avoiding externalities

IF YOU DRIVE A CAR:

Park as far AWAY from the mall as possible to avoid external security cameras. You guys may THINK you’re safe as soon as you’re out of the mall, but that is simply not the case.

Numerous factors must be taken into account ahead of time. For example, if you are the type to pull risky hauls, may have been caught on camera one or numerous times and/or potentially have a case built against you, there is sufficient evidence of your crime. Mall cameras situated throughout hallways and in between stores are always being watched. If you take enough from a store? And you’re on camera, there is proof of your crime? All they have to do is use the mall cameras to trace you out of the mall, and if your license plate is on tape, you can be reported to the police and in danger. You all laugh at “rookies” who steal from stores and park right outside for their license plates to be photographed or taped. But you think it’s smarter to do at a mall? With security at every turn? And an even larger chance of cameras being everywhere? And then going back and forth to dump merchandise and build the case?

Just walk a bit further. I urge you.

Tag 20 people you’d like to know better!

Tagged by @akisamulove, @starryklance and @celestalvoltrontrash. Holy shit, people, thank you so much!

Nickname: I don’t think I have any, unless “Dudeusz” counts.
Zodiac sign: Scorpio.
Height: 162 cm or around 5'4″.
Last thing you googled: Engrave.
Favorite music artist: Too many to name off.
Song stuck in my head: Emperor’s New School Opening.
Last movie you watched: I cannot remember.
What are you wearing right now: My pajamas.
Why did you choose your URL: I was thirsty for a canon URL.
Do you have any other blogs: I have a dead Yu-Gi-Oh joke RP blog @yu-gi-oh-for-real-justice and an embarrassing dead joke blog that’s hidden to avoid external and internal cringe (gremlinkeith).
what did your last relationship teach you: I’m aro/ace, but if we’re taking the platonic ones into account as well, then it taught me how replacable, toxic and uninteresting as a person I am and how fragile my friendships truly are.
religious or spiritual: Neither.
Favorite color: All shades of blue, cyan, red, green, bluish violet.
Average hours of sleep: 2-5 hours on school days and around 10 on free days.
lucky number: I have no idea, but I like numbers 2, 3 and 8 for some reason.
Favorite characters:  Too many to list off.
How many blankets do you sleep with: 1. 2, if we’re counting my cuddle blanket.
Dream job: Anything that I would be decent at and what would provide me with sufficient paycheck. It’s been my dream to become a video game developer, but I know all to well that that’s impossible.

Tagging:

@mothmansplaining, @zooweamama, @we-end-in-croatoan, @klxncx, @scifigamingmom, @smolbean-ish, @aquabluve, @freckledheith, @deerdelmar, @vld-akira, @eatcherpeas, @pidge-plays-piano, @andyzweikowski, @holy-triangles, @beszel, @antareanelf, @baekuras, @ariasune, @tophatdragonslayer, @squiddleterrors.

millenniumvulcanarchive  asked:

Hey about that big cat masterpost I thought you might just like to know that "cr*pple" and "r*tard", both as nouns or verbs, are considered ableist slurs.

Thanks for the note. You’re right, and were the post about humans, they definitely wouldn’t be appropriate. The problem comes that, when discussing non-human animals, there aren’t really ways to avoid discussing disability that avoid referencing visible external states. This especially applies to attempts to be accurate.

With white tigers, for instance, it’s not accurate to say that they’re just mobility impaired or limited - they’re functionally prevented from having anywhere near normal, painless movement or existence. Because we can’t communicate about their internal experience of that genetic disability, we need to be able to talk directly about the levels of affectation.

For mental stuff, it’s harder. I’m not sure if there’s a better but still accurate word for white tigers. They’re not developmentally delayed, really, they’re just inbred. Any sort of attempt to use a less problematic word gets into attempting to estimate the amount of handicap a specific animal has, which is inaccurate and again starts projecting internal state.

What it ends up boiling down to is that a lot of the important political correctness when trying to avoid being awful to people doesn’t matter much when discussing non-human animals. At the same time, there’s also not the stigma associated with those slurs when used in the professional world in relation to the animals being cared for. Mincing words isn’t useful when you’ve got animals that need to be described accurately and in a consistent vocabulary across multiple fields, and sometimes that ends up being things that are totally not okay when used in relation to humans. This is in a similar vein to something that came up a few days ago about gender neutral genitals - it’s important in terms of people, but it’s not something you can really do in relation to animals where we’ve got no reference about internal state and are operating entirely on physical/biological sexual characteristics.

anonymous asked:

So because they showed Clarke smiling for a half second in one episode, her PTSD is just gone? And it's being ignored? People like you are the reason mental health isn't treated seriously.

No, people like you NORMALIZE symptoms and behaviors that should be treated rather than ignored. 

My degree is in psychology. I’ve experienced PTSD firsthand. And I specialize in working with children experiencing PTSD.

From the DSM-V:

Re-experiencing: covers spontaneous memories of the traumatic event, recurrent dreams related to it, flashbacks or other intense or prolonged psychological distress.

Avoidance: refers to distressing memories, thoughts, feelings or external reminders of the event.

Negative cognitions and mood: represents myriad feelings, from a persistent and distorted sense of blame of self or others, to estrangement from others or markedly diminished interest in activities, to an inability to remember key aspects of the event.

Arousal: marked by aggressive, reckless or self-destructive behavior, sleep disturbances, hypervigilance or related problems.

When we first saw her this season, Clarke was being reckless and self-destructive. It was in a different manner than Jasper, but that’s to be expected.

I suppose a case could be made for Clarke’s actions in trying to kill Nia as being reckless and self-destructive. I’m not sure whether that’s how they’re meant to be interpreted or not. And that’s a major concern I’m having right now. Was it intentional or coincidental?

She had sleep disturbances as we saw with Niylah.

We’ve seen the self-blame, the estrangement from others/avoidance of external reminders of the event.

And that last one is what concerns me. She has estranged herself from everyone who cares about her…except the one person I would expect her to be avoiding the most. I understand that the writers are meaning for that exposure to be healing, but it worries me that it appears that they’re saying that becoming intimately involved with the most direct reminder of not one but two traumatic events (killing Finn as well) is a way to heal from those traumatic experiences. THAT IS NOT OK.

If they’re going to go through with this relationship, they need to show it being DESTRUCTIVE to Clarke’s mental and emotional well-being. But if they do that, fans will revolt.

Maybe the reason she seems so out of character is that she IS re-experiencing traumatic events, is being re-traumatized by her ongoing exposure to such a reminder of those traumatic events (Lexa). But that just makes it all the more disturbing that they’d have her enter into a romantic, sexual relationship with the person who so blatantly represents the source of her trauma. Again, THAT IS NOT OK. ESPECIALLY because so many young girls are looking at this relationship as one to aspire to.

So no, I’m not creating an unnecessary stigma. I’m voicing a valid concern.