This is a brilliant question that illustrates perfectly how there are multiple ways to view the world. I think this would be a great question to ask an audience during a presentation using a real-time survey/poll app.
This is a brilliant question that illustrates perfectly how there are multiple ways to view the world. I think this would be a great question to ask an audience during a presentation using a real-time survey/poll app.
Posted at 12:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
If this is “the #ThinBlueLine—the only thing standing between Order and Anarchy”, then consider me opted out. I am FAR more fearful of the police than of alleged anarchy. They claim to ”protect the prey from the predators,” but they ARE the predators. 🤬
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/10/30/philadelphia-fop-posts-toddler/
On Thursday, the nation’s largest police union posted a photo to social media taken during the unrest in Philadelphia this week, where hundreds of protesters clashed with officers over the police killing of Walter Wallace Jr. The Fraternal Order of Police’s posts showed a Philadelphia police officer holding a Black toddler clinging to her neck.
“This child was lost during the violent riots in Philadelphia, wandering around barefoot in an area that was experiencing complete lawlessness,” the union claimed in a tweet and Facebook post that have since been deleted. “The only thing this Philadelphia police officer cared about in that moment was protecting this child.”
But lawyers for the boy’s family say that story was a total fabrication.
In fact, they say police yanked the boy from the back seat of an SUV after busting all of the windows and violently arresting and injuring his mother, who was later released without charges.
“It’s propaganda,” attorney Riley H. Ross III told The Washington Post. “Using this kid in a way to say, ‘This kid was in danger and the police were only there to save him,’ when the police actually caused the danger. That little boy is terrified because of what the police did.”
Posted at 09:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
I signed up for the free month of Audible. Went to cancel. Told them that it was because I couldn’t find audiobooks I liked. Their response? We hear you. Here's a bunch of stuff not related to our book selection at all. Any of those entice you into giving us money every month?! Um, no. And now I have an even worse impression of you as a company and service.
Posted at 09:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
The presidential and vice-presidential debates laid bare in a microcosm the problems our country is facing. There was a system set up with rules that ostensibly both parties agreed to. However—just like with our current system and laws—some people felt special and felt that in their special circumstances they deserved to break those rules, you know, for the sake of “fairness”.
But here’s the thing that I think most people miss: it’s not about what Trump or Pence or any other smug, entitled, know-it-all blowhard does; it is only our collective response to their actions that really matters. Given any set of rules over any reasonable length of time and someone is going to test them; break them. That’s just human nature. We test boundaries. And if that behavior is allowed—even despite vocal outcry and admonishment—then we have essentially conceded that those rules and boundaries weren’t real. Because we failed to enforce them.
If I’m Joe Biden or Kamala Harris, my issue is not with the guy standing on the stage with me. It is everyone else in that facility; yes the debate “moderator” (if you want to be generous and call what they were doing “moderating”; but I don’t), but more importantly the director, producer, and all of the other decision-makers behind the camera who can actually control what sounds and images are broadcast out to the world. That is a hugely important role. And they failed at it. They failed to cut microphones when scofflaws talked over their time and their opponents; they failed to keep the cameras exclusively focused on the candidate with the floor, thus giving power to the one who “should” be allowing their opponent their time to talk.
It’s actually a quite easy and straightforward fix, but it requires setting a boundary and enforcing it against what will no doubt be a deluge of disapproval and vitriol. But the way to solve that is to spend the first few minutes of the debate clearly laying out the rules and getting each candidate to verbally agree to them. It’s like they are sitting in the exit row of an airplane. You need to look them in the eye, recite the script, and get them on camera for the whole world to see agree to those terms. And then state unequivocally that if you violate the rules, you may get one warning, but you also simply may be cut off. And if it continues, you will be escorted off the stage and the rest of the time will be reserved for your opponent to address America with no possibility for you to rebut.
These debates are a dysfunctional relationship, and we are making the same mistake thinking that calling out the abuser’s bad behavior and shaming is enough to correct the problem. It clearly is not. It is just talk. And by taking no further action, we continue to tacitly approve their actions.
Posted at 09:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
When someone is being passive aggressive with you, try Dr. Joy Browne’s technique of “stupid and cheerful”. Make them decide if they truly want to be aggressively hurtful to you or not.
Lucy says she likes Dr. Joy Browne because, unlike some other radio psychologists that she's listened to in the past, Dr. Joy Browne doesn't smack her callers over the head with a frying pan and tell them what they're doing is wrong. Joy Browne is kind but deeply pragmatic. There's a whole raft of principles and mottos that come up over and over, all of which Lucy has internalized. Like, "Stupid and cheerful."
“If somebody is trying to engage you in some sort of passive aggressive issue, you just try to be as stupid and cheerful as possible. So like, if somebody comes into your kitchen and is like, ‘Oh, you're painting it this color?’ You just go like, “Yup. Isn't it great?’”
Posted at 12:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany would not provide a declarative statement about whether or not [President Donald] Trump loves Melania. Instead, McEnany pointed to Trump’s past statements declaring his love for Melania, such as at their wedding in 2005 and on at least three additional occasions, while claiming that Trump’s “record on this is unmistakable and it’s shameful the media refuses to cover it.” At one point, McEnany accused CNN’s Kaitlan Collins of asking a “partisan attack question.”
Only slightly modified from the original.
Posted at 07:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
By inventing entirely fictional plot lines to illustrate key points, the vital film undermines its own authority
https://www.nme.com/en_asia/features/the-social-dilemma-netflix-facebook-2761067
What about personal responsibility to not use the app if you don’t like how it’s manipulating you?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SlKao_Pox5A
Where an individual chooses to focus their attention is a choice. It would help further the discussion if we didn't treat social media consumers as victims but rather as individuals with agency and personal responsibility.
My questions for the Social Dilemma filmmakers:
Posted at 01:12 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
Really great article on the unintended consequences of technology. From the article:
There are four different types of revenge effects, described here as follows:
The last one I’ve learned as externalizing costs where all you are doing is shifting the cost of something from your own place and time to somewhere else at some other time. This is the basis of burning fossil fuels.
Posted at 09:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
A fantastic story of empathy and connection between two of the most unlikely of friends. Our government could learn a lesson from this inspiring example.
Posted at 01:40 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
- “If you want to talk about suicide, I recommend you go to the experts at the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline @800273TALK and skip @CrisisTextLine who's corporate culture is rooted in racism. #NotMyCrisisTextLine.”
Thank you for your message, Dave.
The reason(s) for your dismissal were clearly spelled out in our committee’s email, and were directly tied to objective criteria and conduct specified therein which violated our Code of Conduct.
While we will not engage in a back and forth regarding characterizations in your email -- which we dispute vigorously, to be clear -- we would like to respond to your question about who is harmed by the Code of Conduct violations cited below.
- Texters. Texters and would-be texters are harmed when a CTL volunteer publicly discourages texters from texting in during their moment of need. As you know, we serve all members of the public, and 68% of our texters reach out to us with something they have never told another person, some of whom text in regarding suicidal ideation. Telling texters to not reach out to us -- and instead to reach out to you personally -- is not something the org can excuse from one of its volunteers.
- The org and its personnel. In addition to the dangerous harm to texters discussed above, a CTL volunteer making false and misleading tweets concerning the org’s culture and its transformation harms the people at CTL that have been working so hard to accomplish the changes that the org needs over the last several months by (a) minimizing and disparaging their work, and (b) discouraging donors and funders from helping to keep those people employed and to keep the lights on. That kind of harm -- in addition to the harm to the org’s texters discussed above -- is not something the org can excuse from one of its volunteers.
The organization complies with all applicable laws and regulations, and takes pride in its support and compassion for all of its community members. We deeply value our CCs, and we are saddened when one has to be dismissed. But this was one of those times, for the reasons laid out below.
Take care.
Crisis Counselor Policy Review Committee
Posted at 09:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)