A lot of women get in touch to ask me about #coercivecontrol and come to the conclusion that their partner is controlling, but not abusive enough that they want to leave.

So when is the right time to leave?

A THREAD

Is it when he calls you an ugly bitch the first time?
Or do you wait for him to call you it again?
Or do you wait until he has so completely undermined your sense of self worth that you don’t think you can leave?

Is it when he says that no one will love you like he does?

Or do you wait until he says that no one else COULD love you.

Or that you are unloveable?

Do you leave when he says he likes women to be women?

Or do you wait until he says you are fat and unless you lose weight, he will divorce you?

Do you leave when he pushes you into the wall and then claims he lost control because you made him so jealous?

Or do you wait until you no longer go anywhere, for fear of making him jealous?

THREAD: On the full-fledged process of responding to a Revise-And-Resubmit (R&R).

I have written pieces of the process, but I hadn't actually written a thread or a blog post showcasing how all my blog posts fit with one another. I teach this process when I give workshops.

So here's what I do (now), and let me share a lesson from my past lives:

DO NOT SIT ON R&Rs.

I know, they're painful and scary and sometimes we don't know if our paper will get rejected in the end.

But remember, an R&R means an OPPORTUNITY to get your paper published.

Sitting on R&Rs, leaving them for later, and not prioritizing them has gotten me fewer publications. I know this for a fact. I am not ashamed of admitting that I have sometimes felt that I will not be capable of responding to multiple (often conflicting) comments.

HOWEVER...

Sustained, frequent advice from professors who are senior to me (though I am senior myself now too) is always the same and on-point:

The goal is the R&R.

You're not getting a desk rejection.

You are getting your work read, reviewed carefully, thought about, responded to.

What do I do now (and have been doing for the past few years, with success)

When I get the R&R (the "decision letter"), I make sure to calm down, because I am always afraid I'm going to get nasty comments. These have been (luckily) very rarely present in my latest submissions.

My morning thought. I think what's most incompatible about the way I think and the journal article format as a means of capturing and validating thought is that I have a completely different sense of the relation between tentativeness, rigor, and informatic compression.

The characteristic Pete thought is: wait a minute, this whole area is dominated by an assumption that no one seems to be questioning, and I've got two options to express that: i) outline the logic of the issue in a quick and compressed way, ii) write a small book with references.

The discipline seems to want something in between these poles every single time, and this makes me extremely anxious because I feel (with good reason) like any partially referential engagement with the issue will get instantly torpedoed by anyone outside its referential remit.

To repeat something I've said before: I'm actually quite good at being *concise*, I just find it very hard to be *brief*, because most of the thoughts I have don't permit brevity. Consider what your (referential) reactions are to this brief piece:

One of the main genres of publication I've actually excelled in over the years is dictionary articles, which I take a lot of joy in writing, and include some of the pieces of which I'm most proud. Consider this one on the crux of Meillassoux's project:

It's a slow, snowy afternoon. How about a 🧵 on "rationalists" & "rationalism"? I want to talk about what real rationalism might look like & what people devoted to rationalism might actually behave like--and how that differs from what you often see from self-styled rationalists.

Caveat up front: this is not about Slate Star Codex, which I haven't read regularly enough to have an opinion on, or about the recent controversy between SSC & the NYT. I'm more interested in the *idea* of rationalism (vs. the practice).

The core premise of rationalism, as I understand it, is simply that humans' cognitive machinery was not designed by evolution to find truth, but rather to advance the interests & welfare of the collective -- a Venn overlap, but not the same thing. Therefore ...

... reasoning well, both individually & as groups, requires special effort. It requires consciously trying to set aside the parochialism, biases, & other distortions that typically characterize our thinking -- resisting, to some extent, the dynamics of group membership/welfare.

That's all fine. I agree entirely that we should make special effort to reason well & to guard against the typical failures of reasoning to which we humans are prone. I believe it's the best (maybe only) way forward as a species. So far so good.

How has religion been used to fan the flames of insurrection on Capitol Hill? - welcome to the participants to our zoom briefing today! We'll be live-tweeting as we go along:

Bishop @Mebudde felt a range of emotions on yesterdays events such as shock outrage, deep confusion, and alarm at the ways they unfolded with some predictability #capitolhill #washington #briefing

Bishop @Mebudde highlights there was no protection for vulnerable people, the homeless and key workers in the #CapitolHill area during yesterdays events

"truths unveiled" is how @wsvarghese described the events on #capitolhill, and feels the US nation has been anxious and so on edge, especially the last 4 years in many communities, and shockingly stressful. #briefing #news

Guest @ChineMcDonald shares how she has previously felt called vocationally to "detoxify the brand" of UK #Evangelicals- but has become aware its a place where white supremacy reigns

1/This is a rant I had with someone while texting, and I thought it would make an interesting thread:

2/ Jim, If you come across any information, I still desire to hear any information on the state of our beleaguered union.

ORT. Final chapter. Atto XXII
“Give up defining yourself to yourself or to others. You won’t die. You will come to life. And don’t be concerned with how others define you. When they define you, they are limiting themselves, so it’s their problem. Whenever you interact with people

don’t be there primarily as a function or a role, but as the field of conscious Presence. You can only lose something that you have, but you cannot lose something that you are.”  Eckhart Tolle
Jung pinpoint that there are elements of our psyche that are out of our control.

A driving force that influences our decisions. Now, here’s where spirituality comes in, what are these mysterious elements? Are they simply biological drives built into our DNA? Deep-rooted conditioned pathways in our brain? Or is there something greater?
Of course there is.

The importance of spirituality is that its focus is beyond the material dimension. When you look beyond the material, the concept of who we are...
“Though It seems that I know that I know, What I would like to see Is the ‘I’ that knows ‘me’ When I know that I know that I know."

What makes us feel spiritual then? It could be the quieting of a small area in our brains.
The area in question, the right parietal lobe, is responsible for defining "Me," according to Brick Johnstone of Missouri University. It generates self-criticism and guides us through

@tommy_pane I have pondered how to respond to you and this thread of yours. And the understandable inability of you to actually engage a discussion.
I suppose it becomes more clear with this post.

You are not trying to solve the questions, but advocating a broken, albeit powerful,

2/ "conspiracy" that has a baseless response to every single fact... "The MSM is doing fake news".
Which has the patina of "truth", which has a few examples that might be trotted out to "prove the point".
But in the constant reciting of the Trumpian catechism, fails to realize,

They were at a vigil when the issue came to light
The pastor of the church heard the testimony of one of the men of the church earlier that week and decided to allow him to share with the brethren
The man took the microphone and explained how he had

survived for two years without a job!
As soon as he said "Without a job" the congregation gasped!
It was impossible to even contemplate that the man was out of job for a second
He always dressed corporately and drove a good car
Everybody saw him as one of the gainfully employed

members of the church
The man explained further that a week after he lost his job in a stock brokering firm, his wife found him crying and promised him she would ensure his shame was covered
The man said at the end of every month, his wife would hand over her ATM card to him and

they would both go shopping for the family and for themselves
She knew he would eventually catch a break but she was determined not to let him suffer simply because times were hard
The man talked on and on about his wife's support
and love
While the talk was going on, the

assistant pastor watched the man with awe
When the man was done, a lady raised up her hand in the congregation
She said she wanted to ask a question
She was the assistant pastor's wife
When she was given the microphone, she said she didn't see any wisdom in what the man's wife

LEEDS LEADS CLIMATE BREAKDOWN

8 hours and 1000 flawed arguments and biased procedures later, Leeds City Plans Panel voted 9-5 for airport expansion and the false promises of economic growth.
For “what Leeds needs is a premier-league football club and a premier-league airport”
🧵

1/ There was a lot of "I do care about climate change, BUT" – followed by a lot of blah blah. Blah blah economic growth. Blah blah connectivity. Blah blah competitiveness. Blah blah Manchester. Blah blah Westminster. Blah blah offsetting. Blah blah electric planes. Blah blah blah

2/ Also a lot of "I do have sympathy for residents suffering from planes flying over their roofs at night, BUT” - followed by more blah blah.
One councillor kindly offered his advice: “the way to less noise is more planes”. Right, Sherlock. Want to try that in your backyard?🤦‍♂️

3/ The true sympathies were revealed at the end. The Panel's priority was not the well-being of those living under the flight path, nor the lives and livelihoods of threatened by climate breakdown. Their priority was a bigger, noisier airport, with a terminal in bronze-champagne.

4/ First declaring your sympathy for people’s suffering and then supporting a development that directly aggravates their suffering, is a proper kick in the face for those suffering the consequences. Like first declaring a climate emergency and then aggravating climate breakdown.

As a scholar who has researched and written quite a bit about the Anabaptists, can we set a few things straight?

1. Baptists are not Anabaptists. Their history is theirs; ours is ours. We have similarities, but we are not them. We honor them by not using them for our purposes.

2. Not all Anabaptists were in Münster, and many if not most Anabaptists at the time were just as appalled as we are by the Münsterites. So please drop the tropes equating all Anabaptists with Münster. Informed and honest scholars are known by their right retelling of history.

3. The same truth applies to the other types of Reformation Radicals. There is a great difference between those who have become known as Evangelical Anabaptists on the one hand and Spiritualists, Rationalists, etc. on the other hand. Respect them as you also wish to be respected.

4. Yes, there were Anabaptists who toyed with various heresies, including Arianism, Socinianism, and Celestial Flesh Christology. But there were also many Anabaptists who affirmed, commented upon, and used the traditional Apostles’ Creed, Nicene Creed, and Athanasian Creed.

And if you want to do the honest research, you can also find a few heretical Roman Catholic Popes and more than a few heretical Anglicans, Presbyterians, Lutherans. and whomever else you want to talk about. Good historical theology doesn’t play favorites; it speaks the truth.

1/ All I keep thinking about in this moment are all the horrible things that Rush Limbaugh did and said. Just flashes of them.

Like how following Trayvon Martin's death, he tried to convince people it was okay to say "n word" now as long as you ended with an "a" (and said it).

2/ Or how, one of his "undeniable truths" was that "Feminism was established so as to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream of pop culture."

3/ Or how if a prominent woman would publicly defend another woman, he would refer to it as "solidarity of the vaginas."

4/ How he absolutely hated Michelle Obama...and used to refer to has as "moo-chelle." He really liked this because it both attacked her for mooching off system as he claimed and because it was his way of calling her a cow (he thought she was fat).

5/ He had this one song called "Barack the Magic Negro." The lyrics were even more racist than the name. And he played it all the time. He was still playing that song during his show a few months ago.

A good theory of consciousness is one that predicts behavior that is unexplained by other current theories of consciousness. Einstein's General Theory was given credence because it predicted the bending of light.

What do current theories of consciousness predict that is outside common intuition about the nature of consciousness?

Many theories of consciousness are elegant, but do they predict anything out of the ordinary?

A theory of consciousness must be expressed in a formulation, consists of interpretations that are valid and predict something unexpected.

A bad theory of consciousness has ambiguous interpretations and predicts nothing out of the ordinary.

I am done giving this doctor or team grace. I started with "We are tremendously grateful for all you are doing." He seemed irritated to speak to us. Literally I asked, "What is the likelihood our mom will die on current support, in the next 24 hours, so we can plan travel?"

He hammered us with how severe this was and that was. Yes, that is why I am asking the question. "We are asking you to be a thought partner so we can make responsible decisions as the family." I had had pre-conversations with doctor friends to understand the numbers and prognosis

He said "It would be illegal for me to tell you that she won't die, then she dies." Yes, that is why I said LIKELIHOOD - critical care docs deal in likelihoods. It so frustrating to be on this side and not get a fraction of the standard that I have been held to and hold myself to

Then I made the error of saying, "I'm a pediatrician, I literally do this work on family-centered, compassionate care." to which the charge nurse answered, "It is not the work we do. We keep people alive." End of life care IS your job. Planning IS your job. It's not just numbers

Compassion is not only a pediatric thing while critical care/end of life can proudly lack it. I've had more end of life conversations than I want to remember. My mom is not numbers. She is a human being. I am modulating my voice, complimenting you, leveraging my network.

Oregon Prison Report: Voices from the Inside

"The people that were suspected of organizing the hunger strike in April are currently in segregation under bullshit rule violations, being held illegally, having their outgoing mail seized, and are being refused their property...”

“...and yet still in segregation."

(Testimony from Critical Resistance PDX's (@CR_PDX) Write Them All Campaign)

Snake River Correctional Institution (SRCI) / November 17, 2020.

#ODOCKills #KateBrownKills #FreeThemAll

COVID-19

If you are reading this I'm probably in Segregation as we speak because the inmates aren't necessarily allowed to tell you this, a lot of my homies were transferred to a different prison or put in solitary confinement for saying what's been going on here.

Let me start off by saying that this prison is currently and will continue to be a Coronavirus hotspot. Almost for the past year it has been.

At the beginning of this pandemic, due to our childish president, this pandemic wasn't treated with the emergency, urgency, and caution it needed. As you know Snake River is almost 25 minutes away from Boise, Idaho (if you drive fast).

Street urchin Keith

Give me fast reflexes, bloodied fists, stiff upper lip. Give me a chip on his shoulder and something to prove because he’s lived this long on his own and he’ll be DAMNED if he’ll let anyone walk all over him.

Give me a secret heart of gold.

Keith’s scrappy, wiry, and muscled, all sharp edges from the outside... hunger and endless fighting will do that, will carve you down to muscle and bone.

He doesn’t get along with others much, but there’s something in him that won’t settle for seeing innocents kicked around.

(Maybe it reminds him too much of when he was young, those years until Shiro when he didn’t have someone to stick up for him.)

He’s got an issue with authority, a cynical streak a mile wide, and a hesitance to open up to anyone who hasn’t earned his trust. He’s used to fighting for himself.

But he’s discovering he’s good at fighting for others, too.

He sees kids getting picked on, people being harassed, and assholes using their power and authority to get their way.

He’s there with his fists raised and a snarl on his face, his attitude flaring up. He scares off the bullies but waves away the “thank you”s he’s offered.