Lithobreaking into Heaven

I always thought that, after the reveal, a situation where, instead of Fenton becoming cool, phantom becomes lame, would be funny

One: Martha chose not to wear her real pearls to the theatre that night, as it was a night where there was no one to impress. The string snapped because the pearls were not real, and Martha died for a $100 set you could pick up at Macy’s.

Two: The Pearls, upon understanding this was a symbolic moment in at least one Wayne’s future [and two Wayne’s end], chose to disregard their quality for the sake of a Dramatic Tableau.

Three: no more then three pearls ever snapped off the strand, but to a boy watching his mother choke on her own blood, gasping his name into the suddenly silent night, three pearls was enough.

Four: an opportunistic officer slipped the pearls off Marthas neck as she was loaded into the morgue van, figuring Bruce would not have the wherewithal to miss them. The pearls were subsequently reported as lost, having probably rolled down the drain in the following chaos. Only three were ever recovered, having become stuck in the puddle of blood that was under Martha Wayne’s head.

Five: the pearls, a set Thomas Wayne picked up as an engagement gift and a promise when Wayne industries was collapsing and his fortune nonexistent, were fake, and Martha adored them far more then any of the expensive jewels he was eventually able to afford. She made a habit of wearing them on family outings. Martha died for the sentimental value of a $100 set you could pick up at Macy’s.

And it's that thing where you mentally place yourself as the second, auxiliary party to someone else that you consider to be "In Charge" of whatever space or occupation or responsibility you are assigned to

And when you are IN that mindset, it *feels* like you're being responsible. It *feels* like you're being respectful, and helpful, and contributing to the load.

But what you don't SEE- because it *feels* like deference- is that the other person who you're seeing as The Authority you report to- by being assigned that role, has also been assigned the invisible load of BEING YOUR MANAGER.

This is by FAR most commonly seen in husband-and-wife relationships, where the man says, "just tell me what I can do to HELP- you don't have to do it all by yourself, but it's like you won't even tell me when you NEED help. You just do everything and then get mad at me for not doing it first. I can help clean. I can help with the kids. I can help"

But I also see it- and am guilty myself of doing it- at work, at school, in public- that mental, "this is THEIR space, and i will be respectful and helpful to THEM"- without realizing that subservience in this manner isn't actually a good thing. That it actually shifts the burden of responsibility to the other person. That aspect was totally invisible to me.

I didn't understand that when I was told, "if you see something that needs to be done, just DO it", or, "take the initiative", what they ACTUALLY meant was, "I am not above you", or "you have equal say in what kind of environment you want to live or work in", or "I do not want full control over what happens here, I do not want to order you around, I do not want to be in charge, what I WANT is to co-command WITH you"

Being in The Assigned Authority position NOW, that is all so much clearer.

I am the senior member of my team at work, and now, every time I train a newbie, every time I finish catching them up to speed and giving them a list of everything that needs to be done, my next big hurdle seems to always be, "now take pride in the space when I'm not around". "Now don't assume I'll tell you when something is due or what orders to plan things in".

Now, having been on both sides of the struggle, I can appreciate the sticking points here

TO THE PERSON "IN CHARGE": The person deferring to you doesn't understand the invisible labor you're doing. They genuinely believe you know more, you WANT more, you see things they don't, and that they are being respectful and good by staying out of your way and waiting on your orders. THAT is the bit that's not clicking.

TO THE PERSON "WANTING TO HELP": "Help" implies that you are providing assistance to a problem that belongs to somebody else. Stop thinking like that. Understand that the problem belongs to BOTH of you equally, and consider what kind of shared space you BOTH want. What is your SHARED GOAL? Not THEIR goal, but a goal that belongs to you too. Own your space.

This is not a Commander-Lieutenant problem. This is a Partnership problem.

Typically Officers, Managers, and Team Leads get *paid* a whole lot more to specifically take ownership of their space. The buck ($$$) stops there, at the top, with the people who get paid to command the ship.

I use to get paid to be the Captain. Sure I wanted things to be equitable in my office, under my command, and I treated my Soldiers as equals.

Which in hind sight I realized was a fucked up thing to do. Since it wasn't their job, they didn't get paid to do it, and it wasn't their responsibility. It was mine.

You can't just subvert a hierarchy by pretending its not there. That just makes you a shitty abusive boss. But you're still the boss.

Fortunately I eventually realized that no one was making me be the boss but myself. So I quit.

Now I make minimum wage and I have a manager that tells me what to do. I don't really need her to, I'm smart enough to figure it out without her direction. But I don't get paid to think.

I didn't think to mention this because I'm *not* anybody boss- when I train new people, it's to work WITH me. The wage will be the same. I've refused promotion because it's more trouble to manage people than the money would be worth to me.

But your theoretical wife ISN'T receiving extra benefits for managing the housework. Your theoretical roommate ISN'T getting a discount on the rent for reminding you there's laundry in the washer.

Pre-diabetes was rejected as a diagnosis by the World Health Organization (although it is used by the US and UK) - the correct term for the condition is impaired glucose tolerance. Approximately 2% of people with "pre-diabetes" go on to develop diabetes per year. You heard that right - TWO PERCENT. Most diabetics actually skip the pre-diabetic phase.

There are currently no treatments for pre-diabetes besides intentional weight loss. (Hmm, that's convenient, right?) There has yet to be evidence that losing weight prevents progression from pre-diabetes to T2DM beyond a year. Interestingly, drug companies are trying to persuade the medical world to start treating patients earlier and earlier. They are using the term “pre-diabetes” to sell their drugs (including Wegovy, a weight-loss drug). Surgeons are using it to sell weight loss surgery. Everyone’s a winner, right? Not patients. Especially fat patients.

Check out these articles:

Prediabetes: The epidemic that never was, and shouldn’t be

The war on ‘prediabetes' could be a boon for pharma—but is it good medicine?

Also - I love what Dr. Asher Larmie @fatdoctorUK has to say about T2DM and insulin resistance, so here's one of their threads I pulled from Twitter:

1️⃣ You can't prevent insulin resistance. It's coded in your DNA. It may be impacted by your environment. Studies have shown it has nothing to do with your BMI.

2️⃣ The term "pre-diabetes" is a PR stunt. The correct term is impaired glucose tolerance (or impaired fasting glucose) which is sometimes referred to as intermittent hyperglycemia. It does not predict T2DM. It is best ignored and tested for every 3-5yrs.

3️⃣ there is no evidence that losing weight prevents diabetes. That's because you can't reverse insulin resistance. You can possibly postpone it by 2yrs? Furthermore there is evidence that those who are fat at the time of diagnosis fair much better than those who are thin.

4️⃣ Weight loss does not reverse diabetes in the VAST majority of people. Those that do reverse it are usually thinner with recent onset T2DM and a low A1c. Only a tiny minority can sustain that over 2yrs. Weight loss does not improve A1c levels beyond 2 yrs either.

5️⃣ Weight loss in T2DM does not improve macrovascular or microvascular health outcomes beyond 2 years. In fact, weight loss in diabetics is associated with increased mortality and morbidity (although it is not clear why). Weight cycling is known to impacts A1c levels.

6️⃣ Weight GAIN does NOT increase the risk of cardiovascular OR all causes mortality in diabetics. In fact, one might even go so far as to say that it's better to be fat and diabetic than to be thin and diabetic.

Dr. Larmie cites 18 peer reviewed journal articles (most from the last decade) that are included in their webinar on the subject, linked below.

If you didn’t know already johnny has a sick ass emo ass band called eyeshine, go listen to acquiescence right now🤩

Its for a good reason but it's kind of also undeniably funny. It really looks like that.