Howdy, it's me

Even if you’re using it “correctly” I still don’t think it’s that helpful of a term because a lot of games have “crunchy” elements but are not “crunchy” all the way through. They may have some mechanics where you have to check a bunch of modifiers, and others where there's just like one or two.

Over fifty years of data show a peak in PFAS (also known as "forever chemicals") content in seabird eggs in the 90s, followed by a decrease as regulations went into effect. The most recent findings show a 70% decrease of most common PFAS.

We are making genuine progress! Producers are dramatically altering how much they use PFAS and how much gets released in effluent, but also there's a lot better understanding of how to remove PFAS from the environment!

soliloquy by an immortal cave painter.

I guess my posts were worded as though I was searching for advice on how to make breathing exercises work for me, but I was more interested on understanding why they don't, and for the people for whom breathing exercises do work, why they do work.

However I have received such varying and contradictory answers on how breathing exercises are supposed to work and what they are doing physiologically, that I think answers to these questions are impossible.

I believe the reason it feels concerning is that I am trying to heal my medical fear, and the way I was taught this was supposed to work is that I was supposed to expose myself to the feared thing while using "coping skills" to mitigate the fear.

However, for me, all the common "coping skills" that purport to be able to shut down or reverse the physiological reaction of fear do not work.

The success I have found with healing has been through engineering experiences that feel safe, not controlling my own physiological responses of fear. I'm not even sure if "coping skills" broadly are appropriate here; when I was experimenting with "safe" medical experiences, getting my vaccines at the grocery store pharmacy, I found it comforting in some ways to acknowledge and feel those physiological responses. The physical process of fear in my body is, essentially, my body's preparedness to protect itself, and I envisioned my fear as my werewolf-self: a huge wolf wrapping her body around me and growling in warning while I get my flu shot.

I even found it helpful to imagine myself "transforming into the wolf" so to speak: surrendering control to the fear. I have a hard time articulating why this resulted in feeling confident during the potentially scary situation rather than avoidance.

"Surrendering to fear" in common speech would mean leaving and not getting the vaccine. Is it really true, or is it just an assumption that if a person surrenders to their fear, they will only avoid?

I think it's possible my problem with breathing exercises is much more fundamental than technique. Fundamentally, such "coping skills" are about reversing and shutting down the process of fear, and the assumption that this is good and desirable to do comes from a hierarchical view of humans as consisting of a "lower" body and a "higher" mind, with the mind having "evolved past" the body necessitating a relationship of power and dominance over the body by the mind.

This leads to the view that what the body knows is false and cannot be trusted, which is the fundamental idea underpinning the diagnostic category of "anxiety."

What I came to, entirely on my own and because I had no other option, is that my fear, or my wolf-self, tells me about my safety needs. Not only do these safety needs include physical safety from harm, they also include the need to have human dignity and to be protected from forceful violation. Fear that is connected directly to one of these safety needs is what I call "Saw trap" fear: it is primal and gut-wrenching and deeper than cognition, because it directly defends the self. It feels like how it feels to be caught in a trap and have to cut through your own leg to escape.

I think you can't cognitive-behavioral-therapy your way out of fear of rape, gruesome mutilation, or excruciating pain (not the thought of these things, but the imminent, certain threat) because it's essentially hardwired. That's what fear is FOR. You can't big brain yourself into no longer being an animal except through an extreme and maladaptive level of dissociation.

And I reckon that doing breathing exercises doesn't make you feel any better about having to saw off your leg either. And even if it did, why.

So a lot of my medical fear is that "animal-with-its-leg-in-a-trap" desperate biting clawing fear, a visceral certainty of unbearable harm and violation to the body, and that fear lives in me, in the deepest parts of my body and mind. There is a deep foundation of unsafety that my body learned from trauma.

So, my theory is that attempting to stop the physiological processes of fear does not work as a "coping skill" because it is suppressing a primal instinct that is foundational to the safety of the self.

In fact, I think that breathing exercises may be somewhat triggering to me at this point in my life because they activate the memory of feeling not allowed to be safe, not allowed to feel, not allowed to defend my body from harm. The Wolf fights me when I try to control my own breathing because she exists to protect me and she feels that I am preventing her from doing that.

In the years since I began unlearning the mainstream view and re-learning the animal self, my "anxiety" has been much less disruptive and paralyzing. But it goes completely opposite and contrary to everything I was ever taught and I'm trying to figure out how to work with that.

Why does it work to hand over control to the Wolf when getting my flu shot? Well, my fear exists to protect me, and in a strange way, her watchfulness and readiness to defend when I am in a vulnerable situation is reassuring. It's kind of an assurance that if the fear gets to be too much for me to be comfortable, she'll know what to do. And after the flu shot, the Wolf gets to feel that she successfully kept me safe.

And then. The neighbor dog (owned by the landlord) decided this was her only place to play. For four days straight, she made a beeline right for the corn, jumping on it, breaking the stalks, dashing through and making a nest on it. The first few days I tried to run her off, asked the landlord to keep the dog away, and splint the stalks. Then I gave up. I was so mad, I broke the rest myself so I wouldn't see the dog do it.

"Hot Date (pt. 4/6)"

PART 1 | PART 2 | PART 3

More Tiff & Eve: My Site | Webtoon

Support on Patreon

I went, "What. no. she/her."

"How does that work? With she/her/hers and they/them?"

I stared at her. "What are you talking about?"

"Well you came out as-" and I said, "I'm asexual."

She replied, "Like an amoeba, I know."

"Oh. My god. No. Mom. It doesn't- it's not the asexual you learned about in biology. I didn't come out as a single celled organism."

With heavy relief, she said "Oh, it has a different meaning?"

@batmanisagatewaydrug @utracjuszka

Candela Obscura is the strawman put forward in this post, but it’s a game that actually exists:

"Yep, that's me. You're probably wondering what's going on, and how I got into this situation in the first place."

[The stop unfreezes for a few seconds as this terrified target takes a few more desperate running steps, pausing again just as someone is about to grab his ankle]

"Well, the truth is, I still actually don't know what this was about. But I do know how I got here: I can never resist an angry mob. Now watch me get this fucker."

One of her family told us that she had given birth yesterday evening, but that Child Protection services had taken her baby away with no warning, claiming that she wasnt prepared to look after him. What had happened, is that she'd literally only just given birth -- hadn't even passed the afterbirth yet, is holding her blood-coated, crying, newborn baby to her chest -- and a nurse asked what her feeding plan was. She was tired from the birth and distracted by the brand new baby in her arms and thrown off by the timing of the question, but still, she managed to answer, and said she planned to breastfeed him whenever he was hungry.

Well apparently that wasn't enough of a plan for the hospital staff, who reported her and claimed that she was unprepared to look after the child, and claimed that had no social supports, and that the baby was at risk if left with her. All because a brand new mother, 30 seconds after giving birth, didn't have a PowerPoint presentation ready to go that cited the timing cycle she would feed her kid on, and instead simply said that she would feed him when he was hungry.

Child Protection services showed up, took her kid, and she was told to show up to court the next day to contest custody if she wanted her baby back.

So a woman who had given birth less than 24 hours prior was forced to rally her family and show up to court to prove that she a) had a feeding plan for the child, and b) had enough social supports to justify reclaiming her baby.

It was one of the most appalling things I'd ever seen. I don't even know if she won her case. They didn't know at the time we saw them, and after that brief interaction on the stairs, i never saw them again. I sincerely hope she got her newborn baby back.

That was about 5 years ago. And the exact same kind of thing is still happening today.

News broke today from a South Australian whistle-blower of the appalling treatment new mothers frequently receive, including hospital staff taking the baby away from the mother "for medical tests," only for the mother to then be told, with absolutely no prior warning, that the baby was not going to be returned to her.

Here's the article, and here are some excerpts:

Archeologists can't tell for sure whether someone was assigned male or female when alive from bone structure, but they can tell whether someone was an archer. Longbow archer, anyway. The way their arms and shoulders were strongly muscled in a very asymmetrical way is pretty much unmistakable, and they were muscled enough that it's visible in their bones. If someone's seen what archers look like, they can tell whether a stranger they've never seen before can shoot a bow or not.

Yeah, you could definitely play a scenario where violence is the morally correct answer for laughs, but you don't have to.

If you wanted to play it straight, one might imagine a game about fighting a fascist state where all of the bosses are The One Good Nazi types with very sympathetic, human reasons for collaborating with the regime – there's the Sad Dad who's only committing mass murder because they're holding his kid hostage, the idealist who genuinely believes they can reform the system from the inside, the moral coward who rationalises their atrocities as harm reduction because if they quit, whoever replaced them would be even worse, etc. – and all of the talky nonviolent options for dealing with them involve compromising the player character's principles.

The final boss is naturally a totally unsympathetic Hitler 2.0 type, but before you can fight him he hits you with the old Mustapha Mond monologue, and if you've let even one of his buddies off the hook, he turns the tables on the conversation-fu trope and persuades the player character to stand down.

The largest dam removal in U.S. history. So successful that the salmon that haven’t run freely in the river for literally over a century came back the next year. Not steady progress over a decade as expected, the very next salmon run they came home. No one alive saw salmon in that river outside the hatcheries kept by native’s tribes and the Department of Fish And Wildlife scientists desperately trying to save them. One of the activists who helped bring the suit spoke of their dying grandmother making them promise to bring the fish home, and they didn’t know how that was possible, but they spent decades doing it.

The legal basis for successfully suing the power company who owned the dams was Indigenous treaty rights to eat the fish. Eating the fish was the one thing in a century that succeeded in being a clear and legally binding right that superseded the desires of white capital and industry. I have been going to the public interest environmental law conference off and on for 20 years where a lot of organizing for Undam The Klamath happened. I’ve heard updates about every legal tact they tried as they happened, and they tried everything.

There are healthy, thriving salmon, trout, and lamprey in a rewilding and recovering Klamath River right now as a direct result of Indigenous people eating them. Of their legally binding right to eat them. They sure as fuck care more about those fish than any white vegan ever could. They are salmon people that the Creator sent Salmon to feed, while charging the People with protecting and stewarding them. It’s not possible to learn about salmon and trout in the Pacific Northwest without learning this, and it’s unambiguously racist to dismiss this symbiotic relationship.

The white vegans are trying to get all hunting and fishing banned in Oregon, and that’s quite possibly the single most catastrophic thing that could be done to the animals here because we killed off all the major predators of creatures like deer and without anything hunting them their numbers will explode, eat all the vegetation, destroy the ecosystem, and then die along with everything else in that failing ecosystem. Controlled hunting of deer is vitally necessary for the deer to survive. This is something Native people know, but patronizing racist savior-complex white people refuse to listen to.

I have a whole collection of Oregon’s Public Broadcasting’s documentaries about Klamath River or the larger story of fish and people in the region. If you watch nothing else, watch Klamath Dams Are Coming Out, First Salmon Ceremony, After The Dams, and First Decent (Native made). It could not be clearer that the salmon are being protected and nourished by the people who eat them, and that stewardship is a massive part of their creation myths. But it contradicts political vegan dogma so they don’t listen.

Anyway apparently Mr. Eclipse made 5000 years' worth of solar eclipse graphics, which you can find the simpler versions of here

There’s no stated reason. They just pretend to not be alive. We usually can suspend our suspension of disbelief here because when it’s something like a video game or an emoji because any odd occurrences is perceived as a glitch or something similar but the actual reason why they aren’t too hung up on this kinda shitty lot in life isn’t said

They get something out of their current relationship with humans (like in toy story)

They have some specific reason to hide that they’re alive, like they die if they’re seen (like in the christmas toy)

They perceive themselves as sentient, talking creatures, but humans can’t understand them. They just see a squeaking mouse or an inanimate hot dog or whatever. 

and the last one is what most animal movies do, and it’s like, not devoid of weird implications but you can see where it mostly works.

but barnyard is the outlier here: it goes with tier one: the animals can talk and walk on two legs but just pretend that they can’t for unstated reasons. 

in the history of the barnyard world non human animals, at some point, decided to just pretend to be unable to speak. a “cow” or a “coyote” or a “hen” do not exist as we know it in the barnyard universe. the baa of the sheep is false; the ewe doesn’t understand it either. they only made up that noise to hide the fact that they speak human languages. a dog barking and running on all fours is a facade. animals naturally walk on their hind legs and made up whole postures just to appear non sentient.

and for what? what do they gain from this? they have no rights and no voice by their own choice. at one point a donkey claims the farmer is a good person because he’s vegan and a pig mentions bacon - this is not a fantasy universe devoid of death and misery and meat. do animals, in hushed whispers, remind their children not to sob in their real voice as they’re taken away? do the dogs not beg for kindness when they’re tied up and hit? do cows and chickens not cry for their life in the slaughterhouses? does a rat not scream a human scream when the trap misses their neck and only breaks their spine? Why? what is the point? They loose so much and have everything to gain.

anyways does everyone remember this really awful cat. it only appears in one scene but i can just sense the porn of it that would pop up if i googled it’s name

With Otis briefly being indoctrinated into a Buddhist cult of cows who revere a “Sun Cow”, which is revealed to be a cow with qualifications to become Kobe beef. As part of their traditions, the designated “Sun Cow” is heavily pampered, before being slaughtered and served for a Japanese restaurant. This is treated as a great honor amongst them.

This nearly happens to Otis before he is rescued, though the cow cult lets him go without much fuss. Presumably they continue sacrificing their own to become high quality Japanese meals afterwards, but respect Otis’ decision not to go through with it.

Very interestingly, farm animals are not only aware humans eat them, but also seem to support it to varying degrees, or otherwise are surprisingly neutral. Even as Otis resists the idea of being eaten, he’s not exactly lifting a hoof to stop the practice in general. It’s just that ingrained into their society as a fact of life, in spite of the morbidity of it. Otis and his friends are seemingly the only ones who don’t want to be eaten, and are treated as being ‘immature’ for not wanting to go through with this sort of cultural obligation to be consumed, which relates overall to the themes of the movie, Otis not willing to accept the responsibilities his father and other animals in the Barnyard expect from him.