#locus of control

Maintain that internal locus of control. If there is someone trying to come into your life and dictate everything you do and trying to guilt-trip you for your choices or for the boundaries that you set, kindly let them know that they can go elsewhere.

I’m doing this.

I’m doing this.

I’m writing this. I’m changing.

You can’t have control here. I need it.

I need it to be different.

We can’t keep doing this.

We can’t keep having this fight just for you to win and for me to sit back watching everything I dread come to fruition because you can’t bear to feel the discomfort of now knowing.

I don’t know either.

I don’t know that these are the right choices.

I don’t know that these are the right words.

We can’t know.

That’s not an option.

I have to write them.

I can’t stay here.

I can’t be this anymore. You will have to change. I will have to change. Stagnation is not an option.

If I could cup your face in my hands and tell you everything will be fine, I would. If I could hold your body in my arms and rub away the anxiety and the tension in your shoulders, I would. I would do anything for you, and I will. I am expecting you to do the same for me. It’s no longer a wish or a dream. We are doing this. You are coming with me, and you are going to have to change. Now.

You have always wished someone would yell at you, scream in your face.

WAKE UP.

So I am doing it. I’m yelling. I’m telling you.

So listen.

Listen.

To.

Me.

Wake up.

Move.

Change.

Be different. If there are things you hate, change them. There is no force outside of you that will fix things. We have to fix things. Or build new, move, or change.

It can’t wait any longer.

We are not going to do this anymore. We’re not going to have these fights anymore. I can’t bear it. I can’t keep waking up to the same thing.

Move.

Change.

I’m no longer begging. No longer waiting for it to be your idea. We are doing it, together. Now.

It will be scary. It will be painful, but despair won’t be an option, and despair is what I have no tolerance for anymore.

Let’s go.

Photo by Keyur Nandaniya on Unsplash

Prompt - Fight someone for control of this piece

for the last three or so years (possibly as many as 8), there has been a fight going on inside of me.

I remember writing this prompt when I was amassing my list, and I was excited to see what kind of story would come out of it. I wasn’t expecting it to be a manifestation of this fight. This was a long time coming.

The person I was and the person I want to be are two very different, very far apart people, and I am trapped between them. I am caught between my future ambitions and my pasts’ pain. It will eventually have to be enough, and we change, or I’ll have to give up.

After writing this piece, I think it should go without saying, but I’ll say it for both of those people to hear.

I’m not stopping. I’m not giving up.

And I expect you, reader, not to give up either.

This one has felt like running. Running with 30 bricks on my shoulders.

If you’d like to know more about this desire to have someone yell, “Wake up!” into my face, I’d really love to tell you more about it. As it is, this piece has given me a bit of a headache, so I think I’ll be calling it soon. Let me know if you’d like to hear about that or any other line in this piece. They are all pretty much vebatum the images and words that have been going around in my head lately.

I hope you enjoyed. I hope you felt something.

🦉One of the easier to spot types of trauma is when people come from a household with low Locus of Control (LoC). They're used to being around people unable to accept responsibility for negative consequences. In the worst cases, the household may take to blaming them "by default", even when it had nothing to do with them.

"Sorry for making you spend time with me again"

"I'm sorry for saying I wanted it, please, I can't accept that gift"

"I made you uncomfortable, I should have known better"

Someone taking responsibility, consistently, may be outside their frame of reference. They can struggle to understand and believe people with high LoC. Reassurance will tend to bounce off, at first.

"I'm enjoying myself, that's why I'm choosing to stay and talk with you."

"You can't make me spend time with you, if I wanted to leave, I'd leave."

"I gave this gift because I enjoyed the thought of giving it."

"It's not something I regret, nor do you need to pay it back."

"You changed behavior when I made you aware of my discomfort, that's all I ask."

"I don't expect you to know my boundaries and needs before they've been communicated."

Being a rolemodel for healthy high LoC can be very healing, though, so keep it up. You're proof that there's an entire different type of person and way of living out there! By refusing to pile on blame and shame, you can bring them hope for a brighter future.

"I know your family expects you to mindread them. But around me, you can just ask."

"I don't mind avoiding that topic. You can have boundaries."

"You can message me at any time. I don't feel pressure to respond."

"Your needs come first. You don't have to respond quickly, or ever."

Do keep in mind that, Their behavior isn't incorrect while it's adapted to their current environment. If they can't leave, they need to practice their old way of thinking, to stay safe. Some households will kick them out unless they cater to abusive whims, and you should not shame them for continuing to think in ways that keep them safe!

By: Colin Wright

Published: Dec 23, 2024

A new study from the Network Contagion Research Institute (NCRI) has revealed an alarming surge in anti-civil activity online following the assassination of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson. The NCRI study, titled “Killing with Applause: Emergent Permission Structures for Murder in the Digital Age,” highlights the profound societal implications of this event, showcasing the disturbing normalization of violence against corporate figures and the role of social media in amplifying such narratives.

While the specifics of Thompson’s murder are shocking, the NCRI warns that the broader cultural shift it appears to be facilitating may be even more worrisome. The data reveals an evolving “permission structure” online—a system in which social media platforms amplify narratives, and susceptible individuals provide justification—resulting in the normalization of violence on a scale previously confined to small extremist communities.

The murder, which occurred outside a Manhattan hotel during an investors’ conference, has sparked a wave of online glorification, memes, and merchandise celebrating the shooter, Luigi Mangione. The NCRI’s findings expose an unsettling trend: mainstream social media platforms are becoming breeding grounds for rhetoric that not only justifies violence but also facilitates its transition from the digital realm to the real world.

Public Opinion Reflects Shifting Norms

The NCRI’s research reveals a major societal shift, highlighting how public opinion has veered dangerously toward accepting violence as a legitimate response to perceived systemic injustices. Nearly half of Americans surveyed (44 percent) believe that Thompson’s murder was at least somewhat justified, reflecting a growing openness to violent means of addressing grievances. This finding is particularly alarming as it indicates that support for such extreme measures is no longer confined to isolated groups but is increasingly mainstream.

The data shows that social media plays a critical role in shaping these attitudes. Among heavy social media users—those who spend more than 5.4 hours per day on these platforms—the justification rate surges to 64 percent, starkly contrasting with just 23 percent among low-use individuals (0-1.3 hours per day).

Even more concerning is the generational divide: a staggering 78.8 percent of respondents aged 18-27 expressed at least partial justification for the murder, signaling a profound shift among younger demographics toward endorsing “targeted violence.”

The younger generation’s overwhelming approval for violent actions suggests a troubling cultural normalization of aggression as a tool for addressing grievances.

Platforms of Concern: Bluesky and Beyond

One of the most striking revelations in the NCRI study is the role of mainstream platforms like Bluesky in fostering permissive attitudes toward violence. Bluesky, widely lauded by political progressives as a kinder and friendlier alternative to X/Twitter, now exhibits the highest justification rates for the UHC CEO’s murder (78 percent), surpassing even extremist platforms like Gab and 4chan.

Bluesky’s user base skews younger and more tech-savvy, demographics that the NCRI study identifies as particularly susceptible to violent rhetoric. The combination of algorithmic amplification of extreme views and a vulnerable audience creates an environment ripe for the proliferation of violent narratives. This grim reality was recently illustrated when Bluesky users called for the murder of journalist Jesse Singal, en masse, due to his fact-based reporting on pediatric “gender medicine.” Users even posted what they believed to be his address and photos of his apartment door online.

Across social media platforms, including X, Reddit, and TikTok, there has been an alarming increase in content justifying violence. Viral hashtags like #EatTheRich and “Free Luigi” dominate many online discussions, and moderation efforts often lag behind the pace of content creation and dissemination, allowing violent rhetoric to flourish.

From Memes to Real-World Impacts

The transition of violent rhetoric from online spaces to real-world actions is perhaps one of the most troubling revelations of the NCRI study. Viral memes, fancam edits, and merchandise such as “Free Luigi” t-shirts have commodified his image. Events like the “UHC Shooter Lookalike Contest,” held in Washington Square Park, reveals how online rhetoric is influencing real-world behaviors. Participants, many of whom were dressed to mimic Mangione, gathered to celebrate and parody the assassination, demonstrating an alarming erosion of societal norms.

On social media, fancam edits and viral videos glorify Mangione’s actions, framing him as an anti-establishment icon. According to the report:

These videos frequently feature romantic or hyperbolic captions, highlight niche cultural affinities, or focus on his physical appearance, further amplifying his image and fueling narratives that glamorize his actions. This glorification fuels permission structures that could inspire others to perceive violence as a legitimate form of activism.

The hashtag #EatTheRich has surged by over 500 percent week-over-week, accompanying calls for violence against corporate figures and circulating “CEO Wanted” posters and executive “hit lists.” These posters, which feature “mocked-up mugshots of healthcare executives,” promote vigilante justice and represent “a deliberate attempt to provoke fear and destabilize corporate leadership.”

According to the NCRI report, “The murder of Brian Thompson appears to have catalyzed a dangerous feedback loop, where glorification, humor, conspiracy, and targeted harassment create an environment ripe for further violence.”

This blending of online rhetoric and offline action reflects what the NCRI describes as an “emergent permission structure,” which they describe as “a framework that justifies previously unacceptable beliefs or actions, with a clear division of labor: Social media platforms provide the amplification, while psychologically susceptible individuals provide the justification…” Taken in concert, these elements form a system that normalizes and even glamorizes acts of violence.

The Lionization of Luigi Mangione

Luigi Mangione’s transformation from an obscure figure to a symbol of anti-establishment resistance has been meteoric. Within days of his arrest, his social media following exploded from 5,000 to over 400,000. The slogan “Free Luigi” was posted 47,000 times in 48 hours, generating nearly 800,000 engagements across X and Reddit.

The commodification of Mangione’s image extends beyond social media. T-shirts, mugs, and other merchandise featuring his likeness are being sold on e-commerce platforms, trivializing his actions while profiting from the controversy. New cryptocurrency “memecoins” such as $LUIGI have also emerged, turning a deadly act into a speculative financial opportunity.

Psychological Drivers

The NCRI study identifies three key predictors of support for the murder: authoritarian tendencies, heavy social media use, and diminished personal agency. These factors interact in a synergistic way, with social media amplifying authoritarian predispositions and fostering the normalization of violence.

The combination of authoritarianism, an external locus of control, and social media’s amplifying effects appears to be a perfect storm for radicalization. These factors interact in a way that makes violence seem rational and even heroic to those who might otherwise feel marginalized or voiceless.

The interaction between these psychological drivers is particularly pronounced among younger demographics, who are both heavy social media users and more likely to experience anxiety or disillusionment with traditional systems. The NCRI study reveals that among users aged 18-27, those with high authoritarian tendencies and heavy social media use were the most likely to justify violence.

A Call to Action

The NCRI study concludes with a warning:

As digital platforms become arenas for ideological conflict, the consequences extend beyond individual incidents of violence to threaten broader public safety and societal cohesion. This transformation underscores the urgent need for strategies that address the root causes of digital radicalization and mitigate its impacts.

The challenges we face require a comprehensive and collaborative response. No single entity can address the complexities of digital radicalization alone. Policymakers, educators, platforms, and community leaders must work in unison to restore the moral boundaries against violent extremism.

The study concludes:

The spread and scope of justification for murder have significantly eroded what was once the monopoly of fringe communities in supporting violence and glorifying shooters online. This shift underscores the urgency of initiatives aimed at reinforcing the bonds of civic trust and restoring civility. Such efforts are essential not only in countering the tide of extremism but also in fostering a resilient society where dialogue and mutual respect prevail.

==

EDIT: Wow, this managed to attract the murderous psychopaths. I hope you'll be just as understanding when someone kills someone you care about and justifies it in the name of nebulous "systemic" somethingisms.

If there was ever any doubt about Colin's premise, it has been proven by the insanity of those cheering it on in the reblogs.

The death penalty is unfair, unjust, and evil, unless you walk up to a rich guy you don’t like on the sidewalk and shoot him in the back. The only form of the death penalty that’s okay is the form that doesn’t include a judge, jury, or court, and where the executed person has not been charged with, convicted, or even accused of any specific crime.

You don't get to call it "justice" when it's not just bypasses but is in direct violation of the law.

"Arbitrarily killing people I don't like is good akshully," is not the moral high-ground you think it is.

How many times do you think you would have been shot dead if it became acceptable for someone to simply arbitrarily execute you because they don't like you, what you do for a living, what you do with your free time, what you eat, what you stand for, or any other random disapproval?

Researchers were given two sets of random rats from the same breeder and told one group was smarter and better at mazes. The researchers, after conducting studies, PROVED that that group was smarter. This is expectancy effects. We look for evidence of a thing we believe to be true and prove it somehow.

There are a couple thoughts on why this works. False or inflated reporting of evidence in support of the belief and/or subconcious influence on the part of the researchers leading to legitimately better results. I think both play a part, but I am mainly in the latter camp. I genuinely think that if you believe someone or something to be a certain way, then you will influence them subconsciously to meet that expectation.

For instance, if you believe kids are hard to deal with, kids are going to pick up on that and not be easy to deal with with you. You're going to find lots of evidence to support that they're hard to deal with.

Epigenetics is a whole field studying non visible genetically inherited traits. Epigenetic studies in mice found that it took FIVE generations for mice to stop responding negatively to a stimulus that only the first generation actually experienced. One very, very important thing to realize about epigenetics, though, is on the literal google search page for the word. "Unlike genetic changes, epigenetic changes are reversible."

So not only is your body/brain likely responding to stimulus from like 1870 to now subconciously (because of the way it reads it's own DNA,) but ALSO everything you believe to be true is more likely to be due to expectancy effects! And when you learn and believe that whatever negative triggers and responses come up for you are reversible, you will prove it.

Isn't that beautiful? The mutability of the mind and body?

Isn't it beautiful to believe that we are not stuck in one way of thinking and reacting to the world no matter how ingrained by time?

You're going to do great.