and miles to go before I sleep

Well actually YES but also:

Restricting food Does Stuff To Your Brain. "Restricting" doesn't mean stopping when you're full. I feel like this is what gets misunderstood a lot. It means placing rules and limits on food that supercede what your body is signalling that it wants. Let's use cookies as an example. Restricting would be:

- I can only have cookies when I deserve them.

- I can only have cookies when I'm alone.

- I can only have two cookies.

- I can only have low-calorie cookies.

- I can only have cookies on set days, or so-called cheat days.

- I can't have cookies.

- I can't have cookies in the house.

- I'm bad when I eat cookies.

- Cookies are a bad food and I must compensate for having eaten them.

Whether or not you stick to the restrictions you set, your brain is learning to be an anxious mess around cookies. It might want to avoid anywhere that has cookies. It might feel shame for wanting or eating cookies. It might get exhausted from suppressing the craving and decide to binge. It might go into binge mode every time you eat cookies because you've taught your body that This Will Not Be Available Whenever. It might feel ridiculously important to eat all the cookies while you can.

I know we're all so used to constantly talking about food, diets, weight and bodies, and it's completely normalised to look at absolutely everything you eat and assign it the level of guilt you're gonna feel for eating it, and to brag about not eating this and that, and to announce that you know it's a Naughty Indulgence when you eat anything sweet.

But oh my god, it's such a huge weight off your shoulders to just let yourself eat cookies because you wanted cookies and stop when you feel satiated and know that the cookies will be available next time you want cookies because you don't need to earn them in any way. Because a brain that knows it can have cookies whenever it wants cookies, doesn't crave cookies all the time. Nor does it feel any self-loathing when it does crave cookies.

Source

Christianity is supposed to stand for freedom, justice, compassion, and peace. But what kind of peace ignores the suffering of millions? What kind of moral leadership honors representatives of a regime responsible for brutal repression, executions, terrorism, and the destruction of countless lives across the Middle East?

How can the pain of the Iranian people be ignored so easily?

More than 40,000 young Iranian souls have been taken by this bloodthirsty regime. Mothers still mourn their children. Families still wait for justice. Entire generations have grown up under fear, torture, imprisonment, violence and executions.

And yet their representatives are welcomed, honored, and rewarded.

What message does this send to the victims? To the mothers whose hearts were broken? To the young people who sacrificed everything for freedom?

Peace without justice is not peace.

Dialogue without accountability becomes hypocrisy.

And honoring the representatives of oppression while victims remain unheard is not reconciliation, it is betrayal.

If religion is truly meant to unite humanity, it cannot do so by covering up crimes, silencing victims, or legitimizing cruelty. The world should stand with the oppressed, not decorate those monsters.

This is not dignity.

This is not justice.

And for many people who have suffered under this islamic regime, it feels absolutely disgusting.

Still the papacy let a child killing terrorist in that gathering, shook hands with him and included him among the recipients of that award instead of kicking him out or cutting relations with these blood thirsty mullahs all these years

Instead, what had transpired was a routine process that essentially amounts to a participation trophy given to every ambassador after two and a half years of diplomatic service. Thirteen separate ambassadors received the same recognition in the same batch alone.

Importantly, despite how social media posts framed the issue, it was not presented in person, and the Pope doesn’t seem to have been involved at all—it was signed by Cardinal Pietro Parolin, the Vatican’s Secretary of State.

Now, it’s a legitimate question whether the timing of such a recognition was well thought out by Cardinal Parolin, and if the Vatican should maintain relations with the Islamic Republic more generally.

Read theory. Read the commentaries on the theory. If you don't understand, that proves you haven't read enough. If you disagree with any of it, that proves you're a bad person.

Follow the right influencers. Support the right politicians. Follow the leaders of our movement. Until we decide they're bad people, anyway.

March in our protests. Commit to our boycotts. Donate to our causes. Don't ask what we hope to achieve or how we think we're going to get that effect from what we're doing. Only a bad person would ask those questions.