Avatar

bluemoon-learning

@bluemoon-learning

an attempt to be a better person
betterthanabortion

“My body, my choice” only makes sense when someone else’s life isn’t at stake.

Fun fact: If my younger sister was in a car accident and desperately needed a blood transfusion to live, and I was the only person on Earth who could donate blood to save her, and even though donating blood is a relatively easy, safe, and quick procedure no one can force me to give blood. Yes, even to save the life of a fully grown person, it would be ILLEGAL to FORCE me to donate blood if I didn’t want to.

See, we have this concept called “bodily autonomy.” It’s this….cultural notion that a person’s control over their own body is above all important and must not be infringed upon. 

Like, we can’t even take LIFE SAVING organs from CORPSES unless the person whose corpse it is gave consent before their death. Even corpses get bodily autonomy. 

To tell people that they MUST sacrifice their bodily autonomy for 9 months against their will in an incredibly expensive, invasive, difficult process to save what YOU view as another human life (a debatable claim in the early stages of pregnancy when the VAST majority of abortions are performed) is desperately unethical. You can’t even ask people to sacrifice bodily autonomy to give up organs they aren’t using anymore after they have died. 

You’re asking people who can become pregnant to accept less bodily autonomy than we grant to dead bodies. 

Avatar
albinwonderland

reblogging for commentary 

But, assuming the mother wasn’t raped, the choice to HAVE a baby and risk sacrificing their “bodily autonomy” is a choice that the mother made. YOu don’t have to have sex with someone. Cases of rape aside, it isn’t ethical to say abortion is justified. The unborn baby has rights, too. 

First point: Bodily autonomy can be preserved, even if another life is dependent on it. See again the example about the blood donation. 

And here’s another point: When you say that “rape is the exception” you betray something FUNDAMENTALLY BROKEN about your own argument.

Because a fetus produced from sexual assault is biologically NO DIFFERENT than a fetus produced from consensual sex. No difference at all.

If one is alive, so is the other. If one is a person, so is the other. If one has a soul, then so does the other. If one is a little blessing that happened for a reason and must be protected, then so is the other. 

When you say that “Rape is the exception” what you betray is this: It isn’t about a life. This isn’t about the little soul sitting inside some person’s womb, because if it was you wouldn’t care about HOW it got there, only that it is a little life that needs protecting.

When you say “rape is the exception” what you say is this: You are treating pregnancy as a punishment. You are PUNISHING people who have had CONSENSUAL SEX but don’t want to go through a pregnancy. People who DARED to have consensual sex without the goal of procreation in mind, and this is their “consequence.” 

And that is gross. 

^ THIS. This this this this THIS THIS THIS. THIS!!!!!

The person that’s trying to excuse killing babies while claiming she’s ethical. Hilarious.

We can say the same about a woman that wants the child calling it a baby, but if she doesn’t want it it’s a clump of cells or a parasite. That argument can go both ways, darling.

I would agree your argument is valid when it comes to a one time abortion. However, I have know people that are in favor of letting a baby die if they survived an abortion, despite it no longer being part of the woman’s body and now is in fact a living human being.

With the blood transfusion argument, there is no way that only one person on earth can in fact give a blood transfusion is honestly the dumbest argument when in fact YOU did make the choice to sleep with someone without protection and are now saying you are being punished for it. No one chooses to get into an accident, but you do choose to get pregnant because you were irresponsible. It was your stupid decision to get pregnant, so yes, you have to face the consequences. Deal with it.

So you admit that you view forced pregnancy, and the violation of a person’s medical wishes for their own body, as a punishment for someone being “irresponsible” by having consensual sex.

That’s so dark and so sad.

(Also, given that well over 99% of abortions happen before 21 weeks, and viability isn’t until 24 weeks AT THR ABSOLUTE earliest, and almost all abortions last 21 weeks are for medical need…the idea that there are “babies surviving abortion” is just absolute propaganda nonsense.)

This whole reply just really makes it clear that anti-abortion advocates are deeply misinformed and naive about why some people choose abortion, and they don’t bother to find out because they fundamentally don’t care about those people.

“choose to get pregnant,” like this isnt some random side effect of biology that occasionally supersedes preventative measures and other times flat out arbitrarily does not function.

Exactly. Like, there’s the whole issue of sex serving MANY functions besides just procreation, but also that fertility itself is way more fickle than that. People who can become pregnant are not baby vending machines- pop in the right amount of sperm and a perfectly healthy little baby is garaunteed to come popping out.

But this is also just a deep, deep rejection of what *consent* means. Consent is an ongoing, specific thing. The idea that consent to sex with 1 person would then legally obligate you to 40-ish weeks to pregnancy (to bring a totally different person to term) just *isnt* respecting consent.

And ultimately it’s tragic because the kind of person that these anti-abortion advocates always seem to target (able bodied cis women in safe romantic relationships, stable housing, adequate finances with no health complications and a safe, viable pregnancy) ultimately aren’t the people who will be the MOST harmed by anti-abortion measures. Those women will be harmed, yes, but the degree to which EVERYONE ELSE who can get pregnant will be hurt, or killed, by these measures never even once crosses the minds of prolifers. They either don’t know or don’t care about the ways in which forced pregnancy can be a tool of abuse, can be a life threatening event, can be a financial and social crudgle with which to push back against the rights and liberties and humanity of anyone who can get pregnant.

I still think that a key function of the way we think of the concepts "adult" and "child" is to separate the human population into "people who deserve autonomy but no protection" and "people who deserve protection but no autonomy" and in the process dehumanize both groups of people. We ignore the fact that all people need both autonomy and protection, and that our society could easily be set up to provide everyone a healthy mix of both.

And to be honest much of what we label as "protection" for children and "autonomy" for adults is merely the appearance of such. We act as if dictating what children are allowed to say, think, or feel is a form of care, and as if cutting away all social safety nets for adults is a form of empowerment.

#and that's why people compare disabled adults to children #if they need protection they must not deserve autonomy

An invitation to “dance”

“Here is the last thing the world can offer you.”

(The world is no longer offering anything.)

This word, this invitation to “dance,” is being offered by someone, by something, by every part of her. It is made without distinction, a universal gesture. This thing that “calls” and “answers” is here now, here now, here, this woman, this being, this part of the being, the thing that is her here now. There is a sense in which “you” do not, even cannot exist.

The dance has always been this way. This dance, this dance in which there is no one, nothing, no distinction, is an eternal, a fundamental state. It has always been, always has been, always will be. What has always been, has always been, has always will be. The dance has always been this way.

To dance here now, is to dance in a single moment, is to dance out of an eternity, is to dance with the whole of life, with all that has always been and all that will always be. This dance is a form of death. In the dance is an absence. It is the absence of everything. Here, right here, that which is and will be, in that which is eternal, in that which has always been eternal, in that which will always be, in the nothing.

The dance, the dance, the dance…

Here is the last thing the world can offer you.

This word, this invitation to dance, comes in a multitude of ways. It comes in the smell of rain. It comes in a lover’s voice, sweetly, and gently, and with love. It comes in thunder, a great, distant bell.

It comes in the wind, the wind in the leaves.

It comes in the light, the light from a million suns.

It comes in the dark, the dark from an endless night.

It comes in death.

It comes in silence.

It comes in music, and sound, and the words of all the beautiful words in the whole world. It comes in the names for all the things in the whole world, and the whole world, it comes in the way that you are made and made and made of all of that, in that which you are called to be, and the call that calls you to the world, this is a place in which the call and the dance are together.

The world, the world…

There is a name here. Here is the name that the world can offer, here is the name of the world. There is a name here that this woman can give, here is the name that this woman can give, here is the name of this woman.

The world is no longer offering anything.

This is what the word will say, when this woman gives the world her name.

Here.

Here, the dance.

Here, here, the dance…

(The world is no longer offering anything.)

I want to learn how to dance. This is beautiful.

Life circles around trees; it is drawn in like a magnet. One crab apple tree in the middle of winter will pull in birds, possums, mice, deer, raccoons, wild children, and countless other forms of life. Animals and people will travel for miles to gather persimmons and chestnuts. Songbirds will flock to mulberries. [Trees] feed [us], keep [us] warm, provide money, shelter, medicine, and tools. These beings that feed on light do amazing work. Fruit, nuts, flowers, shade, wildlife, and wood—trees are offering, always offering. Stretched toward the sky, rooted into the earth, they offer a partnership. Partnering with trees is as natural as breathing. We inhale their exhalations and they inhale ours. We are designed to work with each other.

Akiva Silver, Trees of Power: Ten Essential Arboreal Allies (via exhaled-spirals)

PSA! You're not "screwing over the man" by shitting on independent authors. You're just taking their livelihood. And we're not talking about KU books.

[Image ID: A screenshot of a tweet by username @KBrombergDriven. The text reads:

"1/2 Every time you return an ebook at Amazon, the author is charged back more than what they were paid for the sale. Yes, that means we could owe Amazon at the end of the month. Since TikToks went viral saying 'it's okay to return ebooks'

2/2 most authors returns have skyrocketed. Reading and returning a book is stealing. If you want free books, try the library app, Libby (among others) #AmazonisNotALibrary"

/.End ID]

Hey so this was posted on Twitter by @kbspangler and I saw it this morning and uhhhhh. Anyway, if you have been telling yourself things are fine and normal with you despite some signs that maybe they are not, please look at this.

How the FUCK do you get to green?! That doesn't even sound realistic!

It takes a long time.

Mental Crop Rotation

When farmers grow the same crop too many years in a row, it can leave their soil depleted of minerals and other nutrients that are vital to the health of their fields.

To avoid this, farmers will often alternate the crops that they grow because some plants will use up different minerals (such as nitrogen) while other plants replenish those minerals. This process is known as “crop rotation.”

So the next time you find that you need to step away from a project to work on something else for a while, don’t beat yourself up for “quitting” that project. Give yourself permission to practice “mental crop rotation” to maintain a healthy brain field.

Because I’ve found that when that unnecessary guilt and pressure are removed from the process, a good mental crop rotation can help you feel more energized and invigorated than ever once you’re ready to rotate back to that project.

: A crucial part of crop rotation is that the field is let fallow sometimes. You plant what’s called a “cover crop”, which is something you don’t expect to harvest– it’s there for its roots to hold the soil in place, and often it’ll be what’s called a nitrogen-fixer, i.e. a plant that can pull nitrogen out of the air and fix it into the soil with its roots (but sometimes it won’t, sometimes it’s really just there to shelter the soil surface), and then you’ll till in that cover crop, or let the frost kill it and the stalks lie as mulch, and then you’ll rotate productive crops back into that field the next season. 

It’s important, though, to understand that during the fallow period, no nutrients are removed from that ground, and nothing is expected of it. Whatever the land grows then, it keeps, and it gets tilled back in or decomposes in place, to return its energy to the earth.

We’re not allowed, in our current society, to just let our minds be fallow for a bit, to produce nothing for export, to make nothing that can be sold. But it’s part of good land stewardship, to give every field time when it doesn’t need to give you anything back. 

So yes, grow and produce different things from time to time, rotate them around your mind and exercise different mental muscles, take different things from your creative processes, yes– but also, give yourself a fallow spell now and again, and let the field of your mind grow things for itself to keep, to break down and save for later. 

stupid leftists and their belief in *checks notes* the intrinsic value of human life

Reblog if you would burn down the statue of liberty to save a life

Here’s the thing, though. If you asked a conservative “Would you let the statue of liberty burn to save one life?” they’d probably scoff and say no, it’s a national landmark, a treasure, a piece of too much historical importance to let it be destroyed for the sake of one measly life

But if you asked, “Would you let the statue of liberty burn in order to save your child? your spouse? someone you loved a great deal?” the tune abruptly changes. At the very least, there’s a hesitation. Even if they deny it, I’m willing to bet that gun to their head, the answer would be “yes.”  

The basic problem here is that people have a hard time seeing outside their own sphere of influence, and empathizing beyond the few people who are right in front of them. You’ve got your immediate family, whom you love; your friends, your acquaintances, maybe to a certain degree the people who share a status with you (your religion, your race, etc.)–but beyond that? People aren’t real. They’re theoretical. 

But a national monument? That’s real. It stands for something. The value of a non-realized anonymous life that exists completely outside your sphere of influence is clearly worth less than something that represents freedom and prosperity to a whole nation, right?

People who think like this lack the compassion to realize that everyone is in someone’s immediate sphere of influence–that everyone is someone’s lover, or brother, or parent. Everyone means the world to someone. And it’s the absolute height of selfishness to assume that their lives don’t have value just because they don’t mean the world to you

P.S. I would let the statue of liberty burn to save a pigeon. 

Avatar
tsunderepup

also, there is an extreme difference between what things or principles *i* personally am willing to die for, and what i would hazard others to die for. and this is a distinction i don’t think the conservative hard-right likes to face.

an example: so, as the nazis began war against france, the staff of the louvre began crating up and shipping out the artworks. it was vital to them (for many reasons) that the nazis not get their hands on the collections, and hitler’s desire for them was known, so they dispersed the objects to the four winds; one of the curators personally traveled with la gioconda, mona lisa herself, in an unmarked crate, moving at least five times from location to location to avoid detection.

they even removed and hid the nike of samothrace, “winged victory,” which is both delicate, having been pieced back together from fragments, and incredibly heavy, weighing over three metric tons.

the curators who hid these artworks risked death to ensure that they wouldn’t fall into nazi hands. and yes, they are just paintings, just statues. but when i think about the idea of hitler capturing and standing smugly beside the nike of samothrace, a statue widely beloved as a symbol of liberty, i completely understand why someone would risk their life to prevent that. if my life was all that stood between a fascist dictator and a masterpiece that inspired millions, i would be willing to risk it. my belief in the power and necessity of art would demand i do so.

if, however, a nazi held a gun to some kid’s head (any kid!) and asked me which crate the mona lisa was in, they could have it in a heartbeat. no problem! i wouldn’t even have to think about it. being willing to risk my own life on principle doesn’t mean i’m willing to see others endangered for those same principles.

and that is exactly where the conservative hard-right falls right the fuck down. they are, typically, entirely willing to watch others suffer for their own principles. they are perfectly okay with seeing children in cages because of their supposed belief in law and order. they are perfectly willing to let women die from pregnancy complications because of their anti-abortion beliefs. they are alright with poverty and disease on general principle because they hold the free-market sacrosanct. and i guess from their own example they would save the statue of liberty and let human beings burn instead.

but speaking as a leftist (i’m more comfortable with socialist tbh), my principles are not abstract things that i hold aside from life, apart or above my place as a human being in a society. my beliefs arise from being a person amidst people. i don’t love art for art’s sake alone, actually! i don’t love objects because they are objects: i love them because they are artifacts of our humanity, because they communicate and connect us, because they embody love and curiosity and fear and feeling. i love art because i love people. i want universal health care because i want to see people universally cared for. i want universal basic income because people’s safety and dignity should not be determined by their economic productivity to an employer. i am anti-war and pro-choice for the same reason: i value people’s lives but also their autonomy and right to self-determination. my beliefs are not abstractions. i could never value a type of economic system that i saw hurting people, no matter how much “growth” it produced. i could never love “law and order” more than i love a child, any child, i saw trapped in a cage.

would i be willing to risk death, trying to save the statue of liberty? probably, yes. but there is no culture without people, and therefore i also believe there are no cultural treasures worth more than other people’s lives. and as far as i’m concerned the same goes for laws, or markets, or borders.

Avatar
lastxleviathan

Well said!

This is an excellent ethical discussion.

The first time I came across this post, randomslasher’s addition was life changing for me. I suddenly understood where the right was coming from, and I had never been angrier.

This is also why so many people on the right fail to see the hypocrisy of trying to make abortion illegal when they themselves have had abortions. They can tally up their own life circumstances and conclude that it would be difficult or impossible to continue a pregnancy, but they’re completely mystified by the idea that women they don’t know are also human beings with complicated lives and limited spoon allocation.

This is also why they think “get a job” is useful advice. In their heads they honestly do not understand why the NPCs who make up the majority of the human race can’t just flip a switch from “no job” to “job.” When they say “get a job” they’re filing a glitch report with God and they honestly think that’s all it takes.

This is also why they tend to view demographics as individuals. They think that every single Muslim is just a different avatar for the same bit of programming.

Borrowed observation from @innuendostudios​ here, but: there’s also a fundamental difference in how progressives view social problems versus how conservatives view them. That is, progressives view them as problems to be solved, whereas conservatives do not believe you can solve anything.

Conservatives view social issues as universal constants that fundamentally are unable to be changed, like the weather. You can try to alter your own behavior to protect yourself (you can carry an umbrella), and you can commiserate about how bad the weather is, but you can’t stop it from raining. This is why conservatives blame victims of rape for dressing immodestly or for drinking or for going out at night: to them, those things are like going out without an umbrella when you know it’s going to rain. 

“But then why do conservatives try to stop things they dislike by making them illegal, like drug use or immigration or abortion?” And the answer is: they’re not. They know perfectly well that those things will continue. No amount of studies showing that their methods are ineffective will matter to them because effectiveness is not the point. The point is to punish people for doing bad things, because punishing people is how you show your disapproval of their actions; if you don’t punish them, then you’re condoning their behavior. 

This is why they will never support rehabilitative prisons, even though they reduce crime. This is why they will never support free birth control for everyone, even though that would reduce abortions. This is why they will never support just giving homeless people houses, even though it’s proven to be cheaper and more effective at stopping homelessness than halfway houses and shelters. It’s not about stopping evil, because you can’t; it’s about saying definitively what is Bad and what is Good, and we as a society do that by punishing the people we’ve decided are bad. 

This is why the conservative response to “holy fuck, they’re putting children in cages!” is typically something along the lines of “it’s their parents’ fault for trying to come here illegally; if they didn’t want to have their kids taken away, they shouldn’t have committed a crime.” It doesn’t matter that entering the US unlawfully is a misdemeanor and child kidnapping isn’t typically a criminal sentence. It does not matter that this has absolutely zero effect on people unlawfully entering the US. The point is that conservatives have decided that entering unlawfully is Bad, anything that is not punishing undocumented immigrants – due process of asylum and removal defense claims, for example – is supporting Badness, and kidnapping children is an appropriate punishment for being Bad.

This is really long but please read it

dont like to bring politics into fandom spaces but this really hits the nail on the head

If I do something good because it makes me feel like a good person, is that technically selfish?

Avatar

no, only if you're choosing to make others suffer to make yourself feel good

enjoying making other people happy is a great thing

Avatar

There is a Jewish story about a wealthy man who came to his rabbi and said “I have decided to build an orphanage, can you put me in touch with the relevant people”  

The rabbi was delighted to do it, and introduced the man to some charities.  After a few weeks, the man came back to the rabbi.

“I have decided not to build the orphanage,” he said.  “I realised that I was only doing it because I wanted to be admired as a philanthropist, my motives were selfish.”

The rabbi answered, “do you think the orphans will care what your motives were?  Build the orphanage!”

Avatar

I think there was a similar anecdote about Abraham Lincoln and a pig, but from the other direction

The Fable of Abraham Lincoln and the Pigs
Once Lincoln was traveling in a mud-wagon coach along a swampy, rural area. His fellow passenger was his good friend and US Senator Edward Dickinson Baker, who later lost his life in the Battle of Ball’s Bluff at the onset of the American Civil War.
While they were conversing in the mud-wagon coach, Lincoln remarked to Baker that in doing good and evil, all people are motivated by selfishness. Just as Baker challenged Lincoln’s assertion, their coach crossed a rickety bridge over a slough (a large swampy marsh.)
Abruptly, Lincoln and Baker glimpsed a mother pig making a terrible squeal because her piglets were stuck in the swamp, couldn’t get out, and were in danger of drowning.
As their coach started to head away, Lincoln yelled, “Driver, can’t you stop just a moment?” The driver replied, “If the other fellow don’t object.”
With Baker’s approval, Lincoln jumped out of the wagon, ran to the slough, lifted the piglets one by one out of the swamp, and carried them to the dry bank of the swamp.
When Lincoln returned to the coach, Baker remarked, “Now, Abe, where does selfishness come in this little episode?”
Lincoln replied, “Why, bless your soul, Ed, that was the very essence of selfishness. I would have had no peace of mind all day had I gone on and left that suffering old sow worrying over those pigs. I did it to get peace of mind, don’t you see?”

anyway I think the idea that good needs  to be externally motivated and that the giver isn’t allowed to benefit from it, even inside their own head, is extremely puritanical and nature and can be discarded

Listen! The fact that other people's suffering affects us and makes us feel bad is a sign that we as a species ARE pretty good actually. Your good deeds are not "selfishly motivated"; they are motivated by 5-6 million years of evolutionary pressure towards caring for our fellow humans. Doing good things for others because it makes you feel happy and not doing cruel or neglectful things to others because that would make you feel sad is not a sign you are selfish. Its a sign you are a good person, because those structures that do those things still exist in your brain, like they are supposed to.

Arrogance vs. Confidence, Self-deprecation vs. Humility

One of the most popular posts of all time on my writing blog, has surprisingly, little to do with writing. And yet, at the same time, seems to have everything to do with it. When my blog was a baby (less than a year old), I wrote a post about the differences between confidence and arrogance, and humility and self-deprecation. It still gets regular hits.

Which wouldn’t be a problem … except, since then, I’ve refined and updated some of my ideas.

And I’d like people to have the more refined version.

So this is sort of a repost, but not really a repost, and sort of not about writing, and yet totally about writing.

Because let’s be honest–on our own writing journeys, it can be easy to zigzag all over the place between these characteristics, whether it’s because we’ve just finished a manuscript that is obviously bound to be the next great American novel (or … insert whatever country you hail from) or because we’ve just found out our editor hates our characters. It’s like one of my favorite writing memes.

So, I want to talk about the differences between arrogance and confidence, and humility and self-deprecation–and how to discern each.

(And as a quick aside, please note that the word “pride” has several different definitions in the English language, and for this article, I am talking about the arrogant definition, not the one related to pleasure (ex. “I am so proud of what you’ve done” is the same as saying, “I am so pleased with what you have done.”) Unfortunately, the fact “pride” has so many different uses in the English language has led to a lot of confusion and ambiguity in certain circles, including my original post, which is why I’m mentioning this at all 😊.)

Arrogance vs. Confidence

When I was a teenager, I had a wise ballet teacher tell my class,

“The difference between confidence and arrogance is how you treat others.”

She’s right. Sometimes I think society confuses confidence with pride. Likewise, society confuses humility with self-deprecation. In reality, it’s completely possible to be confident and humble at the same time, without being prideful.

People who are arrogant want themselves to succeed and be better than everyone else. On the other hand, people who are confident want themselves and everyone around them to succeed.

Arrogance and pride are about comparing oneself to others, and evaluating oneself as having more “value.” That value may be in a skill, like playing the violin, or in a social circle, like having more friends or influence, or in ideology, like having the “correct” beliefs, or in appearance, like being more attractive. Really, it can be about anything.

Those with arrogance have goals and take actions that stem from a desire to be better than everyone else.

On the other hand, a confident person wants themselves and others to succeed. A confident person will cheer others on and treat them well. A confident person believes in her talents and abilities and potential, but is also teachable. She may acknowledge her shortcomings and work to overcome them. At the same time, she may submit to whatever needs to be done to move forward. That is someone who is confident and humble.

So, confidence and arrogance depend on how you regard others. When you start dissecting this, it makes sense. Confidence comes from security. When we are secure in ourselves, we don’t feel threatened by others’ successes. Why would we? We’re secure. (Remember, you don’t have to be perfect to be secure.) Arrogance, pride, conceit, ironically, doesn’t actually come from being too confident, but from insecurity–a fear that if others succeed, we have less value. Pride and selfishness are also linked. When we don’t want others to succeed, we’re being selfish.

While I don’t believe all forms of comparison are bad (without comparison, there would be no discernment), comparing and judging or evaluating in this way can be problematic.

Self-deprecation vs. Humility

In recent years, I have added a second part to what my ballet teacher said:

“The difference between self-deprecation and humility is how you treat yourself.”

Sometimes the world tells us, or we tell ourselves, that in order to be humble, we have to belittle ourselves. But self-deprecation isn’t humility. Some people have such low self-esteems that they can’t bear to be teachable. It’s too excruciating to hear what their weaknesses are, let alone try to overcome them. They may submit to whatever needs to be done, but with a heavy heart and not always willingly.

Like arrogance, self-deprecation often comes from a comparison game that stems from insecurity.

Rather than evaluate how we are better than others, we evaluate how we are worse than others, and then treat ourselves accordingly. Notice again, how we see our value in relation to others.

If you are too self-deprecating, you can’t believe in yourself, which can often mean that you sabotage your own successes. If you have zero confidence, you can’t progress, because you don’t believe you can become better.

In a strange way, both arrogance and self-deprecation are self-damning: because when you believe you are better than others, and that’s what matters, you don’t need to become better; and because when you believe you are less valuable than others, and that’s what matters, you can’t become better.

Self-deprecation can smother your motivation and individual worth. Don’t mistake it for humility like most of the world does.

Humility, on the other hand, comes from security. When someone is humble, he understands he has more room to learn, grow, and become better. He understand that there is more out there than what he is, and is open to it. And that’s okay.

He understands he can become more.

Being confident and humble is about being secure with yourself.

It’s not about thinking you are better than someone else or worse than someone else, it’s instead about accepting yourself, as you are.

And I mean, not just sorta accepting yourself, or halfway accepting yourself, I mean really accepting yourself–which means accepting all that you are. Flaws, regrets, weaknesses, strengths, skills, abilities, potential. You don’t need to fight yourself. You don’t need puff up yourself. You don’t need to condemn yourself (that’s not your job anyway–leave that to a higher power).

You just need to discern yourself, and know, that that is enough. You are enough.

Be comfortable with yourself.

Because when you are, you can be humble enough to keep growing, and confident enough to stay kind.

And not only could we use more of that in the writing community, but in the whole world.

No matter how many times you fail to meet your own expectations, you have to forgive yourself. Despite contrary belief, dwelling on and badgering yourself over your faults doesn’t ever help you grow into who you want to be.

It’s like gardening: if your flower isn’t blossoming like you want it to, you don’t rip out its leaves as punishment for failing to satisfy you. You recognize the problem and figure out what’s going wrong with its environment so you can modify it, giving the flower a chance to bloom in its own time.

Accept your shortcoming or setback, forgive yourself, and figure out what’s going wrong so that you can plan for how to prevent it from repeating in the future. Thank your past self for trying in the first place and then give your future self the love needed to flourish.

I am almost affronted at how good and forgiving this advice is.

Flawless positivity.

Listen.

I read once, don’t remembet where or know if it’s true, that in order to train an animal and to remain good friends with it, you need a 5/1 ratio of positive vs. negative interactions. So for every interaction that the animal considers negative - pilling a cat, for example - you need FIVE positive interactions, such as treats, cuddles, play, or praise if you want to remain on the best possible terms with it.

This applies to your relationship with yourself.

If you aren’t positively interacting with yourself but are instead consistently berating, punishing, or being disgusted with yourself, you are 100% going to have a lot of emotional pain.

You aren’t perfect. Nobody is and nobody should feel like they have to be. You will make mistakes. And contrary to what a lot of folks, self included, seem to believe, being mean to yourself because you think you “deserve” it won’t actually help you learn or becone a better person.

All it does is teach you not to trust yourself, and teach you that you will always disappoint yourself. You take on a toxic relationship with yourself where you play both parts. It’s terrible.

So yes, you HAVE to learn to forgive yourself. You actually cannot grow effectively in the confines of a toxic relationship. Including one you have with yourself.

I know it isn’t easy, I have a hard time too, but it is so, so necessary.

Avatar

You can’t hate yourself into being happy.

I don’t remember where I read this but it literally changed my life and how I approach growth and personal development. It can be hard to keep in mind sometimes, but it puts it in a way that’s hard to argue with.