I tried to explain to someone that our (adhd) brains are literally incapable of forming habits. They tried to remind me of all my bad habits, therefore I was wrong. And that was just too much for me to unpack and explain to them (they didn’t know me or my habits, they were just talking about the bad habits that come along with adhd, but thats a whole other story)

But when someone told me habits are something you do without thinking about it. Like, at all.

I’ve never had a habit in my life. I have to think through every step of every task, no matter how many times I’ve done them before, nothing just runs of its own volition. And I could have done something literally 10,000 times and I’ll still miss a vital step and screw it up.

That fun effect is called, executive dysfunction. Yay!

He knows he’s too rich to ever be convicted of anything. He just bought a president and a whole country of his own. He’s drunk with power and thinks he’s invincible.

Yeah, not only that, people who pirate wouldn’t have consumed the product, if pirating weren’t available as an option. They’ve priced cost of living so high, and reduced access to content availability. When Netflix first came out, especially the streaming version, I bet there was a noticible drop in piracy, now they’ve made content access to hard, more piracy. They control the levels of piracy. It’s not a choice to pay for everything we want to watch, or pirate. It’s pirate or don’t watch. And they created that situation, and then try and brainwash / gaslight us into feeling guilty and feeling like it’s our fault. And then add in the moral clause, these companies are committing or contributing to atrocities. Some piracy is an attempt to avoid supporting companies that cause harm to people. If “wrong” is condemned, what about the wrongs that have caused them to be listed on boycott lists. Underpaying employees and writers, who should own the content. I think writers should be as famous, and focused on as the actors. The content being created currently has a heaping of “conform, don’t think” built in, too, I could rant about that, annoyingly, for a bit, too! So many things.

I think they’re just setting up a defense for all the illegal activity, so when they investigate, they’ve got a get out of jail free, card. Not that he would go to jail with the amount of money he has.

Sorry for some reason my rely appeared here rather than where I aimed it.

deleted by creator

Thank you for sharing, it’s an important question, but it’s not ok to expect this from women’s sport. It’s taken so long to reach the top, we live in a capitalist society and it’s not ok to expect women’s sport and participants to be political first and women’s sport secondary, even at the risk of destroying the thing that they are, women’s sport, by nit picking who sponsors them. Why is it OK to so hugely police women’s behaviour and actions, especially when they are not in any way in a stable position to choose. But men skate by completely unmentioned. Because men will be men? This entire line of thinking ties into the socialisation of women to hugely police their own behaviour and be policed from birth, and plays into the oppression of women as a class. You can not start with the underdog, and expect them to take down capitalism. That’s our job as consumers. And our job to put pressure on the bigger fish, the men, to start questioning their sponsorship choices. Push hard on the men and that will by default make choices for women’s sport and sponsorship easier. Because currently they can’t be picky, they’re still fighting against decades / centuries of oppression. Women used to be predominant in sports, until they started beating the men, then they segregated the sports and banned women from participating. Your fight is with capitalism, and what people who aren’t in a position to choose have to do under capitalism isn’t right to police, because the stakes are too high for them and they have no power to weild. Similarly people who are wage oppressed may want to participate in the boycott, but have been forced into a corner of “buy the things on the boycott list, or starve”. You are furthering capitalism to further its oppression, by raging at or taking down its already oppressed components, you aren’t fighting against capitalism in this method. Capitalism relies on oppression and racism, sexism, othering and punching down, poor, homeless, segregation and war, all feed capitalism / are the core root of capitalism. It doesn’t survive without these things. These things are artificially created by capitalism, if you force oppression or oppress, you may feel like you’re fighting against it, but you are not, you’re feeding it.

This could be taken out of context and twisted to an extreme version, it doesn’t mean oppressed people are without judgment of their actions, it means if you have an argument like this, you take it to the top dog, first. And by default, the choice you create then rolls down the hill to the oppressed. If you want to make space for this choice for oppressed people, stop the biggest most privileged, first, set a precedent they can easily apply. Put pressure on the boycott list, pick one and as a large group attack that one brand at a time, finding its largest source and take it down from there.

Like coke, they opened a factory in occupied Palestine and tried to say it wasn’t. Nestle who starved babies to death in head spinning numbers. All businesses operate under these motives and possibilities, under capitalism. There are no morals to capitalism, without regulation it goes unchecked, it’s main operandi is to keep making more money, even if that pathway leads to the deaths of the consumers, if that happens, unchecked, they just rebrand.

If your fight is the boycott list or capitalism, trying to take it down from the lowest, least powerful rung, isn’t effectual at all. To have the best effect, you aim for the top, you take down the biggest source and you do it en masse. If it becomes not ok, for the biggest sports icon to have that particular sponsor, then by default that choice is afforded women and minorities. If top sports (that currently still being men with the most power and privilege) are shamed into dumping a sponsor, that has hugely more effect to your cause. That has more power to be noticed. If women ignore a sponsor, it’s not noticed nearly as much. It has much less effect overall. So I suppose you have to ask yourself, are you mainly aiming to strategically take down the boycott list and capitalism or just only police women’s behaviour and choices.

I think they’re getting pressure re the pirating aspect. I could imagine the bigger they get the bigger the magnifying glass will be held up to them. They’re probably doing some fancy footwork to be able to remain in production / avoid lawsuits and similar pressure.

Close, but nah, it’s the meaning of life

Me.

But it’s included in a plex pass. I know a lot of people were saying, a while back, they were happy to purchase a lifetime pass, so as to support the software. I didn’t actually realise you could share without the plex pass. I thought that was always a thing.

That day would become a world wide day of celebration.

Look into men leaving their wives when they get sick / cancer… Just peak at it a tiny bit.

People justify their own behaviour and responses, they build justification for why *it’s ok when I do it because… *. People with narcissistic personality disorders and the such, who do very bad things, perpetually see themselves as in the right, to a delusional extent. The bad guys, genuinely think they’re the good guys. We all do it, to an extent, they double down, they go big.