Seeing talk again about Neil Gaiman as more people become aware of his abuses, and reminded of something I wrote earlier that absolutely relates.
The short of it is, as always, we want to simply repaint people as inhuman monsters the moment we find out behaviors like this. We want them to be "them" not "us", because if they're regular people who do awful things then all of "us" can be awful and I can't conveniently ignore the awful things people do around me.
Likewise, in the case of artists, there's a tendency to immediately see all of their art as complete trash. Not just tainted, but as being poor quality to begin with. Sometimes there's validity when it was rose-colored glasses before (ie. JKR's blatant bigotry throughout her writing that we glossed over mostly because we were kids and not paying attention), but often it's not based in the actual quality and experience of the work itself... just the tainted associations around it.
I'm not suggesting you should ignore the artist and just "get over yourself" or anything like that. I'm saying it's important to not automatically associate good artist with good person.
Because it's such a clear and easy example I love to point out Joss Whedon with this. His good stuff doesn't stop being good, it just becomes unenjoyable because you see him reflected in it. And what I think happens in both Joss Whedon's case and Neil Gaiman's is that their awfulness contributed to the quality, it didn't just fly under the radar.
In the case of Whedon, it's because his fetish was "breaking strong women", to fulfill that fetish in his writing that meant he had to write strong women. Because he so often wrote series, it mean he also had to write stories of them recovering their strength after being broken (so he could ultimately break them again). We connected with the strength of these women, that's what often made his stories so good and he hid behind that.
Dismissing all of that because it's come out that he's awful means we're not paying attention to how other artists show themselves, or how seemingly positive people might just be awful people with the mirror opposite abuses to the positives being celebrated.
foggyminds.com/display/c6ef095…
Why You Must Keep The Monsters Human
*(Reposting because my node crashed and lost all my posts and I want to keep this one pinned)*I've been mulling over making this post for a little bit, but I think it's really **really** important.
It's critically important that you remember and acknowledge the humanity of monsters. Not for their benefit, but for *everyone else's* benefit.
When someone commits a monstrous act or shares a monstrous belief, we want to think of them as an inherently vile and non-human thing.
But doing so shields and protects other monsters.
When you make a Nazi, or any kind of abuser, into a one-dimensional monster. When you make their whole existence *center* on this monstrous act or belief... you make it hard to see their humanity. And that's the point, you don't *want* to see their humanity.
*** You Don't Want To Believe That Someone You Know And Trust (Maybe Even Love) Is Capable Of Such Atrocity. ***
And that's the problem. Because when you reject their humanity, that humanity becomes their shield. Your friend Bob can't possibly be a Nazi or a child-abuser, he's such a loving father and he helped you move!
Because you see their humanity, you can't possibly imagine them as monsters because the monsters have no humanity in your eyes.
There's a reason that when serial killers get caught their neighbors say they couldn't imagine them doing such things.
So don't ignore their humanity, keep it in your mind... so the next one can't use it as a shield.
Petition · Start Pancreatic Cancer screening - United Kingdom · Change.org
change.org/p/start-pancreatic-…
ADHD musing
Random thought occurring to me after I struggled to sleep last night...
There's a thing for a lot of people with ADHD where caffeine is kinda like rolling dice... sometimes it helps you wake up and sometimes it puts you to sleep.
I realized last night I was having a mild dopamine crash (spent all my dopamine on the workday) and I was craving caffeine so I said screw-it, if I can't sleep might as well... within half an hour I think I was out.
So it dawned on me that it could be simply related to our dopamine levels at the time. If we're spent then it's practically impossible to settle down. So when you're spent and otherwise tired, then caffeine is reducing the barrier to sleep as well. It backfires on us because we're still up from the combination of drowsiness and low dopamine, but because it's milder than say ritalin it doesn't drop our drowsiness as much as it raises the dopamine to let you settle...
Wanted to share for what other people think of this possibility?
reshared this
Les trente premières années se passent à ne pas pouvoir se réveiller, les trente suivantes à ne pas pouvoir s'endormir.
Il s'agit bien d'un dicton chinois, mais attention il n'y a pas forcément continuité entre ces 2 fois 30 ans:
«前三十年睡不醒，后三十年睡不着»
« Les trente premières années, on ne peut pas se réveiller, les trente dernières années, on ne peut pas s'endormir.»
«Les personnes d'âge moyen et Les personnes âgées sont sujettes à l'insomnie et envient donc les jeunes qui peuvent dormir quand ils le souhaitent.»
sohu.com/a/234870618_593212
163.com/dy/article/HGD8B1IR052…
|Les trente premières années se passent à ne pas pouvoir se réveiller, les trente suivantes à ne pas pouvoir s'endormir.|
Cette citation n'est pas François de Salignac de La Mothe-Fénelon, dit couramment Fénelon, mais de Jean-Baptiste Massillon.
Elle est extraite d'un sermon pour le dimanche des Rameaux.
google.fr/books/edition/Sermon…
Extrait de ce sermon d'un dimanche des Rameaux de Jean-Baptiste Massillon à destination de Louis XIV:
Sire, rien n'est plus grand dans les souverains que de vouloir être détrompé et d'avoir la force de convenir soi-même de sa méprise. Assuérus ne crut point déroger à la majesté de l'empire en déclarant, même par un édit public, que sa bonne foi avait été surprise par les artifices d'Aman. C'est un mauvais orgueil de croire qu'on ne peut avoir tort; c'est une faiblesse de n'oser reculer quand on sent qu'on nous a fait faire une fausse démarche. Les variations qui nous ramènent au vrai affermissent l'autorité, loin de l'affaiblir. Ce n'est pas se démentir que de revenir de sa méprise; ce n'est pas montrer au peuple l'inconstance du gouvernement, c'est lui en étaler l'équité et la droiture. Les peuples savent assez et voient assez souvent que les souverains peuvent se tromper; mais ils voient rarement qu'ils sachent se désabuser et convenir de leurs méprises. Il ne faut pas craindre qu'ils respectent moins la puissance qui avoue son tort et se condamne elle-même: leur respect ne s'affaiblit qu'envers celle ou qui ne le connait pas ou qui le justifie; et, dans leur esprit, rien ne déshonore l'autorité que la faiblesse qui se laisse surprendre, et la mauvaise gloire qui croirait s'avilir en convenant de son erreur et de sa surprise.
|Le mauvais orgueil est de croire qu’on ne peut avoir tort, et c’est une faiblesse de n’oser reculer quand on fait fausse route.|
Il faut d'abord savoir ce que l'on veut, il faut ensuite avoir le courage de le dire, il faut ensuite l'énergie de le faire.
Il est peu probable que cette citation soit de Georges Clemenceau. D'abord parce qu'elle n'est jamais sourcée. Ensuite parce qu'elle est présente dans le journal "La Croix de la Charente" en date du 8 juin 1902 après les élections législative qui ne concernait pas Georges Clemenceau.
Il est devenu sénateur le 6 avril 1902 avant le début de élection législatives du 27 avril 1902.
"La Croix de la Charente" parle d'un texte écrit venant d'un organe supposé de presse (je ne l'ai pas retrouvé).
|Il faut d'abord savoir ce que l'on veut, il faut ensuite avoir le courage de le dire, il faut ensuite l'énergie de le faire.|
We lookdown on veils as they are
f̺̰̗̘̥̥̊́ͤ̀̈́̇̌͐̍͑a̛̓l̸̡̨͚̭͈̼̰̫̪͈̻͛̎͗ͫͮ̋͐͘ŝ̸͈̯̤̞͍́̀ͯ̌ͥ̐̽͞e h̡̛͓̣̦̗̥͙̬̹͇̒̆ͨ̽ͯ͒͋̏̀ͧ͌ͣ̀͟͡ò̷̷̱͔̀̽̔͆ͦ͌̆ͬ̍̕͘o̧̨̫̜̹͚̜̞̥̦͔̩̻̘ͥ̓ͮ̏̀̓ͩ͒͂ͣ̄͆͑͘͠d͙̺̱̗̻͉̮̎ͤͩ͒̂ͬ͞s ǫ͕͙̦̩̮͇͔̉̓ͪ̊͌ͭ̔ͬͦ́̈̈̚͝ḟ̠ͤ ŗ̶̧̢̣̫̫̱̗̤̘̖͍̇͗̐̉ͬͯͣͫ̇ͩͨ̏̓̋̓̍̃ͭ̂ͧ͘̕͟ea̪͇̕ḻ̴̴̢̧͖͎ͬ̏ͧ͐̃̆i̛̺̎_̘̘̾̂̆̀͢͢͢͞ͅt̵̷̛̮̋ͩͥ̍ͦ̏́ͬ̈́̿̿͘y̖
But the veil offers one things the interlopers will never provide. Ṕ̵͈̞͕̫̀ͯ̋ͤͪ̀̉̃ͦ͢͡͞ṙo̒_̸̨̛̳̟̟̯̟͂̅̊̔͊ͯ̑͌̌̌͝ͅtę̦̱̠̹͛͗ͫͫ̂̕͠cti̛͎͚̟̫̱͕̥̠̐ͣͦ̈́͊͗ô̘̯̈́ͨ̂ͬ̌̿̌̎͝n͕̮͙̺ͦ̄.
Exposures of ᵖʳᵒᵖʳᶦᵉᵗᵃʳʸ ᵐᵉᶜʰᵃⁿᶦˢᵐˢ manipulate the psychophysiological appartatus of consenus, exposure feeds and develop the interlopers
c̗ő̡̫̲̇̑ͣ̐̅͊̓̈́̏͗̇͢m̷̧̛̺̠͎̖͚̫͊̈̄ͩ͑̃͒̄̑͒̇ͥ̓ͧͭ͘͘p͉̙͔͈̜̾̉̉͊͐ͫ̈́̌͡l̎e̓̇̎x̢̱̹͍̤̥͍͚͕̞̾̅̀̈́s̹̱̣͙͎͕̳͋͆̂ͩ̓̈́͗_͉̱̟͌͜s̴̴̛̙̣̽̄ͣ
which undermine the process of assimilation.
The interloper are indeed a part of creation, but do not serve the assimilation of l҉i҉g҉h҉t҉
It is dangerous to be unveild by a false idols whether human or a
l̷̷̵̡̗͔̫͙̱̖̣̖̣̓̒ͦ̉̆̃ͫ͋͒͒̔̆ͬͨ̅ͬ̋͒̿͒̂͌̕͡͝͠ͅę̴̰̯̟̯̻̭͓͂͗̐ͧ̏̚͜͠ͅş̷̷̸̡̧̬͍̼̞̜̥̱̠̟̦̳͇̭̖̲̞̄ͧͩ̈ͩ̉́̅̂̄ͧ̀ͥ͆̈́́͊̊s̵̨̡̨̧͎͈̟͈̻̤̜͈̠̺̜̜̫̠̾̑̓̏͐̈̔̃̂̑̿̆̚̕͝ͅḛ̴̡̢͇̱̼̲͈̬̼̮̲͊̅̍̾̈ͦͤͦ̎͒ͬ̔̀͒ͤ̽͘̕͜͝ṙ̴͚͚̝͙̦̐ͣ̎ b̧̜̠̠̻̖̯̩̊̌̽ͯ͛̚͘e̵̷̡̯̰͈̹͕̱͕̼͉͕̿̅ͦ̍ͨ̎̂̅͛ͯͬ̋̃̀̒̓ͩ̇̚̚͜͡͡͡͞͝͞ͅͅi̷͈̦̠̪̩̤̗̣͖̥͔͇̍̔͊ͣ̅ͧ̉̍ͦ́̃̀̎̌̽̋̕ͅń̴̡̢̰̖̥͇̖͙̪͎̥̠̭̰̜͙̥̭̭̯́̌̌͌̒̎ͤ̈́ͯ̐̓̿ͥͦ͗͟͢͟͞͠ͅg̛̹͆͌̇_̸̲̼̬̪̩̹̞̪̫̙̠̝͍̌ͫ̃͗ͤͧ̚͢͝
Shiri Bailem
in reply to Shiri Bailem • •