Linkage

This is brilliant. Forward to that person (or those persons) in your life who think their lack of civility is a badge of integrity. (CW: this is a post on a sex blog, so there's suggestive advertising on the page. It's technically SFW, but not necessarily the sort of thing you might want people at work to see you scrolling through.)

‘Have I offended you?’ is usually meant sarcastically: like ‘oh no! I have offended you! What horror! Your poor sad feelings might have been hurt! Well, guess what, fuckface?! I don’t care about your feelings! The TRUTH is more important!’

[…]

When someone says ‘that is offensive’ – that thing you do, or that statement you made – they aren’t usually saying ‘this thing is bad because it makes me feel upset/offended.‘ They’re not addressing your action purely because of the impact on them, but the impact on you. They’re saying: ‘doing/saying this makes you look like a bit of a prick.’

[…]

Most of the time when I use the word ‘offence’ or ‘offensive’, I am not trying to imply – as the ‘are you offended’ commenters believe – that you should go to great pains to avoid offending me personally, because my feelings are paramount. I’m instead using it as a gentle nudge. It is a nicer thing to say than what I am actually thinking which is: ‘saying/doing this makes you look like a bit of a prick.’

My dear friend and colleague Susan knocks it out of the park here:

I do not invoke democratic “insolvency” as a metaphor. I mean it literally, seriously, structurally. As Kelton and Raworth insist, an economy’s purpose is to thoughtfully and justly provision the society it serves. The question for the rest of us is what must a democracy’s economy be minimally committed to provision if a democratic society is to remain resilient and sustainable?

Just asking that question exposes a quiet but consequential mistake embedded in much of modern economic and political thinking, one that Meadows would have immediately recognized. Ordinarily, we treat public policy as a menu of options, programs to be debated, adjusted, traded--off, replaced, or discarded, one-by-one, depending on the political moment. But it is extremely likely that, in a modern redesign, some public commitments will not be optional. They may be structural. They may be load-bearing. Moreover, they may only work interdependently, as a system. Remove one, and the whole apparatus may not just perform poorly; it may be doomed to fail.

Well, what a surprise!

Saul Eslake, an independent economist, said the scheme had likely been used by people who would have bought homes anyway while inflating their debt.

“The way it was expanded by Albanese goes to the heart of why we have the housing problems that we have,” Eslake said.

“Whenever governments do things that allow people to spend more on housing than they would have otherwise, they end up spending more on housing.”

A borrower with $50,000 in savings, if required to make a 20% deposit, would only have been able to borrow $200,000. Under the 5% deposit scheme, they would be able to borrow $1m

This is a really useful explainer for the cis people in your life who are perplexed and struggling:

Return to Self is a 5-part video and podcast series, exploring gender affirmation through the experiences and insights of three trans people.

Learn what this means for each of us as we create an environment where trans and gender diverse people can participate, contribute, and thrive.

With ADHD, I was often chastised for misunderstanding simple instructions, forgetting things, not finishing what we start, doing things the wrong way, not caring enough, being too emotional, not being emotional enough.

I soon ended up carrying so much baggage relating to how I’d been rejected, that it felt like everything I did would result in rejection.

After a time, we often learn to become people pleasers to try counter the rejection– by being more helpful, seeking approval, and saying yes to everything because we are trying to counter balance that teeter-totter of rejection/approval.

Of course, with executive function issues, we are often unable to finish what we start, or adhere to and honor our commitments to others easily for a multitude of reasons.

This can, in turn, lead to more heightened experiences of rejection when those same people question our dedication and for over- promising and under-delivering, yet again.

I became trapped in an insidious feedback loop where I’d take on more tasks to compensate for the ones I’d dropped, and I’d fail to achieve those as well, begetting more experiences of rejection. 

Glorious freedom and long, sunny days stretching out ahead. For most, the end of summer term used to signify nothing but a high point in the year, but for Amy Cocksedge, now 24, thinking back to the school holidays conjures up the beginning of an agonising emotional spiral. Something that later carried through to her university days, too.

If messages from friends grew quieter – something that tends to accompany the natural ebb and flow of a busy break – a sensation would wrap itself around Amy's body. Chest pains. Racing thoughts. Hot tears. Every day without a text "would feel like a direct, personal attack," she explains. For Amy, any ambiguity would see her leap to a devastating conclusion: that everyone secretly hates her. Tormenting thoughts of being disliked, or having failed in some way, would override everything.

This is fascinating, as is the Historic England report on the subject. The title of the video is a teensy bit misleading, for as the report says:

It is estimated that 417 public houses (363 in England and 54 in Scotland) were acquired
or constructed by the Central Control Board and State Management Scheme between 1916
and 1973.241 This includes the public houses that were closed and remodelled under the
scheme. A total of 333 (80%) of these (290 in England and 43 in Scotland) remain standing,
but with the general decline in public house culture across the country, the future of these
buildings is uncertain.

Recent polling has shown her party One Nation have pulled ahead of both Labor and the Coalition in popularity, largely thanks to her penchant for making sweeping and often inaccurate statements scapegoating minorities for the real crises at play in modern Australia.

Like most of Hanson’s stunts, it has garnered a lot of media attention. That’s both good and bad — good because it’s important to know what Hanson is espousing, but bad because it gives her the notoriety and airtime she so clearly seeks.

Here, we combat that approach by fact-checking her speech and debunking a handful of the incorrect claims she made throughout it.

One Nation leader Pauline Hanson has used her first-ever address to the National Press Club to launch a broad attack on the rights and existence of trans people, describing the movement for trans equality as a “militant force” that must be “confronted” and a “subversive transgender ideology” that must be “dismantled”.

In the 17 June speech in Canberra, Hanson claimed that “almost every instrument of government” was dedicated to what she described as a “transgender ideology which seeks to redefine humanity”. She also pledged to remove Australia’s Sex Discrimination Commissioner and argued that transgender “propaganda” was being imposed on children in school.

Hanson used military-like languge to imply transgender people and their supporters are an attacking army (like ‘militant’, ‘force’, ‘insurgency’), language to imply disease (like ‘infecting’), and also used out-of-date language (such as ‘transgenderism’).

“But now I want to turn to one very, very important social and cultural issue facing this country. I refer firstly to the transgender insurgency. The transgender ideology has penetrated almost every regulatory authority and it is supported by the Sex Discrimination Commissioner, Dr Anna Cody, who in government I would sack. So too, the head of the Human Rights Commission, Hugh de Kretser.”

Hanson continued to comment on transgender people in sport, and who should be allowed in what bathrooms, before launching into LGBTQIA+ organisations being involved in regulatory bodies.

“We cannot be a multicultural society,” she told the packed club.

“We are a multiracial society, but we must be monocultural. Australians must live under the one cultural umbrella.”

Hanson also made a broadside attack on transgender rights, pledging to sack Australia’s sex discrimination commissioner and claiming “almost every instrument of government [is] dedicated to a transgender ideology which seeks to redefine humanity”.