A chaotic mishmash of things I like and things I made.

And I didn’t really know what that meant, only that I always said no, but for some reason or another I was very annoyed and a fight sounded pretty good so for the first time ever I said “yes”

And I don’t know what I was expecting to happen, but I remember my mom just going “Okay, then. Let’s fight. What do you want to fight about?”

And I remember it occurring to me all of a sudden that the onus was on me to generate the energy to pick something to be mad about, and wishing she’d just do something worth fighting FOR me, but she just went, “I’m not the one who wants to fight. If you want to fight, you have to pick something to fight about”

The problem with claiming the label "ally" is that it subtly shifts the center of gravity from the cause to the self. It turns a verb (supporting) into a noun (an identity).

Once you've adopted the label, the point of the exercise often stops being about the marginalized group and starts being about your own membership in the Good People Club.

What if ally has just become another identity category - a performative merit badge we display to stay in the good graces of our social circles?

I'm not suggesting we should care less. I'm asking if we could care for better reasons. Could we support our moral positions without the expectation of a social reward?

A few years ago, I caught myself carefully drafting a social media post. I realized I wasn't trying to communicate something true, I was trying to communicate something acceptable. I was triangulating. I was checking the direction of the wind in my feed before committing to a stance.

That's...not moral conviction.

That's reputation management with a trompe l’oeil conscience painted on top. It looks like a window into the soul, but it's actually just a flat wall.

I don't think I’m alone in this.

When social reward is the primary driver, you will inevitably bend your principles toward whatever earns the most social approval (likes) from your specific tribe. Consistency goes out the window, because consistency doesn't care about your audience.

I oppose violence against civilians because targeting civilians is wrong - full stop.

Not because of which flag those civilians live under.

Not because of which conflict is currently trending on TikTok.

Not because taking that position will earn me a "yikes" or a "yas" from the people I respect (or the people I'm afraid of).

The principle holds universally, or it doesn't hold at all. If I only apply it when it's socially safe, I'm not operating from ethics, I'm operating from social conditioning.

The (valid) counterargument is that declared allyship has real utility. Public declarations normalize solidarity. They signal safety to vulnerable people. An LGBTQ+ teenager in a hostile town needs to know who the safe adults in the room actually are. Movements need visible bodies, not just private thoughts.

The problem isn't visibility. It's the direction the camera is pointing.

Are you showing up so that the vulnerable community knows you're there...or so your followers know you're one of the good ones?

The former is solidarity, the latter is branding.

I'm suggesting we support vulnerable communities for reasons that would hold even if no one was watching or following.

Moral consistency means opposing attacks on a community not to influence how we are perceived, but because our core principles (human dignity, rejection of collective punishment, the refusal to dehumanize) demand it.

It means the test isn't whether I like the victims or if my social circle thinks the victims are worthy.

If your commitment to a principle relies on a cheering section, a pat on the back or likes, you weren't driven by the principle - you were driven by the behavioral reinforcement - like a rat in Skinner's maze, waiting for the dopamine pellet of a notification.

I've realized I don't actually need anyone else to see me as an ally.

"I'm not really a doctor. I know that's what my ID says, but I never have been. Cheated the medical exams. What does a doctor these days need to know about manually resetting bones? When was the last time a top surgeon actually cut someone open? That's what the robots are for!

"Doctors these days read diagnoses off of computer readouts. For that, I'm perfectly qualified.

"But what good is it when I'm not connected to the main network? I'm bleeding. I've got glowing green pustules growing on my hands. I run a self-scan and it tells me I've got skin irritation. The only thing I studied in medical school was how to lie convincingly. What the hell do I know how to treat an alien disease?

i like helping people with computer problems. i really do. i enjoy being helpful and i enjoy helping people overcome their nervousness around computers and getting them more comfortable and confident in their use.

however.

"Aw, shucks!" Was my response. "You couldn't order it from a school approved vendor? Even with our funds?

"Basically," she groaned. "The usual place isn't open that day and I wasn't going to order from the other one."

"What was the other one?" I asked.

"It's" she wrinkled her face and whispered. "A kosher pizzeria."

I waited for the follow up. It didn't come. I repeated her words. "because it's kosher ? "

"Yeah." She sighed. "I just can't endorse that. With global politics."

"You can't endorse a local restaurant so you're not getting pizza for 8 year olds?"

"Yeah. And I bet that their stuff isn't that good -"

"Actually," I interrupted. "That place is fantastic. I love their pizza."

One insisted it was the best and the other hated it, fighting for another spot.

I interrupted-- "guys, what about the antisemitism?"

They turned to me, consoling. "Listen, antisemitism is always going to be there. But at the same time, we can have standards."

> disables a new AI feature that was turned on by default

> opens my email

> disables a new AI feature that was turned on by default

> launches a software

Others are beautiful, admirable, inspiring. I would gladly live for others, and I've done so many times before. To love others is quite natural, because they are so much more worthy of love than I am.

Myself, I don't think I can ever love unconditionally, the way I can love others.

So if the phrase isn't about literal ability, is it about morality? Am I not *allowed* to love others until I love myself?

But to deprive me of the ability to love until I have been corrected... I am to live in isolation, then, because I cannot love myself. What cruel doctrine.

Some of us simply have no love for ourselves. All our love is pointed outward. Is that so wrong? Is that a crime worthy of banishment?

If you love others, but not yourself, you can more easily fall into being all give and no take. And that can distress those who care for you, and hurt or push away people who want to help, or who need to be needed. No one is an island, we need other people, and there's no moral judgement, or failure, or greed in that. It is the nature of being Human, or a eusocial mammal in general.

Having a healthy relationship with yourself, makes navigating and cultivating relationships a lot less treacherous. Social dynamics can get really fine and finicky, and seemingly small shifts in perspective can lead to very different long-term patterns or consequences.

We're none of us perfect. We make mistakes, sometimes, terrible ones. But we can learn to be better, we can commit to learning from those mistakes, and never making them again. We can change. It takes work, and effort, and perseverance, but ultimately, we are who we choose to be. We can cultivate what is the best of ourselves, and seek the company who bring our best to the surface, and do our best to kindle that in others.

You don't vanquish evil by destroying it. It is born from suffering, and violence, and cruelty. You vanquish evil by *starving* it. With compassion, and mercy, and generosity. And if you want the world to change, the best way is to practice that change. And the most logistically convenient place to start is with yourself.

If everyone deserves compassion, then so do you.

If everyone deserves respect, then so do you.

If everyone has inherent worth, then so do you.

It's not easy. But the best way to fight what you don't like about yourself, is to cultivate the parts of yourself you do like, you are proud of. Or that you want to like, or want to be proud of. And if you can't see them for yourself, find friends that can see from the outside looking in, what you can't from the inside looking out.

The plants that get the water grow, the plants that don't wither.

And Neuroplasticity means you do get better at it, and it gets easier with practice. Speaking from experience. There are good days, and bad days, but the good days either get a little more common, and the bad days a bit easier to navigate (breaking out of spirals or circles, learning when you need to distract yourself because negative reinforcement is not helping).

You can love others before you learn to love yourself.

Having loving, positive relationships with others can make it easier to love yourself. Building self-love while surrounded by people who love you is far easier than doing it in a vacuum, and feeling love for them can be a stepping stone toward directing some of that love to yourself.

But in addition to what prev described, there are other ways in which a lack of self-love can sabotage relationships, and I think that's what people tend to mean when they say self-love is necessary for good relationships.

To give a few examples, which may or may not apply to you personally:

In some cases, when people believe they're unlovable, they have a hard time believing that others can love them, or will keep loving them long-term. This can cause them to hold others at arms' length, unable to trust the people who love them because they're afraid the love will be rescinded if people "realize" how "unlovable" they are.

It can also lead them to question the judgment of the people who love them, or to complain about themselves so much that it makes the people around them uncomfortable, sabotaging their relationships.

And the "all give and no take" dynamic the previous reblog mentioned can lead to burnout and resentment if taken too far for too long. So if a person doesn't love themselves enough to set boundaries and prioritize their needs, it can undermine their love for others in the long run, or attract people who abuse and exploit them.

But none of this means you're a bad person who doesn't deserve love.

It simply means you've been hurt in ways that make relationships more difficult, the same way a broken leg makes running more difficult.

To say "you can't love others until you love yourself" is a harmful oversimplification, as demonstrated by the pain and fear in the original post.

But loving yourself helps ensure that your love for others stays healthy and strong in the long term.

Self-hatred is not a crime. It's a wound. And wounds don't heal through judgment and isolation - they heal through nurturing and care.

So I'll echo prev's encouragement to ask your loved ones for help. Let the people you trust know that you're struggling with your self-esteem, and you need to know what good things others see in you. Not in a roundabout, disingenuous, "fishing for compliments while trying to hide my intentions" way, but in an honest and direct way. People tend to respond better to authenticity.

There's a very real chance that your loved ones have sensed that something is troubling you, and will be happy and relieved to have a chance to do something about it.

And when you find yourself judging yourself for the traits you believe you have or don't have, ask yourself: "If one of the people I love had/lacked this trait or made this mistake, would I still love them?"

I truly hope that helps. I was one of those kids who struggled to make friends, and spent most of my childhood feeling unwanted and unlovable. It took years to rebuild my self-esteem and sense of self-worth. But it can be done.