“You’ll Still See Ads”

I don’t know why but this sort of thing REALLY BUGS THE SHIET OUTTA ME.

Whenever you go into the settings of pretty much anything—Facebook, IG, Apple devices, Google, basically anything that’s showing you ads, there’s a thing where you can “Opt out of relevant marketing” which is so obviously their attempt to try to make you feel bad about turning that off.

As in the above screencap, which is from Paypal.com, it’s this thing where they basically say “You’ll still see ads, but they’ll be less useful to you.”

REALLY?! Is anyone out there like, “OH SNAP, wait a second here!! yes you’re right I want the USEFUL ads!!”

ON SECOND THOUGHT LEMME LEAVE THIS ON, CAUSE I WOULD MUCH PREFER ADS I CAN USE!!

YES I WANT THE COMPANY THAT HAS THE BEST MARKETING BUDGET SHOWING ME WHAT I SHOULD BUY

SO HERE’S MY OUTRIGHT PERMISSION TO MAKE MONEY FROM MY PERSONAL INFO, AS IF YOU WEREN’T JUST GO AHEAD AND DO IT ANYWAY

Fuckers.

“The Key to Reducing Suicide Rates”

Article in the LA Times:

Op-Ed: The key to reducing suicide rates? It’s definitely not lowering taxes

Some takeaways:

  • States with higher taxation were also noted to have lower suicide rates than states with lower taxation
  • This turned out to be related to the finding that states with higher taxation also had lower rates of gun ownership, and vice versa
  • Suicide rates are significantly higher in states with higher gun ownership, and this is even more so for teen suicides
  • Some might argue that if guns are not available, other non-firearm methods would be used instead by the suicidal. However, rates of non-firearm suicide were not found to be higher in states with lower gun ownership.
  • “When a gun is more readily available, there is a greater likelihood that it will be used to commit suicide. Other studies have shown that many suicide attempts are impulsive acts. That, in turn, suggests that if a gun is more accessible, it will be easier to act on impulse.”

Unfortunately, when it comes to firearms, legislation is necessary to (attempt to) address rates of suicide by firearm, through lowering rates of gun ownership—i.e., it seems unlikely that self-motivated methods of firearm safety or limitation will be effective.

What I mean is that most people who own firearms likely feel that it’s others who are at risk for suicide by firearm, not themselves. But, the very fact of firearm ownership puts them at risk when personal or situational crises and hardships occur—and these occur in all of our lives, and we are often at the mercy of our own (often ineffective) coping skills.

The cruicial factor for a person who is suicidal possibly becoming a person who is non-suicidal is time—time for crises to be processed, for help to be found, for treatments to work, for the moment to pass, for hope to seep in.

And while time and adequate support may allow us to make it through difficult passages in our lives, death by suicide, of course, puts an end to all.

I’m not sure there’s a realistic way to reduce firearm ownership in a way that will make an actual difference, in our current political climate—but that’s a rant for another day.

No One Is Black, and No One Is White—So Why Do We Call Them That?!

Maybe this is one of those indelicate subjects that needs to be tiptoed around, but … why the F do we call black people, “black people”??

They’re not fucking black … I mean it can’t just be me that thinks this right? that if society calls them that—and I get that they call themselves that as well, but … doesn’t that just make things worse?

What could be more polarizing than … I mean ok maybe you have to call people SOMETHING? maybe?

But I almost feel like this is some inside joke or practical joke played on darker-skinned people, by, let’s say, ‘European ancestry’ people.

“Whites” and “Blacks”? If we start the conversation about race with those being the starting categories, what do we really expect is gonna happen?!!

They’re not white and they’re not black for fuck’s sake, so how is this supposed to work?

I mean why aren’t we calling Asian people “Yellows”?

It’s like, hey let’s call them Yellows, and then watch ’em start calling themselves yellows, and then we can have all these different colors all irreconcilably divided and start from there!

But no, it’s “Asians,” which is somehow respectable I guess, cause “Orientals” is too divisive somehow, what?!

Okay, I get that “Orientals” has some seriously negative historical connotations, but it’s a lot less intrinsically divisive than “White” and “Black,” no?? But “White” and “Black” is where the conversation STARTS!

It’s like, they made O.J. blacker for his Time magazine cover, OH SHIT THEY DID THAT TO MAKE HIM LOOK WORSE CAUSE BLACK EQUALS BAD SO THAT’S WRONG THAT’S TOO BLACK

I mean it was fucked up that they photoshopped him to look blacker [note, this is by no means a defense of O.J., who is detestable in every way], but then again he’s categorized as a “black person” despite not really being “black,” so isn’t calling him “black” in the first place a fucked up thing to do??

You know what I mean? “You made him look blacker! That’s soooo fucked up because you know the color black has negative implications and you took advantage of that to psychologically manipulate people!!”

“But, it’s totally cool to call an entire segment of humanity ‘Black’ even though they’re NOT AT ALL BLACK!!

I mean, I get that the term “Colored people” has a horribly pejorative connotation, but why is that worse than “Black”??

Okay so I’m not really sure why this all bothers me so much, but it has real-world implications—like, when patients are being discussed I cringe when I hear the term “Black” patient … I can’t get myself to say it, or chart it. I just leave it out. “This is a 52 year old male.” Or, I’ll do the “African-American” cop-out, which is admittedly pretty lame, cause how the hell do I know what their ancestry is?

Like, you can say “Asian patient” and it’ll generally be correct ethnically … but “Black” or “African-American” could be anything, and realistically means nothing except that someone concluded the patient was “not obviously Caucasian, light-skinned Latino, or Asian.”

I mean I get that we can’t just call everyone “People” or “Humans” for various reasons, not the least of which is that humans are by nature evolved to perceive differences and you can’t change that, and/or that people innately perceive that there’s their “own” group and then there’s “other” groups.

But the truth is you cannot get MORE divisive than the terms “White” and “Black”—literally as far apart on any spectrum as two things can possibly be—and there simply can’t possibly ever be a way to fully reconcile them, especially when the groups involved aren’t actually “White” or “Black” in any actual way, AND one label has an obviously and verifiably positive psychological connotation, and the other an obviously and verifiably negative one.

In discussing this with others, at one point it was pointed out to me that “black and white are the official race selections you see when filling out forms though … probably because it just happens to possibly match the color of their skin.“

Which is exactly what I’m talking about—it’s so ingrained into society at the deepest levels now, that we almost think it makes sense to call people that … but come on! Nobody’s freaking skin color is black, nor is anyone’s skin color white!

If you give a person just a black crayon and ask them to draw a human being, they will not produce anything resembling a black person!

“What are they, then??”

Actual skin color-wise? or Political category-wise?

Political category: BLACK
Skin color: brown, light brown, darker yellowish, some reddish tone

Political category: WHITE
Skin color: Light pink … some yellow … bit of reddish tone

“What race are they though?”

Genetically? Politically? “Race” is a made-up category.

Political: BLACK
Genetic: African (with divisions), Hispanic/Latino (with divisions), etc.

Political: WHITE
Genetic: European/Eurasian, Western Asian/Cyrillic, etc …

As far as “forms” and “checkboxes” are concerned, the point is more that black people are “Black” simply because that happens to be the current custom … at one point in time it was “acceptable” to call certain people “Colored.” Now, that’s an abomination, and for good reason, but “Black,” in my opinion, is even less appropriate than “Colored;” it just happens to be the current convention.

Look, I understand we’ve got some sort of inherent need to label other people SOMETHING if they don’t look like ourselves. And consequently we find we need to label ourselves something as a result. I really don’t have anything better than “Black” and “White” necessarily but I do think it’s mind-boggling that this state of affairs is acceptable to everyone, when there’s no conceivable way in hell it’s helping bring people together, and is almost unquestionably making things worse.

Believe In Yourself! [But Not Too Much]

I think part of the problem in America [and in Western cultures in general] is this idea of “The Maverick”—we romanticize those who follow some “inner voice” and shrug off all the dissenters and naysayers and those who say they’re wrong, and that it can’t be done … “Mavericks” don’t care what anyone thinks; they drop out of college or otherwise bypass the rat race, take huge risks in order to forge their own paths through life, and subsequently reach some pinnacle of success and/or wealth that commands respect and admiration.

Obvious examples would be Bill Gates … Steve Jobs … Mark Zuckerberg … Elon Musk … that sorta thing; but I would also include celebrity culture in general—how, in a sense, being popular entails being noticeably different than everyone else, and confident in that difference somehow, in order to be seen as more than just another one of the teeming masses.

What’s problematic is that all the while we’re being told that being confident in ourselves is what matters—”believe in who you are, no matter what they say,” “don’t let anyone tell you’re wrong when you know inside that you’re right”—we’re also being given the message that if we believe in things that others would take offense to, or would disagree with, that shouldn’t change how strongly we believe in those things anyway.

In other words, the very people who believe in themselves SO MUCH that they can somehow reach some measure of success/wealth despite all those who would tell them they can’t or won’t, are going to be those who are able to hold on strongly to their views on all sorts of topics, even if those things happen to be “inappropriate” or politically incorrect” or even “illegal.”

The obvious example would be current dipshit-in-chief Donald Trump, who somehow garners millions of votes from actual human beings simply because he seems to believe so intensely in viewpoints that are (or would have been thought of, once upon a time) unconventional and/or downright offensive.

Another way of putting it would be to say that, many of the people who are unique or individualistic enough to be raised above the general consciousness somehow and thereby admired and esteemed, are those who also happen to have rather reprehensible views on various things that we also accept by default, even while we rail against that very sort of behavior and attempt to promote kindness and goodness to all.

Other than Trump, examples might include Kanye, the entire GOP and its platform, “gangsta rap culture,” Elizabeth Holmes, etc.

I guess my point is that, if we’re going to celebrate “going with our guts,” believing in ourselves, making it despite the odds, and never letting anyone doubt us, it’s gonna be hard to also at the same time be like, well actually, there IS a limit to believing in yourself—cause if you believe certain things, you ARE wrong, and you SHOULD stop. Just stop THAT part though … keep believing in the parts that OTHER people might say you’re wrong about.

You know what I mean?

We live in a broken country

Kind of a fascinating and also appalling moment in American History when the U.S. President can directly and publicly insult four female members of Congress by mocking their dignity in an obviously taunting, racist, and contemptuous manner, AND have *187* other douchebags in Congress go on record supporting that behavior …

He does this shit every day with impunity—I mean, so they ‘voted to condemn’ that one specific abomination … there’s dozens of other examples of just-as-insane-as-shit garbage he spews on the daily and not only does it not turn him into a complete fucking pariah, it actually increases his popularity with the stupid AF rednecks and gun lunatics and white supremacists that the GOP needs to keep as their voting base, so that they can keep extracting every cent they can from these ignorant motherfuckers and from every other constituency in the country and funnel that straight to the wealthiest corporations and the most affluent 0.1%

This sort of mean-spirited hypocrisy and exploitation—and really, all this bitter & virulent partisan hostiilty—filters straight down from the top into every inch of this whole land and thoroughly debases it … the country looks to be irreparably broken and it’s incredibly sad