Great idea I think! I had no idea this was actually a Dutch org, but it makes sense given the name lol.
@ admins if you are willing to consider this, feel free to give me a shout if you want help reaching out to them (I'm Dutch). I assume their English will be fine, but I could help translate if there is ever a need :) (could even visit them in Amsterdam, potentially)
We've (the admins) already decided on the platform we will be moving to and it will make use of ActivityPub. We haven't made a public announcement yet. That is coming soon.
There are a lot of things this could mean, ranging from more benign (sobbing) to extreme or scary (throwing things or screaming or worse)
If it's anywhere near the latter then you need to figure out how to manage those symptoms of your mental illness before you're ready for a relationship.
An emotional outburst for me is crying hysterically over things that don't matter, sometimes accusing people of doing things without evidence because people have done them to me before, and most commonly, starting arguments in an attempt to prove to myself that somebody must really be as bad as I subconsciously think they are, so I have an excuse to leave and not risk getting hurt again.
I've gotten quite good at recognizing when an emotional outburst is happening so I can warn people I'm gonna be completely irrational for a bit, but most people when presented with "you betrayed me, haven't you?" whether or not they know it's just an outburst I can't control, still get incredibly offended and leave rather than make any attempt to calm my fears.
An example would be the fight that broke up my last relationship. They said something that sounded a little suspicious. I said that, even though I knew it was irrational, I was starting to feel like they'd lied to me about everything they'd said, because I'd been through that before, and asked for reassurance. Instead of reassurance, they became angry at me for accusing them of lying about perfectly normal things. I, in turn, snapped completely, now genuinely accusing them of being a pathological liar because they wouldn't reassure me they weren't.
I can get along fine with the kind of people who can recognize that being irrational means I can't always control myself, and who are willing to just simply reassure me that my fears aren't founded, but if I'm not constantly supported in all the right ways, I will eventually have an outburst like the previously mentioned one, and most people can't handle that.
The outbursts, once again, are something I'm physically incapable of controlling. The only thing I can do is avoid the situation that causes them, usually by communicating what irrational thoughts are on my mind so they can be dispelled before they become a huge issue. I cannot, however, stop myself in the middle of one. And the only way to actually avoid triggering an outburst ever is to become a hermit and refuse to ever interact with another human. The best I can ever hope for us to have people surrounding me who know how to prevent it, and can take it when one day it gets triggered anyway. And like I said, I've got friends who can handle it fine, but zero of them desire any kind of relationship.
My partner deals with BPD and swears by Cognitive Behavioral Therapy. You mentioned therapy but it's a wide range so I figured the overlaps there would be worth a mention.
Good luck. You are not unlovable, and your problems are not forever. You will grow.
All therapy I've received thus far has been simple talk therapy. I was supposed to receive CBT at one point, but the therapist ended up needing to drop me because she didn't have enough training in my combination of issues to properly address the problem.
I have an anxiety disorder (what anxiety disorder is currently unknown, but GAD runs in the family.) I have schizoaffective disorder, which is well controlled with meds, but still results in me being more irrational than normal sometimes and more depressed that normal others. I might have PTSD, but that's not diagnosed, just something my psychiatrist has brought up multiple times. The same for BPD, which they have difficulty diagnosing because the symptoms overlap extremely heavily with schizoaffective. On the less severe side, but still effecting how effective therapy is for me, I have autism and ADHD. On top of everything else, I've been known to display symptoms of dissociative identity disorder, but not enough to get diagnosed.
Very few therapists can deal with all of those issues at once, so I've had trouble finding any. I currently don't have one, and am on a waiting list to find a new one, but due to my combination of issues it's taking dramatically longer than usual.
Yeah this system has been overwhelmed for a while now, in my area there's waiting lists that go for a few years. I can't imagine how dismal it must feel. Unfortunately I can't find a resource at the moment, but in the meantime I would highly suggest a workbook from a CBT program, specifically ones that focus on interpersonal and time management skills. Getting accustomed to it can really help get you further engaged once you are able to get into a program, with the added benefit of making a change and starting early.
My partner used to cry for 16 hours a day, over everything, nothing, all of it. She's in a much different place now, granted nearly a decade later (but also 6 years after all of that too, so it's been a long time now still.) Treatment via medication is an important aspect but that is only as effective as instilling new, healthy habits - and sometimes vice versa where instilling good habits can only help an unmedicated person so much.
Even if the therapeutic side is taking its time it doesn't mean you're out of options, nor are you a lost cause until then! All the best to you!
My significant other for the last decades struggles with various mental disorders. What you describe reminds me of us. She never really managed to get proper therapy so far as well. We've learned some things the hard way, but we're happy and solid now.
For me at least what hit the hardest was not being trusted or being repeatedly accused of betrayal. This stuff seeps into my slightest cracks and blows up my own insecurities about inadequacy. It's a good thing you recognize these episodes. Could you just pull out of the situation when you feel one coming, request alone time? Defuse it, then come back to your loved one. That's what she does. I know to respect the alone time, no matter when it is needed. It's important for your partner to be aware of your struggles, but expecting them to accurately dismiss what you express on account of issues is not sustainable long term in my opinion. It's too hard to apply and too likely to backfire.
You're popular, amazing people have already crossed your path, there's no reason for it not to happen again. So prepare for making the next one the best one.
You cant expect someone to want you if you dont want yourself.
You also cant expect someone to be your emotional punching bag, that will always drive people away.
You need to sort out your own issues first.
I see you're on meds and therapy, you need to keep working at it.
Another option is lower your own expectations, you're not perfect so dont chase perfect in someone else. ( probably lead to long term unhappyness though)
My bar for a relationship right now is literally just that they don't flee when I cry about something stupid, and that they don't yell at me when I tell them they're scaring me and triggering traumatic memories. Both of these things would seem like obvious things almost anybody could provide, but when I'm crying constantly or trauma is getting triggered multiple times a day, even the best people walk out, or snap. Because my emotional outbursts are triggered by constantly feeling like I'm reliving old traumas, even when there's literally no reason to feel that way. 99% of people don't have the emotional fortitude to reassure me every day that no, they didn't suddenly decide today that they secretly want to destroy my life. Presented with fears of betrayal enough times, I've never been in a relationship where they didn't finally snap and become convinced that I thought they were a terrible person. My first ex became convinced that they were a terrible person and that must be why I constantly fear betrayal. Another ex ended up calling me a crazy bitch because they thought there was no way I was constantly having these thoughts and didn't genuinely believe them to be true.
The most recent friend I made is the only one I've found who was able to handle it flawlessly. Most times, she found it really easy to simply reassure me it wasn't true, and if I crossed and boundaries, she'd simply tell me I had so I could step back for a minute and reevaluate myself. She never blew up at me. She never fled because my emotions were getting too intense. And most importantly, she never blamed herself for me having irrational fears about her. That's a rare combination to have all in one person.
That's a rare combination to have all in one person.
It's also way too much to ask of someone. It's not fair of you to expect that someone forgoes their own emotional health to take care of yours. A relationship is a transaction, like it or not. There's push and pull, each person needs to get something positive out of it and if you're spending so much time telling your partner they're a bad person, they're going to leave. Nobody deserves that.
That's not to say you don't deserve love, because you do. But it sounds like there's a lot of work ahead for you to manage your mental health and get to a place where you can trust someone in the way they should be trusted in a loving relationship.
Both of these things would seem like obvious things almost anybody could provide, but when I'm crying constantly or trauma is getting triggered multiple times a day, even the best people walk out, or snap.
This behavior is extremely exhausting for someone to manage. Your partner has their own problems to deal with too. Between work, school, children, planning meals, managing the house, vacations, holidays, healthcare, and many more things, there's so much work to be done in life. You need to be a productive part of the relationship. Share in the burdens of life to help make them easier on someone, as they do for you, instead of being another chore to deal with.
My suggestion is to continue spending a lot of time working on yourself. Learn to trust again, learn to love yourself, understand the needs of others, and understand the part you play in a relationship. Nobody is obligated to love you, but (almost) everyone is deserving of love (I say almost because there are insanely cruel people in this world).
Lastly, ALL OF WHAT I SAID APPLIES TO YOU TOO FROM SOMEONE ELSE. Anything you need from someone is something that someone should be able to provide to you, and vice-versa. Don't expect anything from anyone that you wouldn't do yourself, just as they shouldn't do the same. Find someone who wants to take care of you, the same way that you will take care of them.
It’s up to you to curate your experience. If you opt for the firehose, you’re gonna get everything, sludge included. At a minimum block what you don’t like, or even better subscribe to what you do like. But it’s on you.
Given your edit I feel compelled to point out that two things are true simultaneously:
Direct action is effective and necessary
but also
Direct action is not mutually exclusive with voting in any way.
Voting takes a couple of hours per year (at most) and is a tremendously effective way of keeping fascists out of power and reducing overall harm while we concurrently pursue direct action and systemic change.
I believe it is our moral obligation each day to do what we (reasonably) can, within the circumstances and powers we're given, to ease suffering in our community and our world. On most days that's direct action. On election days it's spending an hour voting for harm reduction. Participating in our shitty electoral system is not an endorsement of it any more than paying taxes is an endorsement of military funding or having a credit score is an endorsement of Equifax. It's simply the reality of having to live within a system we did not create and have limited control over. Refusing to engage with the realities we live under doesn't make them go away - it just means more people get hurt.
I've ruminated and ruminated and ruminated on all of this and I can't find any compelling philosophical or moral argument for allowing the greater evil to take hold, unless there is an imminent, likely possibility of a more just outcome following soon behind. If there was a groundswell of support in the US for a left revolution then perhaps a fascist victory could be the spark to push us towards structural change. But as it stands a plurality of Americans want (or are fine with) fascism, and they're armed to the teeth. The most likely outcome of fascists winning the election is that fascists take over and keep power, and that will cause unfathomable harm far beyond the disgusting shortfalls of our current administration.
It's a trolley problem, essentially. The trolley is coming down the tracks and all we can do is pull the lever to have less people die. I find that a lot of modern discourse around this in left-leaning spaces essentially comes down to "well I don't like either option" or "there shouldn't be a trolley!" or things like that. You know what? I agree. I don't like either option, and there shouldn't be a trolley. I hope we can take more direct action so there are less trolleys and less people tied to the tracks in the future. But here we are, right now, and the trolley is heading down the tracks, and we cannot stop it. It doesn't matter that there shouldn't be a trolley. It's here. Not pulling the lever doesn't make it go away, it just means that more people get hurt.
So please, by all means, prioritize direct action. Get those trolleys off those tracks. But once we're barrelling down the hill it is our moral obligation to spend an hour pulling the lever in whatever direction necessary to minimize harm.
My friend had my favorite take I've heard on this: organizing to signal to the Democratic Party that Biden is in political danger because of his support of genocide (as Michigan did this week) is arguably more important than not voting for him in November, in terms of tangible impact on American policy. My personal goal is to put as much pressure on him as possible right now, and then I'll decide if I'm voting for him later this year based on how he responds.
in my mind voting in our current system is just pretty straightforward utilitarian calculus (and can't be anything else): you should vote for the option which will do the least harm and has the highest probability of winning. even if you, say, accept that Biden and Trump are equal on I/P, that just means you should look to other issues on which they are distinct--and they are distinct on basically every other issue in a way that clearly suggests Biden to be the best choice you can make here.
take just the Autocracy Tracker, which makes it unambiguous that Trump, if he wins, is planning a sweeping authoritarian wave of deportations, purges, restrictions of civil rights, and repression of minority groups and ideological groups he disagrees with. much of this is, in a sense, already happening here and already a form of genocide against some groups (trans people most prominently--it is now de facto illegal to be trans and legal to bring harm to trans people in large portions of the US). a Trump win will probably ensure there is no safe place for such groups in this country anymore.
on a moral level: i am just not sympathetic to the idea that voting for Biden constitutes blood on your hands in a meaningful way. i think if you accept this line of argumentation, you would ultimately have to bite the bullet that this could also be said of paying taxes[^1]--and i certainly don't begrudge people for paying their taxes even as this lines the pocket of the war machine, so then why should judge them for voting? in general: by virtue of existing within a state, you will always be complicit to some degree in the crimes of that state, regardless of what you do to extricate yourself from supporting them. so i just don't think that abstention from voting or voting for a more morally defensible alternative actually cleans your hands of the blood being perceived here.
separately, and more pragmatically: there is no compelling third party with anywhere near a possibility of winning or even scoring a "symbolic victory." a vote for a leftist third party right now is, in a real sense, a vote wasted--because these parties are incompetent, fractured, and full of people who are not serious candidates. even with the Green Party (by far the most electorally advanced of them) nobody has ever trembled at their influence and in practice they mostly seem to exist to waste a lot of the money given to them on quixotic presidential candidates. imo: any actual movement challenging the power--your DSAs, for example--is going to be built from the ground up and not imposed through the presidency, and is only going to use electoralism as one of its several political arms.
[^1]: arguably, it's even more true of paying taxes than of voting: votes may make no difference in whether something happens or not, but taxes actively make them possible
I am also primarily a utilitarian thinker. What has me considering the deontological position on this specifically is that, for utilitarian purposes, I have voted to allow our entire federal government to continue to drift right. When choosing the lesser of the two evils every time I did, I think I failed to consider that my permissiveness would embolden the lesser of the two evils to become increasingly evil as they were aware I wasn’t voting for them but against their opponent. I gave them license though my voting behavior to move to the right as much as they wanted and be financially rewarded for doing so because they knew they would always have my vote as long as they weren’t as bad as their opponents. This genocide is a red flag to me that since I have been voting to avoid immediate consequences, the ultimate consequence is that some of those consequences I was afraid of are now guaranteed from both options to varying degrees. The more I have rewarded the Democrats with my vote which they need to be elected, the only thing they need from me, they have no incentive whatsoever to do anything but what benefits themselves just as long as what they do isn’t as bad as what the Republicans would do. Average people aren’t funding their campaigns, we are only handing our votes over to them because their opponents are worse, despite both of them becoming worse all the time.
When I talk about whether to grant or withhold my vote to my only actual option, it’s a matter of currency and power rather than morality. I have found that if I always grant my vote regardless of the behavior of who receives my vote, they know they have license to do the things they were doing when I voted for them and no reason whatsoever to change course according to what I would like to see and not see, such as a genocide.
You are absolutely right that there isn’t an option for president outside blue and red. Our system isn’t built for it. Blue knows I’m not suicidal and can’t vote for Red, so the question becomes whether or not I will tolerate them becoming worse every cycle as long as during each cycle their candidate isn’t as bad as their opponent who is also getting worse every cycle. The option is whether to support Blue regardless of what we do and watch the system deteriorate, or demonstrate to blue that there are limits to how far right they can move regardless of who they’re up against with the hope that at least one side will stop getting worse because there are still consequences.
The reason I want to stop this cycle is survival. I think we are guaranteed to drift into explicit oligarchy as long as both sides are allowed to continue moving rightward. Every election since 2010 has been worse than the one before it, and I don’t think there’s a reason that would change after this cycle. The Republicans are going to try to capture the appeal of Trump even though they haven’t yet, and the right wing runs on delusion so they aren’t accountable to anything. All they have to worry about is telling lies that people strongly want to believe. The Democrats have to contend with reality and in my view are party far more likely to react to something that happened here in real life so they have better chances at being elected in the future.
I will easily concede that this is awful timing. Trump is a massive threat as you described. If I thought he would be highly successful in everything you mentioned, I would not consider doing what I’ve been advocating for. Even though I know him to be incompetent and without much support outside his base for anything he wants to do, any amount of success he has will be a problem. The primary reason I see fit to act as I described is because I predict the 2028 election will be between someone who is to the right of Biden vs someone who is to the right of Trump, and every future election it will be more and more difficult to change course from where we’re headed. All future elections could be about how appealing Republican lies are vs how many people don’t want them elected and are willing to vote for anything else.
What has me considering the deontological position on this specifically is that, for utilitarian purposes, I have voted to allow our entire federal government to continue to drift right. When choosing the lesser of the two evils every time I did, I think I failed to consider that my permissiveness would embolden the lesser of the two evils to become increasingly evil as they were aware I wasn’t voting for them but against their opponent.
i guess my problem is, if you acknowledge this possibility: does it not logically follow that, likewise, allowing someone running as an open fascist to win might have the same or worse impact as you're trying to avoid? because i would personally consider the argument "if Trump wins, fascism will be given a greenlight" more likely than the argument "if Biden wins, genocide will be given a greenlight" for a variety of reasons, and i would consider it more harmful if it occurred too. that's for a few reasons: the overall shift in the party has been to the left and i think that's far more likely to continue than a shift to the right; there's a flourishing left-critical tendency within the Democratic Party; the overall American left the strongest it's been in a long time, etc.
but i think most immediately it's because i would contest the logical validity of the second argument at all. the contemporary US is a post settler-colonial society and most of its land area was acquired through genocidal processes given sanctity by the legal system. to me Biden is neither establishing a new norm nor deviating from an old one—he's just a part of a long-normalized string of presidents like this.[^1] in my mind trying to break the cycle by punishing him might be cathartic but will be politically fruitless and unlikely to produce the introspection you're seeking. by contrast: i would argue we have not really had a fascist president—authoritarian, racist, white supremacist, truly evil? probably yes, but not fascist[^2]—and so Trump winning would be a catastrophic normalization of that political tendency which we've to this point avoided. it would have extreme ramifications both domestically and globally, especially for the left.
and i will reiterate that i believe it entirely likely that you're going to get a larger, more sweeping genocide from Trump and his followers than is happening in Palestine if he is given the power to do that. (it's also obvious he's going to continue that one based on his positioning since October 7.) we're already seeing efforts in places like Arizona to make it de facto legal to murder undesirables like undocumented immigrants--the dehumanization needed for widespread killing to begin is clearly high in some parts of the Republican Party. in all of this space, i just don't see very many compelling arguments for why the utilitarian perspective of harm reduction should be discarded here.
[^1]: indeed i think you could charge nearly every president since the US's inception as being complicit in or directly responsible for at least one genocide.
[^2]: i also have a hard time fitting most contemporary presidents into these categories in terms of governance even though i think these descriptors are accurate for most of them. i think Reagan is probably the most explicit offender in this regard, but even so i think it's obvious there is a lot of distance in outcome between how he governed and how Trump has/wants to.
I think my all-time dumbest came when I was about 22, so it doesn't fit here. In my teens...probably driving drunk at speeds up to 100mph on the mountain roads up above Pasadena with the headlights off at night.
Chat
Hot
This magazine is not receiving updates (last activity 0 day(s) ago).