people who dismiss this as not real

In this vein, the false dualisms between physical and digital, virtual and actual, are not only fallacious, but also highly normative and arguably ableist. Turkle refers to face-to-face conversation as “the most human—and humanizing—thing we do.” I can’t help but wonder, who is this “we” to whom she refers? When her participants report that “text is fine” or that digital technologies help them navigate emotionally intense interactions, Turkle dismisses these accounts as illusory, an excuse to escape from the “messiness” of everyday real life.

But what of the messiness of human variation? Bodies, minds, and relationships come in all forms. Statistically, it is highly unlikely that one form of communication is most effective for all people. Of course, face-to-face conversation can be meaningful and powerful. This needn’t remove the power from digitally mediated forms of talk. Some people are literally enabled by digital technologies. For instance, those who are hearing impaired, stutter, or lack body control, find new communicative opportunities in digital technologies that allow users to express themselves and listen to others without the requirement of physical voice. People with high levels of anxiety may be able to enter new friendships and maintain existing ones in ways that were not previously possible. People with flitting and dynamic attention patterns may finally feel at home in a multitasking environment. The assumed preference for face-to-face conversation presumes a particular human model, to the exclusion of those who, inevitably, fit a different mold.
Rules for Bi/MGA Blogging

After endless “advice” being flung at me and other bisexual or MGA people I’ve come up with a list of rules that govern how and when we are allowed to talk about ourselves!

1. Biphobia isn’t real - and nor is panphobia, or any other MGA phobia.
2. Any oppression MGA people face is homophobia.
3. All things that impact people who have same gender attraction will be referred to as Gay. (ex: Gay rights. Gay marriage.)
4. Bisexual/MGA people must never refer to themselves as Gay or Lesbian. To do so is Appropriation.
5. All public figures (real or fictional), in all of history, who experience same gender attraction are Gay or Lesbian (regardless of their personal identity).
      5A. Subrule: All public figures (real or fictional) who experience SGA, who also have different gender relationships will have those dismissed as compulsory heterosexuality.
6. The lived experiences of Gay and Lesbian people is sacrosanct and can never be questioned.
7. The lived experiences of MGA people is to be ignored when it is contrary to the lived experiences of Gay and Lesbian people.
8. The language that Gay and Lesbian people use to discuss their oppression is sacrosanct, because only they are allowed to define their oppression. (see Rule #6)
9. The language that MGA people use to discuss their oppression must be approved by the SGA community, because they are not allowed to define their own oppression (See Rule #7)
10. Any time an MGA person chooses to discuss their experiences, they must provide a disclaimer that they are not referring to “All Gay or Lesbian people”, and must explicitly state that “Straight people are the biggest problem”.
11. All utterances of the words “monosexual” or “monosexism” are entirely forbidden (See rules #7 and #9), with the only exception being to deride other MGA people who use them.
12. All MGA people must graciously accept when Gay and Lesbian people paint all bisexuals or other MGA people in a poor light. To do otherwise is to be Homophobic (See rule #8).
13. Bisexual and MGA people must prove, with no less then 3 sources, any claim to oppression that is contrary to what a SGA person claims.
14. Bisexual and MGA people are forbidden from citing sources that indicate their oppression (see rule #7).
15. When entering in to a relationship with an SGA person, MGA people must provide a disclaimer stating that they are untrustworthy and unfit to be in a relationship.

Go forth and blog my MGA friends! Just follow these 15 easy rules to avoid getting raked over the coals! With these rules, you too can hope to one day be considered a “good bi”!

anonymous asked:

How might someone go about helping a person displaying psychotic symptoms when said person absolutely believes their delusions are true (and also definitely does not trust doctors)?

* Respect the person’s beliefs, even if you don’t agree. Someone who is experiencing psychosis might find it hard to distinguish what’s real from what’s not, so telling people that they’re wrong rarely helps.

* Avoid criticising or blaming the person. They may be talking or behaving differently because of their experiences.  You should avoid confronting the person and should not criticize or blame them.

* Avoid denying, dismissing, laughing at, or arguing about their perceived reality. Try not to be alarmed, horrified or embarrassed about any unusual ideas or paranoia.

* Ask the person if they’ve felt this way before and, if so, what helped then. Find out what sort of assistance the person thinks will help them this time.  You should ask the person about what will help them to feel safe and in control.

* Many people understand what’s happening and have a right to refuse help. Threatening the person with hospitalisation or mental health law is likely to make matters worse.

* You should be aware that the warning signs and/or symptoms of psychosis may vary from person to person and can change over time.

* You should not use sarcasm or patronizing statements when interacting with a person who may be experiencing psychosis.

* If you’re worried about someone you should encourage them to talk to people they trust or get a medical check-up, or direct them to resources they can use to get help (e.g. our [getting help] page or [self help] page).

[x][x][x]

Mod Emily

anonymous asked:

Awesome meta!! If this somehow turns out true it would so be like Lost and purgatory! Some believed that's what the island was but everyone dismissed that even the writers but low and behold it turned out true. I can see that happening here. Where there are a few people who believed Emma was in a come/once isn't real, it being denied by everyone but in the end turns out true.

Hey Anon, thank you!

Indeed, that’s sort of the idea, although I’ve never seen Lost, I read about it. Two things, if they have her wake up at the end of the show, many people will dislike the ending, I think, because it seems like a cop out. She loses her parents and we don’t see how her relationship with Regina and Henry evolves. She’s probably lost her job and all of her money, she won’t be able to walk or talk maybe. If they’re going to add realism when she’s not in her coma dream, then waking up from a “real sleeping curse” won’t be like Snow White or Aurora, she won’t be able to just sit up and she and Regina will assume the feelings they both have are mutual.

Then we have the AU episode, which foreshadowed the reality. Our reality is the Alternate Universe to Emma’s dreamverse and everything is a little different there. Snow and Charming are villains because they are the ones keeping her in the dream. Henry is the only one who can get Emma out, because he knows the fairy tale world she’s in, he created it. Hook helps save her, because without his liver, she would have died… but where bandit Regina chose Henry and Emma in the AU, we’ll see Emma choose to wake up, I think. So it seems like instead of at the end of the show, Emma may be waking up in 5B.


Can Henry as the author affect anything in the Underworld?
KITSIS: We’re going to find out!
HOROWITZ: Can’t say. [Laughs]  [x]


I thought this was very interesting, especially because they’re laughing. If our theory is correct, then the entire premise of the Underworld is Henry trying to write his mother out of the coma, so it is pretty essential, it’s the whole underlying concept of the rest of the season.

Of course, with the sleeping curse, we have foreshadowing that even after you wake up, you “go back to the burning room”. Everyone who was under a sleeping curse went back to their dream land at night. So we already know that the dreams will continue even if Emma wakes up. That way they can show us who is who in the real world and give us some information about Emma’s and Regina’s real backstory, so we can start to figure out what applied to who from the dream. Because right now all stories are mixed together. Some of it is Emma, some Regina, so it’s not always clear what happened to who and how it happened in the real world.

So, it’s one of the things I hope they’ll do both to make it different enough from Lost and to get the story back on track, so people will realize that the beginning of 5B was Emma dying and pulling away from Henry’s stories.

hammaria asked:

honestly, I felt like you were the best person to share this with, but I'm a bit hesitant. I'm afraid that even if the new PPG reboot is bad, it'll keep running because CN wants to be able to market a show purely to a female audience/cute ponies and GIRL POWER!! and honestly, the thought of a genuinely good show just becoming marketing is awful.

Yeah, I’ve thought about that too. And it’s a very very real possibility. I also feel like even if anyone complains, people working on the show will just dismiss their (seriously, pretty legit) complaints with their usual “lololol 2 bad u dumb losers” response. Which, honestly, is incredibly unprofessional and entitled but the way that most young creatives in the business today act. It’s sad.

But honestly, even if it does? In the long run, who remembers Scooby’s All Star Laff-A-Lympics? Who remembers The Pebbles and Bamm-Bamm Show? Who remembers Loonatics Unleashed (okay, many people remember that horror, but who actually watched it)? Reboots are almost always meant as an easy cash grab. And I really, truly believe the people on the show don’t really grasp the deep love that a lot of people have for this show, just how dear it is to their heart (it sounds sappy but it’s true!). But I think the people smart enough to see it for what it is are who matter. I think the fans who love the original show, and who appreciate animation for animation’s sake are who matter. I think the girls who grew up with the show and liked it because it didn’t pander to us and can see how this is a misguided attempt at reaching today’s girls (with today’s misguided “feminist” messages) are who matter.

But we’ll see what happens! Can’t really afford to worry about something that hasn’t happened yet. I totally get how you feel though! ♥

“…it would be a serious mistake to dismiss Hugo’s claim to be crusading for Gothic architecture as mere rhetoric, or at best as the expression of an amateur interest, however genuine.”

no,no I… certainly wouldn’t make THAT claim about Hugo and his…Thing For Architecture. Especially after that little dig in the 1832 preface about people who are ONLY in it “for the drama, for the novel.” Duly noted.

(From the Introduction to the Krailsheimer edition of Notre Dame de Paris, btw.)

also apparently Hugo is messing around with the timeline again in his claims about the date?  But for good reason this time.

anonymous asked:

Oh my gosh I'm so grateful to have found your blog I've seen so many people I respected lately making posts like "acephobia isn't real" even coming from ace kids who are being brainwashed into self hatred and dismissal and your blog is breath of fresh air

I’m mostly just mad over the fact that women who identify as asexual can’t call themselves lesbian if they’re romantically attracted to women exclusively without getting some sort of judgement from others (”YOU MEAN HOMOROMANTIC ASEXUAL RIGHT??????”)

Anyway, as long as I’m still living on this earth, I’m going to protect other asexual lesbians with everything that I have. I should be allowed to call myself a lesbian because even though I’m not attracted to women sexually, I’m still romantically attracted to them.

Someone needs to do a study on the inability of white people to relate to people of other races.  It’s really frightening how you can take a character that has no inherently white traits, yet if you change the color of their skin, they are no longer accessible and are dismissed.  They no longer have a place or priority.

First and foremost, to save human creativity from the grasp of boring white monoculture celebrating its own blighted history, which appropriates other cultures in order to tell their stories from white perspectives and calls its “sci fi” or “fantasy”.  It’s dead and tropey and we need more diversity to fix it.

White people constantly whine about seeing the same stuff repackaged and they’re looking for something to give meaning, but they shut out the very people who would make those tropes have brand new life and seem honest and real. 

Something profound gets lost in appropriation, about human experiences that don’t look like us, but that we would still understand, but with more feeling and more authenticity.  We are making our world smaller in ignoring those voices.

Signed,

A white person

anonymous asked:

Plus, honestly, if your objection to trans people actually is political rather than just founded in bigotry towards a marginalised population you don't understand, you ought to be interested to find out more about the trans people who are not represented by the transactivists found on tumblr and in certain irl communities. The fact that you're dismissing what i'm saying with "oh, sure, "a few bad apples" lol" speaks volumes about your real problem with those who are trans.

I’ll start repeating myself, but just in a different way.

What I’m essentially objecting to, is the belief, now commonly held in trans ideology and perpetuated by way too many non-trans supporters, that you can change your sex, either by undergoing (an) operation(s) or hormone treatment or, with the help of post-modernism and queer theory, by “identifying” into the “gender” your body supposedly feels like**. This belief has profound consequences, one of which is the morphing of gay and lesbian sexuality from “sex-based attraction” to “gender-based attraction”. Which means that I now have to “include” a person, who was born female and now considers herself to be male, for all the various reasons she may have, as a potential partner.*** 

I do not have to be forced at gunpoint to be attracted to trans’men’. Merely the expectation of having to be attracted to trans’men’, lest I should want to be called “transphobic”, can already be seen as coercive (and it is).

This is my fucking problem. This is what I’m objecting to. And unless I see a public renunciation of the “biological sex isn’t important/doesn’t exist” I will keep objecting.

Thank you for the correspondence but this is all you will be getting from me. Goodbye.


**and do not for a second think that I do not know what dysphoria feels like, considering that it has accompanied me ever since I hit puberty.

***similarly for lesbians and trans’women’.

Powerful California coastal panel ousts top executive

By Michael R. Blood, The Associated Press

LOS ANGELES, Calif. - The powerful agency that manages development on California’s coastline fired its executive after a lengthy and, at times, emotionally charged meeting that veered from accusations about the influence of developers and lobbyists to discussions on the mundane inner workings of government.

The California Coastal Commission voted 7-5 Wednesday to dismiss Executive Director Charles Lester, who has held the post since 2011. The vote was taken behind closed doors.

The shake-up raises questions about the direction of an agency often caught in the clash between property rights and conservation. The panel has broad sway over construction and environmental issues in coastal areas that include some of the most coveted real estate in the U.S.

The decision to oust Lester stood in striking contrast with a daylong meeting that amounted to a nearly unanimous show of support for the embattled executive director and his staff. Hundreds of people filled a meeting room in Morro Bay to capacity, with scores more outside, many waving signs saying “More Lester” and “Save Our Coast.” Supporters chanted outside: “We want Lester.”

Environmental activists suspect some commission members wanted to push out Lester to make way for management that would be more favourable to development, while a business group has questioned the tactics of the agency’s staff.

Before the vote, several commission members said that talk of a “coup” or “conspiracy” to oust Lester was a groundless narrative pushed in the media by those eager to save Lester’s job.

Instead, without directly attacking Lester, they indicated that the proposal to dismiss him was rooted in questions about Lester’s job performance and how he interacted with the commission and entities regulated by them. Some complained they had been left in the dark on important matters, or had difficulty obtaining information.

“It makes for easy drama to paint this as some plot by a gang of blood-thirsty developers who see only one man in their way of total destruction of the coast,” said Commissioner Mark Vargas.

The commission heard from dozens of witnesses, including members of its staff, all supporting Lester’s work. They praised him for a balanced hand in regulation and thorough and independent evaluation of proposed projects along the coastline.

Lester’s supporters repeatedly evoked the creation of the commission in the early 1970s, when rapid development was reshaping the California coast. Without checks and balances, they warned, California’s coast could become lined with high-rise buildings and luxury resorts open to the wealthy few.

Susan Jordan of the California Coastal Protection Network warned that Lester’s removal could threaten beach access for the public and open a new era of unchecked development.

“There will always be another billionaire who will block access to the beach,” she warned, alluding to notorious fights over beaches in Malibu and other celebrity enclaves.

William L. Perocchi, chief executive of the Pebble Beach Co., which owns the famed seaside golf course, submitted a letter to the panel calling Lester “fair, pragmatic, creative, open and reasonable.”

Commission Chairman Steve Kinsey notified Lester in a letter last month that the panel would consider whether to fire him.

Lester’s dismissal comes in the midst of a long-running review of a proposed development of nearly 1,400 homes, a resort and retail space known as Banning Ranch in the Newport Beach area.

Despite wide publicity on Lester’s fate, Gov. Jerry Brown, who appoints four commission members, distanced himself from the debate. His spokesman, Evan Westrup, said in a statement that “this is a matter the Coastal Commission initiated without any involvement from our office.”

All of Brown’s appointees on the panel voted to fire Lester.

The 12-member commission has received about 29,000 letters and emails, virtually all of them supporting Lester’s leadership.

But a letter from the Los Angeles County Business Federation, an alliance of 155 business groups, faulted the commission’s staff for a lack of accountability and regulatory overreach.

“California Coastal Commission staff attempt to assert control over facilities, projects and land use” outside of their control, according to the letter received by the panel Wednesday.

Lester has aggressively defended his tenure and depicted himself as an able steward of the coast. He has said he and the commission have made strides addressing the effects of sea-level rise tied to climate change, protecting open space and winning additional funding.

He defended his record for nearly 40 minutes Wednesday, stressing the need for an independent, impartial staff to review projects, with the commission then voting on those recommendations.

“If the two intertwine, then the recommendation or the commission decision … will be untrustworthy,” he warned.

Reblogging from Instagram: The greatest prison people live in is the fear of what other people think. No one is perfect. Perfect does not exist. Striving for something unattainable will drive you insane. Just be real. Be you, and if people don’t like it that’s their problem, not yours.
You only get one shot at life. Don’t waste it trying to live up to others people’s expectations while dismissing your own. Do what makes you happy. Follow your curiosity. Create your own flow. And always surround yourself with those that remind you of who you are. by ninzanderson http://ift.tt/1KxKuWB

anonymous asked:

Different anon here, but I agree with you. Also it's funny how there are so many SNSD antis, mainly anti Taeny of course, who have their blogs specifically dedicated to hating SNSD. They talk how SNSD is a generic, fake group, call them bunch of slurs (anti-asian at that, too), insult their looks, voices, dismiss their accomplishments as if Jessica wasn't a part of all of that before too. As someone whos bias is Jessica, I can't even go into her tag anymore because of this. It's honestly tiring.

Yeah, I understand. My friends who bias Jessica have given up on the Jessica tag as well :( 

Honestly, I don’t think those people can even be considered real fans of Jessica because it just feels like they’re using her as an excuse to hate SNSD.

Like, I think, the thing is, you can not like SNSD, like okay, everyone has different tastes and what not, but you just… can’t deny their importance (as ot9 specially). You can’t deny that without them, girl groups would not have as much exposure as they do nowadays. You can call them overrated and whatever, but they have suffered and worked so fucking hard to be where they are today, they deserve everything good they’ve gotten. But they certainly don’t deserve all this hate. Specially Taeny?? They’re not perfect and they have fucked up some times, yes, but haven’t we all? Like I’m not saying we have to forget their wrongs but can’t we also celebrate their good deeds? They’re just human beings… I feel like a lot of people forget that. They’ll grow from their mistakes, just like we do.

Powerful California coastal panel ousts top executive

By Michael R. Blood, The Associated Press

LOS ANGELES, Calif. - The powerful agency that manages development on California’s coastline fired its executive Wednesday after a lengthy and, at times, emotionally charged meeting that veered from accusations about the influence of developers and lobbyists to discussions on the mundane inner workings of government.

The California Coastal Commission voted 7-5 to dismiss Executive Director Charles Lester, who has held the post since 2011. The vote was taken behind closed doors.

The shake-up raises questions about the direction of an agency often caught in the clash between property rights and conservation. The panel has broad sway over construction and environmental issues in coastal areas that include some of the most coveted real estate in the U.S.

The decision to oust Lester stood in striking contrast with a daylong meeting that amounted to a nearly unanimous show of support for the embattled executive director and his staff. Hundreds of people filled a meeting room in Morro Bay to capacity, with scores more outside, many waving signs saying “More Lester” and “Save Our Coast.” Supporters chanted outside: “We want Lester.”

Environmental activists suspect some commission members wanted to push out Lester to make way for management that would be more favourable to development, while a business group has questioned the tactics of the agency’s staff.

Before the vote, several commission members said that talk of a “coup” or “conspiracy” to oust Lester was a groundless narrative pushed in the media by those eager to save Lester’s job.

Instead, without directly attacking Lester, they indicated that the proposal to dismiss him was rooted in questions about Lester’s job performance and how he interacted with the commission and entities regulated by them. Some complained they had been left in the dark on important matters, or had difficulty obtaining information.

“It makes for easy drama to paint this as some plot by a gang of blood-thirsty developers who see only one man in their way of total destruction of the coast,” said Commissioner Mark Vargas.

The commission heard from dozens of witnesses, including members of its staff, all supporting Lester’s work. They praised him for a balanced hand in regulation and thorough and independent evaluation of proposed projects along the coastline.

Lester’s supporters repeatedly evoked the creation of the commission in the early 1970s, when rapid development was reshaping the California coast. Without checks and balances, they warned, California’s coast could become lined with high-rise buildings and luxury resorts open to the wealthy few.

Susan Jordan of the California Coastal Protection Network warned that Lester’s removal could threaten beach access for the public and open a new era of unchecked development.

“There will always be another billionaire who will block access to the beach,” she warned, alluding to notorious fights over beaches in Malibu and other celebrity enclaves.

William L. Perocchi, chief executive of the Pebble Beach Co., which owns the famed seaside golf course, submitted a letter to the panel calling Lester “fair, pragmatic, creative, open and reasonable.”

Commission Chairman Steve Kinsey notified Lester in a letter last month that the panel would consider whether to fire him.

Lester’s dismissal comes in the midst of a long-running review of a proposed development of nearly 1,400 homes, a resort and retail space known as Banning Ranch in the Newport Beach area.

Despite wide publicity on Lester’s fate, Gov. Jerry Brown, who appoints four commission members, distanced himself from the debate. His spokesman, Evan Westrup, said in a statement that “this is a matter the Coastal Commission initiated without any involvement from our office.”

All of Brown’s appointees on the panel voted to fire Lester.

The 12-member commission has received about 29,000 letters and emails, virtually all of them supporting Lester’s leadership.

But a letter from the Los Angeles County Business Federation, an alliance of 155 business groups, faulted the commission’s staff for a lack of accountability and regulatory overreach.

“California Coastal Commission staff attempt to assert control over facilities, projects and land use” outside of their control, according to the letter received by the panel Wednesday.

Lester has aggressively defended his tenure and depicted himself as an able steward of the coast. He has said he and the commission have made strides addressing the effects of sea-level rise tied to climate change, protecting open space and winning additional funding.

He defended his record for nearly 40 minutes Wednesday, stressing the need for an independent, impartial staff to review projects, with the commission then voting on those recommendations.

“If the two intertwine, then the recommendation or the commission decision … will be untrustworthy,” he warned.

Working in a data center is weird sometimes.

Working in a data center alone is a little unnerving.

Working in a data center alone, at night, is kind of upsetting.

There’s already the constant noise of cooling units kicking on and off and distant beeping of various devices. That’s just amplified by an overactive imagination. Then you consider the fact that the EMF is through the goddamned roof (literally) and what that already does to a person. High EMF makes people paranoid and see and hear things that aren’t there.

Most everyone I work with believes in ghosts but also knows what the electricity we’re bombarded by does to us, so we’re never sure what might be a ghost or a real thing or our fried brains. It is unsettling. But it’s easy to dismiss when you’re working with other people. Less when it’s just you alone in the building and on the entire property. And you’re torn between thinking it’s a person who hopped the gate or it’s a ghost you’ve been pissing off by saying it’s just a result of your environment affecting your brain or if you’re just overlooking an obvious answer (ie: it’s the reflection of one of the monitors refreshing).

It’s so fucking weird working here. At night. All alone.

                                     THIS IS HALLOWEEN!

Want to find out more about JACK and SALLY? Dreamcrest is a town known by few. Settled in Northern California, most people who ever hear of Dreamcrest only hear of one thing about it: it’s a town with magic. Most people will dismiss it as a silly rumor; that magic isn’t real and that people who think it is are just dreamers. Well, that must be why they call it a place where dreams come true. However, now a powerful curse threatens their peaceful existence.

                             HOME | ASK | NAVIGATION | CHARACTERS | APPLY

anonymous asked:

I don't want to dismiss your feelings at all, so I hope the tone of this isn't weird, but here we go. I am someone who knows you only through your Tumblr, but I like you. Losing control of things sucks real bad, particularly financial stresses (which are my big issue too) - but you don't need to worry about people not liking you, because put simply - you're worth being liked.

this is a sweet message thank you

askdarthtryhard asked:

🔥

leah gets salty (aka the unpopular opinion meme I reblogged forever ago)

I don’t think self-inserts/mary sues are inherently bad. Sometimes a Mary Sue is only a Mary Sue because they want to flush out the character as they go (Rome wasn’t built in a day, after all). Sometimes a character without a lot of distinction can be nice. They do serve their purposes in literature, so why shouldn’t they in the RP community? And let’s be real– some people are just Mary Sue people. And there’s nothing wrong with that.

And come on– who HASN’T wanted to ship themselves with Han Solo or Luke Skywalker or Anakin? Self-inserts and Mary Sues can be good gateway characters for people trying out roleplaying, and I think that dismissing them or mocking them will only serve to turn away people who could quite possibly be wonderful RPers.

anonymous asked:

cultural appropriation isn't real

so what would you call picking and choosing aspects of another culture without any regard for their meanings, and using them however you like? all the while completely dismissing the members of that culture telling you that they don’t want their traditions packaged and demeaned. if you actually cared about these cultures that you don’t believe can be appropriated, you would fucking listen and learn when the people who are a part of them tell you how they feel.

“” I see we have someone from a dominant ethnic group who’s never taken an American or Canadian history class.“ – Again, your assumption towards me is wrong just like your false accusations towards Renee, which are basically based on nothing but jealousy apparently.”

Who would be jealous of someone who’s ignorant and uncaring of other people’s cultures and history? Who would want to be so callous and blind to the pain of others? No one. You bringing up jealously (which had nothing to do with the statement about ignorance of history and culture) because your statement has no standing. It’s dismissing the original conversation to divert attention from the fact that your original statement was invalid and destroyed.

But while you bring up jealously, the only people who are jealous are those who constantly go #squadgoals and either force a ship or defend a ship because their (or, in this case, your) real life emotional and psychological needs aren’t being met. THAT is jealously. 

People dislike Renee because she’s a tone deaf racist who flaunted the appropriation of another culture and showed ZERO interest in learning or caring about why her actions were offensive. That’s not because people have a desire to be tone deaf racists – it just means they abhor tone deaf racists.

soul rebel

It’s someone who sees the right thing to do is hard, but does it anyway.

It’s someone who refuses to worship the accepted gods: money, self-serving power, fame.

It’s someone who refuses to follow the crowd, when the dictates of the crowd are base and dehumanising.

It’s someone who is more interested in real issues than salacious vapid celebrity culture.

It’s someone who of their own volition seeks to do something to serve the interests of the planet and the people on it – not just their own needs.

It’s someone who refuses to dismiss or ignore the suffering of others.

It’s someone who is a Visionary rather than an observer. An observer sees what is and seeks to fit into it, or reports it, as is. A Visionary is someone who sees what is to come, what is possible, and works to bring it into existence out of the current reality. And joins others who want to bring it into existence too.