also shows when harm is committed, we don't have to lock someone in a cage or label them a felon, both of which destroy years of life even after the sentence is over. We can demand restitution instead of punishment.
It also shows how ridiculous the label "high crime neighborhood" is. And the arbitrary and racist response of police surveillance in HCN. Because we defined it that way.
Consider the social construction of murder:
The people committing the most harm aren't in jail, don't live in high crime neighborhoods. And "black people commit more crime" is true only because of how we have defined crimes, and how we then surveil their community in response to find more crimes.
There are so many orgs trying to address harm and create accountability within community + without incarceration. We call ourselves prison abolitionists.
Just a few: @ byp100, @ survivepunishNY, @ justicehealing, @ DeeperThanWater, @ BlackAndPinkBos and @ BlmBoston"
If someone works a full shift at a restaurant or other place of business but needs to depend on tips to make rent and cover food and other necessities, they are being underpaid.
If someone works for you and you underpay them for that work, you are stealing money that rightfully belong to them.
If your business model depends on underpaying your workers for the labour they do, then your business model depends on stealing money from your workers.
And if your business model depends on stealing money from your workers, you are not a businessman, you are a crook.
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
ā Live Streamingā Interactive Chatā Private Showsā HD Qualityā Free Actions
Free to watch ā¢ No registration required ā¢ HD streaming
i hate the prison abolition discussion so much, because like, whenever you actually talk to prison abolitionists about the extremely obvious problems with their opinion, it resolves with either crazy nonsense (in the communist utopia there will be no rape or murder, when prison is abolished we will simply kill rapists), weasel bullshit (sure, im a prison abolitionist, but i dont think prisons should be ABOLISHED, i just think they should be like, smaller and kinder) or the infuriating "the very fact that youre asking what we would do about rape and murder proves youre stupid and closed minded"
okay this isnt totally fair, some people bite the bullet and are like "yeah, not punishing rape and murder is worth abolishing prisons" and i can respect that
Let's use a metaphor. Say we are trying to invent waterproof fabric. Since it hasn't been invented yet, one conclusion we may come to is that it is impossible. One could bring out hundreds of thousands of examples of fabrics and clothing and have water seep right through. From this data, one might say that a quality of fabric is that water can go through it. But is that true? Karl Popper's contribution to the philosphy of science is useful here. There is no positively proving something, you have to use falsification.
What actually lets water go through fabric is that there is a big enough space between the fibres that water can fit through it. If we close up all of these, it becomes waterproof. And so, it was made and now we have it.
So too can we say the same thing about the causes of crime. There are a lot of material conditions that lead to crime just as there are a lot of holes in fabric. But this is finite, and if we get all of them then its done.
The only logical out to this is if there is some quality inherent that makes this impossible. Not much we can do about osmosis in cell membranes, for example. But is there a comparable crime gene inherent to humanity? Or is it perhaps more likely that we simply don't have the tools to close up everything yet?
In the meantime I'll be trying to close up everything I can.
but that still doesnāt answer the question? iām for abolishing prisons but this is just another āweāll just make crime not happenā
āwe simply donāt have the tools to close up everything yet. in the meantime iāll be trying to close up everything we canā so what do we do with serious criminals between now and, hopefully, a day where we can just stop crime from happening?
It's two separate questions. The idea that cops / prison prevent or deal with violent crime is an assumption that's finally being examined.
The problems of assault and stealing aren't solved by cops / prison - there's lots of evidence to suggest the opposite.
Punitive approaches to crime appease the idea of justice; prevention is one of many tragically ignored & underfunded sciences. There are a lot of data to suggest that meeting people's basic needs prevents a ton of crime, not just stealing, but rage & frustration & dominance crimes also.
Not being able to taste food is the worst side effect for me. So heartbreaking. Eating is one of the last pleasant things left in my life š
And my brain remembers the tastes but when I actually eat it's just vaguely salty, sweet or sour. Sometimes I'd forget and try smelling something. Fool. There's no smells.
never make a suicide joke again. yes this includesĀ āi wanna dieā as a figure of speech. swear off of it. actually make an effort to change how you think about things.
find something to compliment someone for at least 4 times a day. notice the little things about the world that make you happy, and use that to make other people happy.
talk to people. initiate conversation as often as you possibly can. keep your mind busy and you wont have to worry anymore
picture the bad intrusive thoughts in youe head as an edgy 13 year old and tell them to go be emo somewhere else
if someone makes you feel bad most of the time, stop talking to them. making yourself hang out with people who drain you is self harm. stop it.
Personally i went from āguess Iāll dieā jokes to āIF I HAVE TO BE HERE FOR 5 MORE MINUTES I PROMISE YOU I WILL BUY JUST, AN ARRAY OF CLOTHES.ā and other wild hyperbolic stuff. Just replace the death part with something ridiculous and off topic. Its very entertaining
This also works with calling myself things like stupid, worthless, trash, etc. Even if you do this jokingly to yourself, your brain still believes it, and keeps up the cycle. Seriously, I found that when I stopped saying these things about myself, even jokingly, it made a massiveĀ difference.
Hereās a tip I picked up from a friend thatās helped me a lot ā replace self deprecating jokes with ironically self aggrandizing jokes
Like every time I trip and fall, instead of saying ālām just a disaster humanā I say āIām the epitome of grace and beautyā
Or like, when I draw a picture Iām not 100% happy with, instead of saying āmy art is trashā I say something like āyou know I think itās time we replaced the Mona Lisaā
When you do that you get to make a joke, but youāre ALSO getting practice building yourself up, yāknow?
And eventually it becomes a reflex and you get so used to it that you can say nice stuff about yourself even when you ARENāT joking
On my way from my bfs country (it's in the Caribbean) I had an interesting day in London. But then the next day my flight was delayed for more than 24 hours.. fun times.
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
ā Live Streamingā Interactive Chatā Private Showsā HD Qualityā Free Actions
Free to watch ā¢ No registration required ā¢ HD streaming
With the IPCC report and climate change in the news, a couple of reminders are due:
"The wealthiest 5% alone ā the so-called āpolluter eliteā - contributed 37% of emissions growth between 1990 and 2015."
The so-called āpolluter eliteā must change their lifestyles to tackle climate change, a report says.
"Luxury consumption by the rich concentrates economic activity and delivers negligible extra wellbeing, yet sucks up vast amounts of resources."
Demand would shift from luxuries to necessities.
"Affluent individuals can emit several ten thousand times the amount of greenhouse gases attributed to the global poor."
The billionaireās new book, a bid to be taken seriously as a climate campaigner, has attracted the usual worshipful coverage. When will the
"Half of all our economic activity ā all the mines, all the factories, all the power stations, all the shipping, and all of the ecological impact thatās associated with these things ā is done to make rich people richer."
Ecological breakdown isnāt being caused by everyone equally. If we are going to survive the 21st century, we need to distribute income and w
"The wealthiest 0.54%, about 40 million people, are responsible for 14% of lifestyle-related greenhouse gas emissions."
We need to move towards āsufficiency-orientedā lifestyles.
The rich are primarily to blame for the global climate crisis!
The Leeds University study looked at 86 countries and came to broadly the same conclusions about the rich.
"The worldās superyacht fleet uses over thirty-two million gallons of oil and produces 627 million pounds of carbon dioxide emissions a year . The worldās superyachts consume and pollute more than entire nations."
Mansions, superyachts, luxury cars, and private jets produce more carbon emissions than whole countries. Researchers are calling it āgreen c
"The grim truth is that the rich are able to live as they do only because others are poor: there is neither the physical nor ecological space for everyone to pursue private luxury."
Increased spending power leads to environmental damage. Itās time for a radical plan, says Guardian columnist George Monbiot
The wealthy pose our single biggest obstacle to environmental progress.
They coarsen our culture, erode our economic future, and diminish our democracy. The ultra-rich have no redeeming social value.
"The people who are actively cranking up the global thermostat and threatening to drown 20 percent of the global population are the billionaires in the boardrooms."
As the world faces environmental disaster on a biblical scale, it's important to remember exactly who brought us here.
There no undivided, undifferentiated "humanity" that caused climate change. It is the fault of the ultra-rich, of capitalism, and of an economic system that prioritises growth over all else.
A better world is possible. It doesn't include rich people.
This person gonna help me out getting around London (I'll have one day there) and she asked my pronouns āŗāŗāŗ its the first time anyone asks that about me š„ŗ
turnnoffyourmind
dailybridgerton
2087
kianamaiart
annaxmalina
blakekathryn
jacobvanloon
discoholicmusic
dededos
kaledo-art
