I’m pretending all the time to be, kinder, stronger, funnier, more sociable than I am. I guess we’re all like that but it just feels so inadequate.
What’s the difference?
I know it sounds flippant but… certain things are fundamentally performative. And other things are so close as makes no difference.
Kindness is performative. Actions are kind, and people are kind by performing those actions. You can’t “pretend” to be kinder than you are, you can only perform kindness or not perform kindness, and choosing to perform kindness is always worthwhile, no matter how much you may second-guess your motivations.
Strength is so many things. It takes strength to pretend a strength you don’t feel. And the way to achieve strength is to exercise it, so long as you do it in enough moderation to not strain or break anything. Being able to affect strength when necessary while being able to put it down again when that in turn is necessary is healthy. Everyone starts weight training with the littlest weights. It’s not fake or pretending to do what you gotta do in any given situation.
Funniness lives in the interlocutor, not in the speaker. It doesn’t matter how funny you think you are (or think you are pretending to be) – that’s not how it’s measured. At what point are you “pretending” to be a musician if the music still gets made? And often what it’s tempting to describe in first person as “pretending” is more accurately described in the third person as “practicing” – which is of course the way you cause things to Be.
Sociability is also performative. Pretending to be sociable is just…being sociable, despite a disinclination towards it. It’s making an effort towards something you value. So long as the effort is not so great that it backfires into resentment, there’s no practical difference.
Qualities or activities or whatever are no less worthy because you have to actively choose to perform them. If anything, the worthiness lies in the act of choosing. It’s not “pretending” – it’s agency.
tl;dr: ain’t nothing wrong with “fake it till you make it.” A plastic spoon* holds just as much soup as a “real” one
* I keep wanting to talk about semantic domains! Artifacts are defined by their utility, whereas living things are defined by their identity. So plastic forks are still forks, but plastic flowers aren’t flowers. So there’s two pep-talk messages to take away from this: (1) for certain things, the distinction between “fake” and “real” isn’t a relevant one so long as they still get the job done, and (2) the purpose of a living thing is to be the thing that it is. The idea of a “useless person” is as semantically nonsensical as the idea of “pretend kindness” (or fake cutlery).
I love this post. It illustrates what I think is maybe the key difference between a developing self-identity and a formed self-identity, which is, like…confidence? If you are BEING kind, consistently, if you are prioritizing that over your own comfort or fatigue or even, occasionally, your emotional inclination (because OH MY GOD FUCK THIS GUY, I HAVE HAD IT UP TO HERE–uuughhh, but no, I’m not gonna lash out at him, that won’t accomplish anything, and besides, he’s probably had a bad day, he’s under a lot of stress, I don’t have to be an asshole about this…), guess what? That makes you kind. That is literally what kindness is. Same for patience, same for strength, same for all of this stuff. You got it. You’re doing it. You’re not faking anything. Stop second-guessing yourself and cutting yourself down. Give yourself enough credit to look at your actions and confidently assert to yourself that you are no longer just making things up as you go.
Tag: long post //
doesn’t mod s call herself a feminist? she can’t be muslim and a feminist, islam is a male dominated religion, women have to be constantly oppressed. it’s disgusting how muslim women are treated
Well, first of all, I’m use they/them, but thanks so much for misgendering me!
You wanna talk about how Muslim women and and woman-aligned people are treated? Fine, we can talk about that.
We can talk about how the Quran was revealed in 632 AD, saying how women are equal to men. (“And their Lord responded to them: ’…be you male or female – you are equal to one another.’” [Quran 3:195])
We can talk about how in the 16th century, western men were still debating if women had souls.
We can talk about how in 632, the 1st century, Muslim women had the rights to choose who to marry, to divorce, to work, to educate and be educated, to have their won inheritance, to their own land and property, to have their own businesses, to participate in combat, to half their husband’s wealth, to have their own opinions, to have custody of their children, and on and on and on.
We can talk about Muslim women’s right to have a voice in government. Tell me, when did the USA give (white) women “equal participation in the political process,” or voting? 1920. Muslim women have had that since 632.
We can talk about how Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Turkey, Kosovo, Kyrgyzstan, and Senegal have all had female Presidents or Prime Ministers. How 1/3rd of Egypt’s parliament is female. How in the lovely USA, we haven’t even had a women vice-president yet.
We can talk about the hijab, niqab, abaya, and burqa, how they’re mainly worn to protect women from leering men, and to allow women to interact freely in public without people being able to judge their bodies or looks and only having their minds and personalities to make judgements off of.
We can talk a out how the Western world has twisted our clothing into “women have to cover up because they’re indecent!” and women and feminine-presenting people get attacked and have their coverings yanked off, either because of Islamophobic hatred or misguided attempts at saving us.
We can talk about how I’ve had my hijab ripped off twice, both times by white men, once outside my community’s masjid (the Muslim place of worship.) And oddly enough, my clothing didn’t stop me from breaking one of those men’s noses when he went after my sister. Just like it’s never stopped me from going to school, or playing sports, or doing anything a white woman or woman aligned person could do.
We can talk about how outside of the masjid, where men and women are required to cover their heads, I’ve never once been made to wear a hijab.
We can talk about how the only people who have lectured me about dressing modestly were non-Muslim teachers and other educators.
We can talk about how people want to preach about how Muslims think women are indecent, when western schools freak out when a girl shows her shoulders.
We can talk about my cousin who once made a joke about women belonging in the kitchen and how out of thirty people in the room, the only person who laughed was his white friend. How his father immediately corrected him.
We can talk about how the first university ever, the University of al-Qarawiyyin, was founded in 858 by Fatima al-Fihri, a Muslim woman. How despite that, the summer I was thirteen and taking extra courses at the community college, an instructor praised me for joining even though “I know Muslim parents don’t let girls have higher education.” I had to look her in the eyes and ask who she thought was paying for my classes.
We can talk about the Prophet Muhammad (s.a.a.w.) who denounced all forms of enslavement of women, and assisted women in issuing their rights to exist freely.
We can talk about people who rush to condemn Muslim men for hurting the “defenseless” girls, then turning around and making jokes about raping and hitting women.
We can talk about the “saviors of Muslim women,” talking about how they’re so oppressed, they don’t get to make their own choices.
We can talk about how these people completely ignore anyone who says they’re wrong and call them brainwashed. Because of course millions of women have been coerced into believing in a tradition that views them as subservient, what other explanation is there?
We can talk about how patronizing and infantalizing this is, how it denies Muslim women and woman aligned people agency and puts our “saviors” on a pedestal. “We need to be their heroes! Because obviously they can’t fix their problems without the aid of white people!”
We can talk about how it’s true that Muslim women suffer from misogyny. How there are Muslim men who think of women as lesser, how some Muslim women are forced to cover themselves and marry. Because guess what? There is no culture that is exempt from misogyny and sexism, gender discrimination is a problem everywhere. But you cannot call an entire culture and religion inherently misogynistic, that is in no way true.
We can talk about how somehow there’s this incredibly untrue idea that Western cultures have “progressed forward, and sexism doesn’t exist here, only in other countries and cultures.”
We can talk about how if people want to help Muslim women, all that is needed is for them to listen to us and follow our lead.
We can talk about how Muslim women and woman aligned people do not need white people to save them. We have always been capable of helping ourselves.
There are a lot of conversations to be had about the treatment of Muslim women, if it’s something you want to discuss.
But the thing is? People who talk about how oppressed Muslim women are generally don’t.
You want a deflection from your misogyny, “You think I’m bad! You should see how Muslim girls are treated.” You want an excuse for your Islamophobia, “We need to criticize Islam, they treat women awfully!” You want justification for western imperialism, “These wars are necessary! We need to save the poor girls!”
You don’t care about Muslim women and women aligned people.
Stop pretending like you do.
– Mod S
The rules about responding to call outs aren’t working
Privileged people rarely take the voices of marginalized people seriously. Social justices spaces attempt to fix this with rules about how to respond to when marginalized people tell you that you’ve done something wrong. Like most formal descriptions of social skills, the rules don’t quite match reality. This is causing some problems that I think we could fix with a more honest conversation about how to respond to criticism.
The formal social justice rules say something like this:
- You should listen to marginalized people.
- When a marginalized person calls you out, don’t argue.
- Believe them, apologize, and don’t do it again.
- When you see others doing what you were called out for doing, call them out.
Those rules are a good approximation of some things, but they don’t actually work. It is impossible to follow them literally, in part because:
- Marginalized people are not a monolith.
- Marginalized people have the same range of opinions as privileged people.
- When two marginalized people tell you logically incompatible things, it is impossible to act on both sets of instructions.
- For instance, some women believe that abortion is a human right foundational human right for women. Some women believe that abortion is murder and an attack on women and girls.
- “Listen to women” doesn’t tell you who to believe, what policy to support, or how to talk about abortion.
- For instance, some women believe that religious rules about clothing liberate women from sexual objectification, other women believe that religious rules about clothing sexually objectify women.
- “Listen to women” doesn’t tell you what to believe about modesty rules.
- Narrowing it to “listen to women of minority faiths” doesn’t help, because women disagree about this within every faith.
- When “listen to marginalized people” means “adopt a particular position”, marginalized people are treated as rhetorical props rather than real people.
- Objectifying marginalized people does not create justice.
Since the rule is literally impossible to follow, no one is actually succeeding at following it. What usually ends up happening when people try is that:
- One opinion gets lifted up as “the position of marginalized people”
- Agreeing with that opinion is called “listen to marginalized people”
- Disagreeing with that opinion is called “talking over marginalized people”
- Marginalized people who disagree with that opinion are called out by privileged people for “talking over marginalized people”.
- This results in a lot of fights over who is the true voice of the marginalized people.
- We need an approach that is more conducive to real listening and learning.
This version of the rule also leaves us open to sabotage:
- There are a lot of people who don’t want us to be able to talk to each other and build effective coalitions.
- Some of them are using the language of call-outs to undermine everyone who emerges as an effective progressive leader.
- They say that they are marginalized people, and make up lies about leaders.
- Or they say things that are technically true, but taken out of context in deliberately misleading ways.
- The rules about shutting up and listening to marginalized people make it very difficult to contradict these lies and distortions.
- (Sometimes they really are members of the marginalized groups they claim to speak for. Sometimes they’re outright lying about who they are).
- (For instance, Russian intelligence agents have used social media to pretend to be marginalized Americans and spread lies about Hillary Clinton.)
The formal rule is also easily exploited by abusive people, along these lines:
- An abusive person convinces their victim that they are the voice of marginalized people.
- The abuser uses the rules about “when people tell you that you’re being oppressive, don’t argue” to control the victim.
- Whenever the victim tries to stand up for themself, the abuser tells the victim that they’re being oppressive.
- That can be a powerfully effective way to make victims in our communities feel that they have no right to resist abuse.
- This can also prevent victims from getting support in basic ways.
- Abusers can send victims into depression spirals by convincing them that everything that brings them pleasure is oppressive and immoral.
- The abuser may also isolate the victim by telling them that it would be oppressive for them to spend time with their friends and family, try to access victim services, or call the police.
- The abuser may also separate the victim from their community and natural allies by spreading baseless rumors about their supposed oppressive behavior. (Or threatening to do so).
- When there are rules against questioning call outs, there are also implicit rules against taking the side of a victim when the abuser uses the language of calling out.
- Rules that say some people should unconditionally defer to others are always dangerous.
The rule also lacks intersectionality:
- No one experiences every form of oppression or every form of privilege.
- Call-outs often involve people who are marginalized in different ways.
- Often, both sides in the conflict have a point.
- For instance, black men have male privilege and white women have white privilege.
- If a white woman calls a black man out for sexism and he responds by calling her out for racism (or vice versa), “listened to marginalized people” isn’t a very helpful rule because they’re both marginalized.
- These conversations tend to degenerate into an argument about which form of marginalization is most significant.
- This prevents people involved from actually listening to each other.
- In conflicts like this, it’s often the case that both sides have a legitimate point. (In ways that are often not immediately obvious.)
- We need to be able to work through these conflicts without expecting simplistic rules to resolve them in advance.
This rule also tends to prevent groups centered around one form of marginalized from coming to engage with other forms of marginalization:
- For instance, in some spaces, racism and sexism are known to be issues, but ableism is not.
- (This can occur in any combination. Eg: There are also spaces that get ableism and sexism but not racism, and spaces that get economic justice and racism but not antisemitism, or any number of other things.)
- When disabled people raise the issue of ableism in any context (social justice or otherwise), they’re likely to be shouted down and told that it’s not important.
- In social justice spaces, this shouting down is often done in the name of “listening to marginalized people”.
- For instance, disabled people may be told ‘you need to listen to marginalized people and de-center your issues’, carrying the implication that ableism is less important than other forms of oppression.
- (This happens to *every* marginalized group in some context or other.)
- If we want real intersectional solidarity, we need to have space for ongoing conflicts that are not simple to resolve.
Tl;dr “Shut up and listen to marginalized people” isn’t quite the right rule, because it objectifies marginalized people, leaves us open to sabotage, enables abuse, and prevents us from working through conflicts in a substantive way. We need to do better by each other, and start listening for real.
This! Also, I’ve lately heard a speaker at an event talk about how frustrated he was that instead of having substantial discussions (which include disagreements), his allies didn’t bring their own ideas into their shared work. Of course not everyone will feel that way… but it’s definitely something to think about. In any case, like you said: because oppressed people are not a monolith and have all kinds of different opinions and demands, it is ultimately our responsibility to actively engage with those and chose who to support and how. Hiding behind “I’m only an ally, listening to the oppressed and shutting up” can often obscure what choices one made and why (Why am I listening to this particular opinion/demand when it’s not the only one that is being voiced by this group? Why am I listening to this group more than to another? etc)
Although when it comes to fighting against blatant bigotry, ‘splaining or saviourism, the “shut up and listen to people who actually make those experiences” rule still applies imo.
Or in other words: It’s only ok to stop shutting up once someone is actually willing to consider the humanity of the marginalised group in question and honestly wants to change something about the oppression (and usually also only after having at least a basic level of understanding about the issue.)
DIY Non-Dairy Milk
You can make a variety of plant-based “milks” by blending raw nuts, seeds, and grains with water. Almonds, cashews, macadamias, Brazil nuts, hazelnuts, pecans, pistachios, coconuts, soybeans, hemp seeds, pumpkin seeds, sunflower seeds, sesame seeds, sacha inchi seeds, flaxseeds, quinoa, millet, rice, and oats can all be liquefied into delicious milks. Homemade milks are fresh, free of additives and preservatives, and you can completely control the integrity of the product: the quality of the ingredients, the sugar levels, and the texture.
“Milking” raw nuts, seeds, and grains is quick and easy. Here’s how to do it:
SOAK nuts, seeds, or grains by placing in a bowl with filtered water and a pinch of sea salt. Soaking removes enzyme inhibitors, improves digestibility and nutrient bio-availability, and helps everything blend more easily. Rinse thoroughly and drain.
BLEND with filtered water. A high-speed machine like a Vitamix is preferable to really pulverize the mixture. A 1:3 ration of nuts/seeds/grains to water generally yields good results. Start with 2 cups of water and gradually add more water until you get the taste and consistency you like. Blend for about 1 minute. This can warm the mixture. Chill in the fridge, or blend with ice to consume immediately.
SWEETEN the milk to taste with pitted dates, stevia, maple syrup, agave, coconut sugar, etc. You can also add 1 teaspoon of vanilla extract to boost flavors, and 1 tablespoon of NON-GM soy or sunflower lecithin and coconut butter to emulsify ingredients. You can also jazz up your milks with raw cacao, fruit, cinnamon, nutmeg, or anything else that tickles your fancy.
STRAIN Some foods like cashews, macadamias, and pecans yield smooth milks. However, with most other foods, like almonds, you will get some texture. You can enjoy this fibrous milk, or strain it for a smoother, more commercial-style blend. Place a nut milk bag over a large container, pour the milk in, and gently squeeze the bag until all liquid has passed through. You can re-purpose the pulp as a body scrub by mixing with some coconut oil, or dehydrate it for use in cookies, crusts, and crackers.
ENJOY Most milks will keep in the fridge in a sealed container for two or three days. Freeze any leftovers in ice cube trays for use later. Homemade milks can separate when stored. Just shake or blend again before drinking.
Basic Plant-Based “Milk”
1 cup nuts, grains, or seeds
3 cups filtered water
3 Tbs. plant based sweetener (such as maple syrup, raw agave, coconut sugar, or 3-4 pitted dates, or stevia to taste)
1 Tbs. coconut butter (optional, for texture)
1 Tbs. Non-GM soy or sunflower lecithin (optional, to emulsify and add creaminess)
1 tsp. natural vanilla extract
Pinch of Celtic sea salt (optional, to bring out flavors)1. Soak nuts, grains, or seeds for desired time. See suggested times below.
2. Drain nuts, grains, or seeds. Rinse, and then place in blender with 3 cups filtered water. Add remaining ingredients, and blend on high until fully liquefied, about 1 minute.
4. If consuming immediately, add a few ice cubes to cool milk.
5. Strain with a nut milk bag, if desired. Milk will keep for two days stored in a sealed glass jar in the fridge.Makes 3-4 cups milk.
(Originally by Tess Masters.)
Soaking time varies by hardness of nut or seed. Here are some more specific guide times for soaking the grains, nuts and seeds (with sprouting times when making sprouts):
Food Soaking Time (Hrs) Sprouting Time (Days)
Almonds 8-12 No Sprouting
Adzuki Beans 8-12 4
Amaranth 8 1-3
Barley 6 2
Black Beans 8-12 3
Brazil Nuts 3 No Sprouting
Buckwheat 6 2-3
Cashews 2-4 No Sprouting Chickpeas/Garbanzo 8 2-3
Flaxseeds ½ No Sprouting
Hazelnuts 8-12 No Sprouting
Kamut 7 2-3
Lentil Beans 7 2-3
Macadamias 2 No Sprouting
Millet 5 12 hours
Mung Beans 8-12 4
Oat Groats 6 2-3
Pecans 6 No Sprouting
Pistachios 8 No Sprouting
Pumpkin Seeds 8 3
Radish Seeds 8-12 3-4
Sesame Seeds 8 2-3
Sunflower Seeds 8 12-24 hours
Quinoa 4 2-3
Walnuts 4 No Sprouting
Wheat Berries 7 3-4
Wild Rice 9 3-5
Omg how cool! : D
“billionaires bad” is an objectively good opinion actually
One of the best soundbites I’ve heard about modern economics is (paraphrased)) “It’s not possible to earn a billion dollars. It is possible to steal a billion dollars.”
There is nobody smart enough, hardworking enough, trained enough and dedicated enough to earn a billion dollars without leveraging corrupt systems and exploiting people.
The poverty threshold in America is $11,490 for one person. If someone has a billion dollars, that is 87,032 times the poverty line.
It’s possible for someone to be twice as smart as another worker. It’s possible for them to be four or five times as hardworking. It’s possible for one person to have ten times the training of another person. So if you have one person that is half as smart, a fifth as hardworking, and a tenth as trained, they should reasonably earn one percent of the other. That’s the very outside figure. But anyone who takes in more than a million dollars per year did not earn that, they stole it. They found a vulnerable system to exploit or they found a group of people to cheat. Maybe they did it legally. Maybe they paid someone to make it legal to do that. It happens. But “earn”? Actually -deserving- that much money because of their merits and efforts? No.
Except they didn’t cheat the system – capitalism is literally SET UP to do that! And no, people who aren’t as trained or intelligent or hardworking don’t deserve to live any less than your hypothetical smart hardworking well-trained person! EVERYONE deserves to live!!!! And poverty kills. And inequality kills. And people aren’t better or worth more than others for being more “intelligent” (an entirely ableist, racist, sexist category invented by eugenicists), or hardworking (work is not a virtue! In fact very much “work” is just destructive and harmful!) or better trained (education is given or witheld mostly along lines of class oppression/privilege and is also organised in soul- and creativity-crushing ways)!
Basically, smash capitalism and the idea of a “meritocracy” (system where “better” people have more power) altogether! It’s not just bad because of these extremes, the very underlying principles are bad!
Although yes, without a doubt, billionaires are bad. They’re personally bad people and any system that enables anyone to be a billionaire is fundamentally bad as well.
Why are neurotypicals always so quick to pathologize others but at the same time are against self diagnosis?
Like it’s OK for some random anon to tell me I’m delusional/should take meds/should go to a doctor but not for someone to do a lot of soul-searching, research, self-observation, reach out to others with similar experiences and then come to a conclusion about how to label their experiences in order to deal with them better?
Why do they think subjecting people to involuntary “exposure therapy” when they’re not even anywhere near certified therapists (”I don’t believe in tagging triggers”) is OK but not people self-diagnosing as a first step to deal with whatever issue(s) on their own terms?
Why do they keep falsely asserting that a behaviour/belief that they don’t like is always pathological (”If you told your doctor this they’d lock you up”), but if someone sees a problem with one of their own behaviours/experiences it’s never OK to “self-diagnose” that?
Why do they keep insisting that a condition they don’t like isn’t real at all and at the same time pathologise those who have it? Or concern-troll about how baaaad those “fakers” are for “people who strugle with real mental illnesses”?
I find that anti-self-dxers tend to advocate relying on an external source for validation because that external source is somehow completely objective (in reality, everyone is biased, including professionals) rather than someone using their own best judgment. That’s scary because that attitude can enable abusers to gaslight.
Also, I have a problem with the title implying it’s only neurotypicals who do this when I have also seen a lot of neurodivergent people do this too. I find that this attitude is often a case of internalized ableism.
You’re right, that definitely happens as well!
a-trashcan-made-out-of-fandoms:
It is an unspoken rule that if a little kid is hiding under a blanket or couch cushions, you are required to comment on how lumpy the blanket is and pretend to sit on it to try and “smooth it out.”
Also, if you’re playing hide-and-seek with them, it is critical that you search every other possible (and impossible) hiding spot, all the while wondering out loud how they managed to disappear just like magic, before walking right past their hiding spot.
And if a baby starts playing peekaboo you are required to act surprised when they show their face again
If a kid hands you a phone, you answer it
If a kid shoots you with a Nerf Gun you are supposed to Die a dramatic death and explain “ugh you shot me blaahh”
when you push a kid on the swings ya gotta do the woosh
I literally just blocked about a dozen people on this post for being cranky about children.
Being a joyless shitbeast to kids isn’t cool. They’re kids. If you want to be Oscar the Grouch, that’s fine, but do it in a way they understand and explain it to them.
“I don’t want to play, I’m grumpy. Thank you, though, that was kind.”
It’s literally not hard. Kids are small people. Treat them with common fucking decency.
you know, the fact that people see a person who has no will to do literally anything as lazy instead of mentally ill is pretty shitty in my opinion. it’s just a basic definition of types of neurodivergence: a lack of will to do literally anything.
it’s how they diagnose depression for instance. even if you aren’t sad if you have no will to do anything, you are not neurotypical.
we view basic definitions of types of mental illness symptoms as character flaws, to a point where even people who experience these symptoms will view themselves as just fundamentally bad but not mentally ill in the slightest. and never do they learn there is possible treatment available to them, and that what they’re experiencing isn’t normal.
a person isn’t bad because they can’t or have no will to do anything, but there is treatment available for this, and you know even if said treatment never works on said person, I still don’t think they deserve to die because they don’t function like other people do.
a lot of what’s perceived as “laziness” is rooted in anxiety as well as depression. paralyzing fear of failure is a classic symptom of anxiety disorder, and negative self-judgment (“i’m just lazy”) only feeds that anxiety and worsens the paralysis.
if you’re too cozy on the couch to get yourself a glass of water, perhaps you could be called lazy. but if you’re too afraid to ever make plans, take risks, pursue your goals, or even leave your apartment? you’re not lazy, you’re suffering and you need tools to cope with your illness, not criticism from yourself or others.
Dissociation gets mistaken for laziness, too – you might feel paralised, unable to move or even think, or “zone out” or “daydream” (maladaptive daydreaming is a thing and it’s not a character flaw!), or constantly forget what you were doing/ wanted to do (or how, or who you are…), you might end up in autopilot mode and do the default thing instead of the thing you were meant to do (go straight home instead of running errands on the way), you might lose connection with the rest of the world or your own body… there are many ways dissociation can manifest.
queerhomestuck 