⚜️A Saint Devoid of Patience⚜️

That said, any important posts will from now on be tagged #Saint's Archives. The important posts in question will be things like site workarounds for tumblr and other sites (such as search function workarounds because the search function is garbage here), helplines and hotlines for those who need it, totally not piracy of video games/movies/adobe softwares, computer tips (like how to disable that bitch Cortana to stop her using up your ram), a few funny things, and other stuff. I don't have individual tags for those at the moment because I'm bad at being tidy, at least on here.

"I would welcome every immigrant fleeing ICE into my home and protect them."

and like a few posts down was "There's so many homeless people in my area now. They're ruining my favorite spots😟"

"Sorry, the homeless people don't have enough Victim Points™."

Reminds me of this stupid post a while back;

I love how their baffled silence at the stupidity is supposed to be a victory. The person might've meant something like a government training program.

The obvious difference is that the person in the story wasn't actually virtue signalling. Just saying that homeless people should meet the same standards as everyone else.

Jakub Godziszewski, b. 1989, Polish.  Pomegranate Samurai, 2021, mixed technique, 70 x 50 cm.

She got the idea for the study while walking with her advisor at Stanford to discuss her thesis topic, and the paper she eventually published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology in 2014 is sharp enough that it should have ended the seated meeting on the day it came out.

She ran 4 experiments on 176 people. Same person tested twice. Once sitting, once walking. The creativity tasks were the standard ones psychologists have used for decades to measure how good a brain is at generating novel useful ideas.

81% of participants in the first experiment produced more creative ideas while walking than while sitting. In the second experiment, 88%. In the third, 100%. Every single person walked into a more creative version of themselves. On average, people generated 60% more novel useful ideas the moment their legs started moving.

The skeptical question is the obvious one. Maybe it was the fresh air. Maybe it was the scenery passing by. Maybe it was the change of environment doing the work, not the walking itself.

Oppezzo killed every one of those explanations with one experimental decision. She put people on a treadmill facing a blank wall. No scenery. No fresh air. No environmental change. Just legs moving in place while staring at white drywall. The 60% boost held.

Then she ran the experiment that closed the case completely. She took participants outside in two conditions. Half of them walked through a Stanford courtyard. The other half were pushed through the exact same courtyard in a wheelchair. Same outdoor stimulation. Same scenery passing at the same speed. The only difference was whether the legs were moving.

The walkers produced dramatically more novel high-quality ideas than the wheelchair group. The outdoors did almost nothing on its own. The walking did everything.

She also tested the opposite kind of thinking. Convergent thinking. The kind where there is one right answer and you have to narrow down to it. Word puzzles where 3 words share a hidden fourth word that connects them. The seated participants did slightly better on these. Walkers got slightly worse.

Walking is not a general intelligence enhancer. It does one specific thing. It opens up the divergent search inside your brain. The part that generates options. The part that produces unexpected connections. The part that takes a problem and finds five ways into it instead of one.

When you need to converge on the single right answer, sit down. When you need to find the answer in the first place, get up.

The mechanism is now well understood. Walking selectively activates what neuroscientists call the default mode network, the system inside your brain that runs when you are not consciously focused on anything. The DMN is where mind-wandering happens. Where memories cross-reference each other. Where ideas that have been sitting in separate folders inside your head finally bump into each other.

When you sit at a desk and force yourself to concentrate, you suppress the DMN. When you walk at a natural pace, the executive part of your brain gets just busy enough handling the walking that the DMN comes online and starts doing the work that focus was blocking.

The most useful finding in the entire paper is the one almost nobody quotes. The boost did not turn off the moment people stopped walking. Participants who walked first and then sat back down stayed elevated. Their next round of seated creativity work was still significantly better than people who had been sitting the whole time. The rest lingered for at least several minutes after the legs stopped moving.

You do not need to do creative work while walking. You need to walk before the creative work. The brain holds the state.

I was blocking people via this l*rd-whoreon blog(transandrodork doing a 'what about men' on a post about murdered trans women) and just.

Influential feminists abd feminist groups responsible for making studies on sexual violence and influencing rape definitions in various countries openly atate that women cant be rapists/abusers.

Countries that tries to make rape gender neutral have actually been opposed by feminist groups.

To blame "rape culture" or "patriarchy" for ideas and beliefs that are promiment and perpetuated in the feminist movement is just silly.

I moved to Germany and the first thing I learned is that Germany doesn't actually have "free healthcare". It has government-subsidized private insurance, which is a totally different thing.

Like, you can claim it's the same thing in Russia, because you technically need to have health insurance in Russia too, but it's more of a bureaucratic formality there and you pretty much only interact with them when you need to have your card issued or if you want to explore the (far better) private options.

In Germany, you interact with the insurance a lot, because there's no centralized state hospital system. There are hospitals, but all of them are owned by different organizations, mostly Christian/charity orgs. But you're unlikely to spend a lot of time there, because every single specialist you will need who accepts your Gesetzliche insurance is likely doing private praxis next to a vape shop under the train tracks three cities over.

... still, I actually prefer this system. The doctors at least have basic manners and are not so thinly-stretched for resources and overwhelmed with clients that they just don't care. I mean, they do have to face those things, just not to the same degree as in Russia, you know?

Some things that are covered by free insurance in Russia are not covered by social insurance here, but others are. Most importantly for me, transition care. You do need to go through several layers of bureaucratic hell, but in Russia you'll also be paying out of the pocket for most of it. Here, my stack of estrogel costs me just 10 Euro for three months, which is life-saving, as I dropped HRT back when I was in Russia, because it became so unaffordable.

Let me explain

So at the very core, we have a movement of people with very specific principles. They argue that society MUST be collective and that classes matter more than individual rights. The rights of the individual are overruled by the rights of the class. How the classes relate depends on how the deciders and formulators arbitrarily rank them at any given time, but it's vague and deliberately so, so a multitude of people with self-interests cooperate to make them and their principles the system by which to determine this.

Class struggle theorists make no distinctions between the state and culture, and see the two as one and the same. Therefore, the state should dictate culture, and the people should follow it like good little robots. They reject notions of empirical truth and replace them with subjective, socially constructed truths by committee. What is right is a popularity contest and what adheres to the foundational principles the hardest. Everything else can shift any which way the wind blows.

These people have a very specific brand and way of doing things, and will make arguments assuming their point of view is already true and the operational logic of reality. If you reject their authority, you see their delusion for what it really is. A power grab. If you make the mistake of assuming they're legitimate, you find their logic leaves no room for even argument. Not because it's good, but because it's circularly self-agrandizing and affrming. Their beginning premise is, "I'm right."

And what they did was they framed their argument in a way that it appropriates the insecurities and tries to champion what they tell minorities are their "struggles," muddling the language of their rights and freedoms with their class-struggle ambitions. So they aren't allowed to champion their own struggles, they have to go to the class struggle theorists in order to be represented at all. It gives the anti-capitalists the clout that their movement is about civil rights or minority rights, and the means to get there is simply an afterthought with consequences they're not responsible for.

In reality, it's just a bunch of Marxists using minorities as shields and speartips to push social theories that conform to their principles and gatekeep aspects of our government, legal system and culture by asinine proclaimations they're POSITIVE are things, because how else could their system be true?

Find any kind of minority, they'll put it on a pedestal and make a big show about how more populous, adjacent minorities are actually oppressors of the little baby minority, and their group is looking out for their best interests. But it was never about helping minorities, it was about latching onto them so they couldn't even have a legal struggle without also representing Marxism, and Marxism gets to use legitimate civil rights struggles for illegitimate riders into the rooms where it's debated how best to remedy and service them.

They push this stupid expectation as a way to indirectly abolish culture from legitimacy as well as privilege certain groups while disadvantaging another (the majority.) Saying it's perfectly acceptable to negatively select against "the majority" (white people) but a crime and tragedy if it positively selects for whites.

They enable the narcissistic ethnocentrism in smaller groups without reprimanding it too much, in order to get them to be complicit with their power and give credibility to their authority, out of self-interest.

The only reason to read stuff that you know will be repulsive is if it also has triumph. Someone overcomes their hardships, people stand up against injustice, the perpetrators get justice. Maybe, maybe there's a point if someone makes to stand up in a perfectly reasonable way and fails, because it teaches how not to do it.