Misha Gerrick

Yep. Too many writers submit work to editors expecting praise. Dude, that's not what they're there for.

As someone that this has happened to, I can confirm. 0/10 can't recommend.

Only ebooks. :-P

Every relationship needs someone who packs the dishwasher like a squirrel on meth and one who packs it like a structural engineer. This is how we maintain the time space continuum.

Self-Compassion and the Art of Trusting Myself A gentle reminder to not expect the impossible of ourselves

I’m dealing with some exhaustion at the moment. It sucks. But it reminded me yet again why it’s important to show myself some compassion. #writing #chronicexhaustion #writingcommunity

Feels like that report will have been written by an AI that hallucinated.

Either way, it's good to know I have you fighting the good fight with me.

And yes, the left absolutely does this too. But we're never going to get anywhere if we're screaming about the equivalent of which filter we want to put over our reality. We need to get to the reality. To the truth. And THEN we can move from there.

Which again, isn't to say don't do what you can. What I'm saying is we need to stop engaging in the reframing as far as we can (cause doing so is almost impossible) because doing so is giving a lot of people who don't deserve it a free pass to continue with their bullshit.

Cause also: you know WHY we're so focused on self-determinism when it comes to healing the world? Cause some people want us to feel good and complacent about recycling going up while those companies, who are also lobbying politicians world wide continue to destroy what they want for profit.

Most people can't even see it because it's part of the furniture when we look around us.

So yes: recycle.
Also: find out who those companies are and push for them to be legislated.

Legislating those assholes out of polluting the world and having the Global South subsidize them would do a WHOLE LOT MORE.

I'm saying this as a comms person: comms literally changes how we perceive the world. It's also bullshit 90% of the time. Problem is, it's EVERYWHERE and it's insidious.

Which is to say: they succeeded at what they wanted to do.

Just like this whole: YOU TOO CAN SAVE THE WORLD IF YOU RECYCLE. <-- yes, but no. There are 100 companies in the world that do more to pollute and harm the environment than the rest of the world combined.

Every little bit helps.

Agreed. Cause those assumptions are often the causes of where we are. It's like... no matter how well-intentioned, we're not getting to the right destination if we start off from the wrong place compared to the map we have in hand. I think being open and curious and brave is a good start.

I agree. It's easy to fall prey to this sense of "oh what's the point?" But people DO rise to be better, to learn and grow.

Yeah absolutely this. And I 1000000% agree with you that the fight needs to be fought.

Now. 20 years and billions of dollars of self-enrichment in favor of the oil lobby later.

But climate change sounds... whatever, so if nothing is done. Who cares? A climate crisis, on the other hand.... That's a problem. What's being done?

And yeah, no one who has any power over policy and stuff ever thought differently about it. Who does, however, think differently about climate change vs climate crisis: is your average joe schmo on the street who should be voting based on whether something is being done about it.

Yeah, except it's not a "just". I know when I say this, I sound like a conspiracy theorist, but there are literally people whose jobs it is to control the narrative by manipulating the way it's talked about. And again. If you control the narrative, you control what's happening in the story.

I agree there. I'm not talking about being a pedant. (See the other posts I just sent for clarification.)

"Oh. You're woke."
"I'm empathetic and I care about the people around me, including you. Aren't you?"

Especially now in the world of hot takes and the creation of this verbal short hand. They're creating the conversation points and moving the goal posts when we engage. Don't let them. Keep people accountable for what they're saying.

And no, it's not just theoretical: this redefinition and creation of new phrases with which to straw man the left is part of why the right can even win elections and stuff.

... when we use them. So we don't need to again, be pedantic. But neither do we have to have the rules of engagement dictated by their bullshit. So they use a phrase? Come back with a clear statement on what you're talking about. Drag them up to your level.

We think we're looking for consensus by allowing this redefinition, but they don't want consensus. Think of it as semantic gerrymandering. They're winning the conversation because they literally come up with the phrases we're using, which means they also REDEFINE those phrases out from under us...

Cause what the right is doing is playing with language to play with people's perception of the thing they named. Think about segregation. "It's not racism. It's just exclusion of people who don't want to be part of the in group anyway." (This one was used in my country.)

"Are you pro-life or pro-choice?" "I'm for the reproductive rights and bodily autonomy of women."

"Look we know climate change is real, but climate change has always happened." "Climate change and global warming are two different things. Global warming is also real and it's an existential threat."

I'm not talking about the bad faith argument about semantics. That doesn't go well for a good reason. I'm talking about:
"Oh! So you're woke."
"I have a sense of fairness and empathy for people regardless of who they are."

Yep. Although one can argue it started for you guys in the 1860s already when many civil war reforms were rolled back.