Being accountable for your mistakes and the things you've allowed in your life is important and crucial for success. At the same time, we don't live life in a vacuum and we cannot absolve other people of the responsibility in causing suffering or aiding in our pain.

Accountability is important, extreme accountability is toxic. The latter could be considered a form of gaslighting that makes us question if our reactions to others wrongdoings towards us by placing an adequate level of blame to them is rational.

You can still learn from the past experiences of hurt others have caused towards you to try to act accordingly in liue of your wellbeing in the future, and heal from it, without internalizing a toxic sense of accountability that should be attributed to others and not yourself.

Taking in the blame for other people's actions isn't "taking control over your life", it's suppressing the pain and assuming ownership for the wrong doings of others.

Extreme Ownership

Es un libro muy completo que integra la estrategia militar utilizada por dos U.S. Navy SEALs, sus principios y ejemplos de negocio. El método puede ayudarte a optimizar tus recursos personales y profesionales.

It is a very complete book that integrates military strategy of two U.S. Navy SEALs, the principles and business examples. The method could help you to optimize your personal and professional resources.

Jocko Willink's daily routine of early wakeups, cold showers, etc are effectively the same as other forms of self-harm. I thought it was about him just being a pervert and involving us in a suffering fetish without our consent but now I see what it's really about, and I feel bad for him.

"Extreme Ownership" has it right in the title: you need ownership over things in your own life because you don't feel like you have it!

Many people who self-harm do it because they feel that their lives, their bodies and their even their own suffering is out of their control, so they inflict suffering on themselves to show agency over their lives (and the ability to end it), their own bodies and their own suffering.

I don't know the full motivations, but just from the things Jocko talks about on his appearances, he developed this as a response to his own CPTSD and now inflicts this suffering on himself to deal with it.

This is obviously not healthy. Whether it is cold showers, 8 minute naps, running in the cold of morning... inflicting suffering on yourself in the name of "self-improvement" should always be examined carefully.

Furthering this idea, that "only women self-harm" as detailed in this article, I posit that men self-harm just as much, just in a different manner than women. They disguise this self-harm as self improvement.

It's hard to find a self-help guru in the manosphere who doesn't find a way to put "suffering" and "embrace the suck" as a central mantra in their systems, and Marxist materialists know why these mantras are out there, directed at the working class, but not the billionaire class.

Those who embrace the suck work hard, don't complain and don't ask for better treatment, better pay - even if they are are doing illegally unsafe work or having their wages stolen.

So why would these mantras ever be directed at the billionaire class? They can't stand even the smallest inconvenience, without treating the world around them as a toy or trash. They never need to "suck it up" and are completely incapable of it.

Elon, Jobs, Bezos, etc - all whine constantly, park in disabled parking spots, scream like toddlers at everyone around them and expect everyone to suffer BUT THEM.

(Despite what they say above, it IS A BAD THING TO BE A PSYCHOPATH)

As always, we all need to examine the motivations of why we are doing things, why ideologies are being pushed on us (and not on others) and who benefits from us embracing those ideas.

I dont know why but these two make me insane.

if you wanna see some of the most vile abusive control freak ass humans just go into dog owning communities. r/dogs, #dogs on tumblr or instagram, dog training forums, dog groomers, etc.

the beast from over the garden wall as legitimate modern-day fae representation. or otgw fully as a take on fairy folklore. discuss

Little did my marine policy professor know that she will be sent in an assignment detailing my anger towards monopolies and oligopolies and how they pollute and have extremely unethical practices towards the environment and their workers today.  ::)

If people who say doggo were cat people they'd be outdoor cat people listen to me

🦋

😔 ohhh someone I know is getting a new puppy, and started advertising for the breeder & trying to find a home for another puppy which I thought was odd for a reputable breeder

It's the breeders first registered litter, the dam is 20% COI on pedigree (let alone genetically) and is being bred to a stud who isn't even 2 yet and also shares a grandsire AND granddam with her........

Like IDK that just doesn't seem like the most solid breeding choices to me???

I agree with Kayla Shaye's fundamental point: you do not owe anyone your health, you do not owe anyone your body. The issue of whether women have self-ownership, and to what degree, pre-dates feminism to the dawn of civilization. The nature of human reproduction is at the heart of this. Especially in a tough ecology full of war, enslavement, starvation, disease, etc. the success of a civilization depended on the ability of that civilization to out-breed those around it.

I can empathize with the mind-frame of some bronze age chieftain who's hyper-focused on strictly the bottom two layers of the hierarchy of needs. Self-ownership - for men and women - is subjugated to the needs of the tribe. The idea of Christians' bodies (IIRC Islam and Judaism also have this) belonging to Yahweh/Allah mirrors the very-common idea at that time, that commoners' bodies belong to the ruler.

If the civilization didn't use all (non-ruling-class) male bodies for economic production and warfare, and all female bodies for making more people, their alternative was that someone who was better at making people do those things would kill all their men and enslave all their women.

The Enlightenment made men sovereign individuals, all created equal, and with inalienable rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness granted by their creator - the basis for the American and French revolutions - but there was some debate during that time whether that concept also applied to women. If men were no longer the property of the king, applying the same logic to women would lead to, depending on your view, either first wave feminism or a new form of proto-feminism (in my view, there's been cross-cultural proto-feminism for all of written human history).

You take the second wave of feminism, and you have feminists going up against the persistent idea that women exist for society, whereas men exist for themselves, and everyone in society has a responsibility to provide guide rails for women in a way that they don't for men. Men aren't off the hook entirely, since they can be drafted - an ideological fossil - but when a man fucks up his own life, it's framed such that he unilaterally made the decision and comprehended and accepted the consequences. When women fuck up their lives, it's like she ignorantly blundered, or was mislead by some opportunistic rapscallion, into being a victim of a tragedy beyond her comprehension..if only someone had done something *staples hand to forehead* the poor angel would be safe and sound.

Relating this tangent to body positivity, I don't think the body positivity movement has progressed anything. If anything - considering there's people getting very emotionally invested and indignant over what other women are doing with their bodies - I think it's just horseshoed the same idea of women's bodies being communal property to the opposite ideological side, instead of abolishing the concept entirely. Conservative men getting upset that some women get tattoos, and leftist women getting upset that some women lost weight, are not the opposite of each other.

For a while I thought body positivity just lost the plot, because I had assumed it was about not feeling unworthy of basic dignity because you don't fit society's ideal to a small or large degree, and promoting the idea that people shouldn't be dehumanized based on their appearance. Who in the world would disagree with that? That, however, is the unproblematic public persona of something that is actually revolutionary Marxist theory applied to weight and attractiveness. When someone who's down the body positivity iceberg, who actually knows what they're talking about, speaks with apparent animosity against thin people, pretty people, etc. "thin" and "pretty" are dynamically equivalent to "bourgeoisie". If you understand Marxism 101, the animosity is completely intentional and ideologically correct. People who understand this position also understand that people who think normally have a problem with the idea of making an enemy out of a whole class of people, so when recruiting, activists can't say that up-front at risk of alienating people. Instead normies are initiated with ideas no one in their right mind would disagree with, and then they're given breadcrumbs that move them further down the iceberg without them really noticing. When women who were doing body positivity activism lose weight, they've essentially become counter-revolutionaries. Whenever someone defends them like, "If they're allowed to be fat, they're allowed to be thin. They can do what they want, it's their body," that's a Liberal point of view.

By viewing women (or other classes as people) inherently as victims, I don't view this as a rejection of a Fascistic view of them as a subhuman class. It's just a different view of the same dynamic, and that's why I don't think body positivity is progress. Another commonality between Marxism and Fascism is collectivism, so both require individuals to dedicate their bodies toward ideological goals while condemning individualism where it doesn't further the ideology. Any movement that advocates women to make objectively unhealthy lifestyle choices, or shames them from getting healthier, is inherently misogynistic. I think any ideology that claims to be pro-woman should prioritize women's health. There is a large component of feminism that are very concerned with women's health issues which is really good, but there is also some strains of feminism that seem to have an idea of "Become as unattractive as possible to own da menz." "I thought you said no one owes anyone else health or their body." Individually, people should be able to do what they want - and be reasonably assumed to have agency, regardless of sex - if they're not harming other people with it. However, getting your eyeballs tattooed or being 400 lbs and living your life for yourself is different from intentionally organizing a religion or ideological movement where you use coercion (making an "us vs them" narrative, using social shaming, encouraging people to cut off anyone who questions their decision) and misinformation (saying something risky is actually totally safe or actually-healthy, only using sources from the same ideological group, forbidding engagement with opposing views) to influence other people to do the same thing.

Here's an example that comes from the right -- a number of men's fitness/lifestyle grifters use steroids while promoting an image of idealized masculinity, often with socio-political baggage, like "Buy my Product so you can be a Real Man like me and not a beta cuck contributing to the fall of Western Civilization." It's arguably worse when they say they don't use steroids because it makes these men think, "I'm doing everything Liver King says and don't look like him. I must be a low-T beta physiquelet." Rich Piana, on the other hand, while also idolized by a lot of men, had the balls to say "I use steroids and know it's destroying my health, but this is what I want to do even if I die doing it." (spoiler: he died)

In a similar way, the body positivity movement preys on people's (women's, mostly) insecurities, and makes them worse by constantly exposing them to a victimhood narrative while sabotaging things they could actually do, in most cases, to relieve the insecurities. There's actually a lot of money being made off selling body positivity -- is it at all sus that Unilever promotes body positivity with Dove while also owning brands that sell cereal, ice cream, and soda, but also selling Lynx deodorant with sexually objectifying commercials. Body positivity also sells well in the attention economy, and it does better the more people (mostly women) identify with the content.

.

I know copyright and intellectual property is bullshit, but how do I tell that to someone who's convinced that it protects small artists?

tell them about bill mantlo, creator of rocket racoon, whose brother has to start gofundmes to pay his medical bills while marvel makes millions off that character's merch. or to gary friedrich, creator of ghost rider, who sued marvel for using the character at a point where it should have returned to him, lost, and was then counter-sued for selling merch including sketches for fans at conventions. or alan moore, who vowed to never work with DC again after he was screwed out of owning watchmen. or the archetypal examples of this phenomenon, jack kirby (co-creator of iron man, captain america, ant-man, the hulk, and a fuckton more characters) who of course was also screwed out of any ownership, or jerry siegel and joe shuster, who spent decades fighting over the copyright to superman, a character they created and sold for $130 as desperate struggling artists and who then went on to make millions for DC comics.

or if they're not a comics fan, why not talk to them about robert kurvitz, head writer of disco elysium, who through an extremely suspect purchase lost the rights to the world of elysium, representing his life's creative work. or to hideo kojima, who was forced out of konami, keeping absolutely no rights to his iconic metal gear franchise, and had his demo for Silent Hills made into fucking vaporware that nobody can download anymore!

or about the time that disney used threats of legal action to put a stop to such nefarious infringement of their copright as 'being painted on the walls of a daycare' or 'being put on a child's gravestone'.

the thing about copyright is that it has to be enforced in court. a 'small artist' -- even ones who are independently successful and considerably wealthy -- can simply not afford to fight a protracted legal battle while paying top legal talent. disney and marvel and any other big media company, however, can fight as many legal battles as they want for as long and have the legal fees be a drop in the bucket. companies that can afford lawyers and can afford to, if it really comes down to it, lose a lawsuit -- that is, companies with millions of dollars to spare -- are simply above copyright law. this is not a bug--this is a feature. this is the system working as designed.