OwO

“Quantum physics is this incredible sect of of physics, which basically…

With like, Newtonian physics — I think of it as heteronormative physics — where its basically ‘What are the fixed universal principles that govern the world? If I do A, will B happen? What are the formulas that’ll tell us anywhere in the universe, “What will happen if I input this?”’

Quantum physics is equally a “real” sect of physics that basically looks at subatomic particles — so the very smallest things in our universe, not the macro things — and they contradict basically everything that Newtonian physics shows us. So, the most famous experiment is the Double Slit Experiment, where you fire an electron and it should go through the left or right hole. And then every now and then, it goes through both at the same time. And we don’t really know why. And sometimes, the same subatomic particle is in different locations at the same times.

Exxon knew.

They knew, 50 years ago, that they were going to murder the planet and our species with their oil.

And they acted.

Oh, how they acted!

They created a campaign of lies to distort the public perception of climate change.

https://exxonknew.org/

Exxon knew.

They knew in ‘73, when their researchers told them: plastics would never be recycled. There would not be a cost effective way to recycle plastic.

And they acted.

They created a disinformation campaign to convince us plastic COULD be recycled.

https://www.npr.org/2020/09/11/897692090/how-big-oil-misled-the-public-into-believing-plastic-would-be-recycled

That campaign - the little recycling logos on our plastics, the upbeat videos about a future where plastic was part of a circular economy of use and recycling - convinced us to buy, wash, and sort plastic.

90% of that plastic was never recycled. It never will be.

NONE of those splashy campaigns - the announcement that all NYC school plastics would be recycled, the recycling in national parks - ever worked. They all lasted long enough to get some upbeat press, and then they quietly shut down.

This week’s NPR/Planet Money investigation by Laura Sullivan doesn’t just talk to the ex-chief lobbyists, now serving as belated Oppenheimers, lamenting the impending destruction of our planet.

It also talks to the current round of executives who have announced a fresh round of plans to recycle plastics - completely disingenuous, insultingly obvious distraction tactics to convince us that their projections of TRIPLING production by 2050 isn’t a form of mass murder.

Then Sullivan circles back to those retired executives, the ones who oversaw the first disinformation campaign, and they confirm that this latest round of promises are literally the same tactic, barely updated for a world on fire.

The world is on fire. My sky has been orange all week. Our family’s socially distanced meetings with friends in parks or back yards have been cancelled because we cannot breathe outside.

Exxon - and Chevron, and the rest of Big Oil - knows.

In a secret recording released to the New York Times, oil execs meet to cheerfully discuss how they will burn the world and murder us all but make a buck in the process.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/12/climate/methane-natural-gas-flaring.html

Their plans for climate change don’t involve reducing emissions - they’re building bunkers and hiring mercenaries to keep us at bay when we come for them. They know what they’ve done.

Exxon knows.

Exxon knows.

When I searched for the “Exxon Knew” campaign to find a link for this piece, the top of Google’s search results included a blisteringly expensive ad for a disinformation site, paid for by Exxon.

The sky is orange. The oceans are choking. The air is unbreathable. Your body is full of microplastics.

Exxon.

Fucking.

hey! i’m kicking off the #ADHDInvasion hashtag for adhd awareness month with a comic about CONSEQUENCES, and how my lifelong failure to react to them has been a huge source of frustration for me and for the ppl in my life who rely on me. even worse, it makes me seem apathetic or careless to others, when in reality it weighs really heavily on me - i just struggle to show it.

the best way i’ve found to deal with this is accepting that shame-based motivation DOES NOT WORK AT ALL for me (which is hard to do, when it’s all that’s been modeled for you by parents/educators/bosses) and try to replace fear/shame based consequences with positive outcomes: i.e. instead of “everyone will be so disappointed in me if i don’t do this,” sometimes it’s more helpful to think “if i do this on time, i’ll feel so relieved, and everyone will be happy that i pulled through.”

“they” is more inclusive than “he/she”

“themself” flows more naturally than “him or herself”

“they” is less clunky than “(s)he”

“I shouldn’t like to punish anyone, even if they’d done me wrong.” —George Eliot, The Mill on the Floss (1860)

“A person can’t help their birth.” —William Thackeray, Vanity Fair (1848)

“But to expose the former faults of any person, without knowing what their present feelings were, seemed unjustifiable.” —Jane Austen, Pride and Prejudice (1813)

“Every Fool can do as they’re bid.” —Jonathan Swift, Polite Conversation (1738)

“So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses.” —King James Bible, Matthew 18:35 (transl. 1611)

“God send every one their heart’s desire!” —William Shakespeare, Much Ado About Nothing (~1600)

“Now this king did keepe a great house, that euerie body might come and take their meat freely.” —Sir Philip Sidney, the Arcadia (1580)

“If … a psalme scape any person, or a lesson, or els yt they omyt one verse or twayne…” —William Bonde, The Pylgrimage of Perfection (1526)

“And whoso fyndeth hym out of swich blame, / They wol come up and offre a Goddés name” —Geoffrey Chaucer, The Pardoner’s Tale (~1380)

“þan hastely hiȝed eche wiȝt on hors & on fote, / huntyng wiȝt houndes alle heie wodes, / til þei neyȝþed so neiȝh to nymphe þe soþe [Then hastily hied each person on horse and on foot / hunting with hounds all the high woods / ‘til they came so near, to tell the truth]” —William and the Werwolf (transl. ~1350-1375)

Violets are blue

Singular “they” predates

You don’t learn the Spaniard’s name, to my memory, until the Sicilian leaves him at the top of the cliffs to fight the man in black. While the Spaniard, whose name is Inigo, is waiting, the novel suddenly pauses to tell you the entire backstory of this Spaniard named Inigo Montoya.

You learn about a swordmaker named Yeste and another swordmaker named Domingo, who were good friends. Yeste lived in the city and was a fine enough swordmaker, but every once and a while he would get a job he couldn’t do, and so he’d ride out and enlist the help of the more temperamental and talented Domingo, Inigo’s father. And you learn about the six-fingered man who came one day for a sword beyond all others, and how this ended in the six-fingered man killing Domingo, and how the orphaned Inigo disappeared on Yeste and went to travel the world to learn sword-fighting. And you learn about how Yeste accidentally became a very famous swordmaker, and how he kept on raising prices and increasing the wait time in the hopes of getting all these kings and princes to go away, because he was getting old and fat and too rich. And then Inigo comes back and they reunite. And then you learn about how, despite becoming a great swordsman, Inigo falls into despair and starts drinking simply because he can’t find the six-fingered man he’s sworn to kill. And how the Sicilian came along and hired him.

And then suddenly, the novel goes back to the cliff, and the Spaniard is supposed to duel the man in black. Only, the Spaniard is now known to be Inigo Montoya, with a tragic backstory and a very important quest! And you’re kinda like, “Oh, man, is Inigo going to die now?!”

And then, just a little later, the giant Turk is left behind by the Sicilian, to fight the man in black where Inigo failed to stop him. The reader is now told that the giant’s name is Fezzik. And, while the giant Turk named Fezzik has to wait around for the man in black to show up, the novel pauses again to tell you the entire backstory of this Turk named Fezzik.

You learn about Fezzik being born large and strong, and how this made his life very difficult, because people would make assumptions. And you learn about how Fezzik’s parents tried to help him stand up for himself a bit more. In the book, it’s Fezzik’s mother who declares, “Life is pain. Anyone who says differently is selling something.” And you learn a lot about Fezzik’s pro-wrestling/fighting career and various tragedies, and so on and so forth, everything that led Fezzik to this one moment.

So, by the end of this, you’re back in the countryside and you know all about Fezzik, who’s had a rather difficult life. And you’re a lot more invested in the outcome of the fight between Fezzik and the man in black.

I think the movies absolutely made the right choice in removing these extended backstories, because they would have taken up too much time and they’re really not necessary in such elaborate detail. The point of these backstories, as I see them, is to get you to be invested in Inigo and Fezzik, who are both so much more than the Spaniard and the Turk, for when they come back later. The movie accomplishes this very efficiently through the charisma of the actors and through the dialogue during these two fight scenes, which actually simultaneously helps improve Inigo and Fezzik’s respective relationships to this man in black, and makes it easier to believe Inigo and Fezzik and the man in black would trust each other later in the movie. In the movie, you’re given just enough of Inigo’s backstory to set up his conflict with Count Rugen, and the actors’ performances sell the history there just fine!