What Is UP, Sugar Butt??

1.5M ratings
277k ratings

See, that’s what the app is perfect for.

Sounds perfect Wahhhh, I don’t wanna
tkingfisher
headspace-hotel

I *knew* that companies have been trying to shift blame for damage to the environment onto regular people's buying habits, but it has still somehow been a shock to research a topic and find the internet totally dominated by the narrative that "consumerism" and the desire to buy more stuff is entirely responsible for pollution and landfill waste, instead of factors such as planned obsolescence.

It's insidious—this widespread idea that average people are too greedy, and that's what fuels climate change and pollution. Not greedy companies.

"Consumers shop for clothes to stay on-trend and throw away perfectly good old clothes." "Consumers only wear clothes a few times before throwing them away." "A huge amount of landfill waste comes from clothing that consumers throw out." "Consumers replace their wardrobes arbitrarily to stay on-trend." "Consumer demand for 'fast fashion' is rising spite of the environmental impacts."

Statements like this make it sound like regular people want to buy and waste vast amounts of resources, and normal people's unchecked addiction to shopping is causing environmental devastation. It's horribly misleading when products are being deliberately designed to break or wear out within one or two years and to be impossible to repair.

Instead of "Americans are buying way more clothes than they did 20 years ago, causing lots of landfill waste!"

Where are the articles entitled "Clothing brands are selling poorly-made clothes that have to be replaced much more often than 20 years ago, causing lots of landfill waste!"

elodieunderglass

Then note that fast fashion is decoupled from the demand economy. What this means is that clothing items are generated based on algorithms determined by corporations. They’re not driven by current demand, or consumption, or consumer desire: they’re driven by prediction of how much the corporation can sell. Because the items are practically worthless, the corporation risks little by generating extra/unwanted items. So if they generate 10,000 unwanted tops, they can simply destroy them again and send them to landfill. They don’t have any motivation to recycle, donate, or give away these items. It does not matter if 15 more people swear to give up fast fashion and -15 items are purchased. The machine of fast fashion operates independently of consumer demand, because its settings are set to increasing profit, not what people claim to want or what’s good for their workers or what’s good for the earth.

If your goal is to live a better and more connected life - a life that will be resilient and joyful in the face of coming changes - you absolutely can, should and must avoid fast fashion. Do it for your soul. Do it for your ethics. Do it because an informed, caring person cannot do anything else. Do it because wearing these items would make you feel ill. That is what I, and my household, do. It is good for us, but does not liberate you. I do not call it activism, but a way of living in the world.


But if your goal is to break the machine, you cannot break a machine whose settings are “infinite profit” by pressing on levers marked “consumer demand.” Those levers aren’t even connected to the economic machine. It operates on separate principles. I’ve written about this before: there are plenty of ways to break the machine, but “declining to interact with it” is not activism and won’t kill it.

In science policy we do a lot of stakeholder mapping, which really shows where power lies, and here’s a proposed European strategy for forcing fast fashion into the circular economy. Interestingly, as with many circular economy things, the levers involved include end-of-life pressures: if you stop textile manufacturers from burning their surplus items for their own convenience, they’ll have to find other solutions. If the countries being used as dumping grounds for textile waste effectively organise and resist, it will be less economical to be wasteful. This is how you influence economies: cut down the current systems that insulate corporations and allow for infinite growth on a finite planet.

image

Consumers certainly have a role to play, but in my opinion, this role isn’t as easy and smug as buying/not-buying fast fashion. Instead, consumers must grapple with and influence material desire. Why is it so nice to buy new things, and how can we change that? Can you get those feelings from a community clothes swap, or would we actually be happier if our psychology just hated the whole concept of new clothes? For people who enjoy bullying: instead of bullying people for buying clothes, which is cruel and unkind, why not bully the entire concept of consumption? In the healed world, we won’t be entertained by watching a video of someone opening a large bag of new clothing; we can start living in that world today.

Further, consumer desires actually do influence investors. It’s less sexy but involves more money being moved around. Ideally the healed world won’t involve markets that float untethered on the power of random beliefs, but if you’re into it for now, you might as well look into how the complex network of investment keeps undesirable business practices afloat, how much that relies of delicate forces of confidence, and how quickly industry pivots to follow investors. Long story short, investors have more money than you do, but only because of psychology.

In conclusion, these machines are complex and don’t care much about your $5. This is neither a reason to despair, or to run out and buy Primark. It is a reason to become educated.

Alternatively, you could simply have a Revolution and break all of this down, which would be a fascinating change and would certainly be something new.

thelittleblackfox

What I find frustrating about these discussions is that no one wants to mention the other reason why people buy fast fashion - price.

I would love to spend £20 on a good quality t-shirt that will last a decade if not longer, but I don't have £20. I buy what I can from charity and second hand stores, but what's available is limited and rarely in my size. I can get a plain t-shirt that fits well and is made from recycled materials at Primark for £2 to £5

Same with having kids. They grow fast, and some of us don't have the money or storage space (or certainty that we'll be living in the same place in a month let alone a year), so you can't invest in clothing that grandkids and great grandkids will potentially wear. Fast fashion will kit out your child in t-shirt and joggers that will last until their next growth spurt for less than £5, and when every penny counts that is a lifesaver

lasrina

Vimes Boots Theory is so accurate, y'all.

wizardlyghost
rebeccadumaurier

cannot get over how ART had one of the most iconic character introductions of all time. in the span of 100 pages and a few weeks, it was like hey. if you mess with me i'll squash you like a bug. check out how i'm 10,000 times more powerful than you. wanna watch tv together? ah FUCK my tv blorbo died. what do you mean you won't tell me all the secrets of your dark past. can i do some surgery on you? do you need me to blow anything up? let me hijack your brain for a couple seconds. ok that went great! here's my number in case you ever need it

wizardlyghost

and then the second time it showed up it was like. hey i sent these losers to kidnap you. i was 98% certain you could murder them first though. i trust you to reupload me to my own brain while i'm dead. your humans are cute! i'm antifa btw. why do your humans think we're married? let's make a babybot. i told my humans about you and they refer to you as my secunit now. i was 100% gonna nuke a city from orbit to rescue you but your humans talked me out of it. oh shit i'm finally going to meet my mother-in-law i have to clean up this place! i have a proposal: would you like to join my crew?

sadoeuphemist

A Glossary of Incorrect Definitions:

sadoeuphemist

  • abject - objectively, via absence. A blank canvas upon which is drawn the Truth.
  • arbitrage - the financial art of arbitrarily creating value.
  • assiduous - like bones bleached bare in the desert.
  • attenuated - drawn out, moderated, tension distributed over the entire length of a thread.
  • belie - to have your true self displaced beside you, marking you out as the imposter.
  • bemused - amused, but one step downgraded.
  • bolus - a lump of clay too large to swallow, metaphorically.
  • cascade - to collapse in sequence, or all at once.
  • cloying - like honey, clinging to the inside of the throat.
  • crepuscular - the color of veins as seen through skin. Night bleeding through the bruised membrane of sky.
  • desultory - seductive, but with a self-pitying demeanor. Leading you on with eyes downcast.
  • effulgent - gushingly magnanimous; practically reeking of goodwill.
  • enormity - a largeness so immense as to be unbearable.
  • febrile - packed with tightly-coiled fibers, ready to burst.
  • fraught - in a tense state of inaction. A hopeless tangle of threads all pulled taut.
  • frisson - friction, but with a French accent. Rubbing amber against silk to make sparks.
  • gyre - the gear that turns the world.
  • hie - to come; to come bearing; to perk up at attention; to be summoned; to get thee to a nunnery; an interjection indicating urgency that has no particular meaning in itself.
  • hob - a large rounded protrusion that notably sticks out, as in goblins and in nails.
  • imago - the cocooned image of the self, awaiting metamorphosis.
  • interpolate - to bridge the gap between two incompatible pieces of information.
  • intersticed - skewered through, as in the magic trick of a box angled full of swords.
  • labile - smooth and pliable, like flesh.
  • limn - to while away time with the patterns of productivity; e.g., clacking knitting needles together without yarn. 
  • lush - creamy, completely saturated. Containing an abundance of itself the deeper one digs in.
  • oblique - jutting off in a perpendicular direction, impudently.
  • peremptory - spoken first, interrupting before anyone else has a chance to start.
  • perspicacious - sweaty, as a personality trait. Having the expansive view of the world that only comes from trying way too hard.
  • quiescence - the quiet that only comes with total subjugation.
  • roil - to boil, but more angrily. To make soil churn like water.
  • rugose - coarse, full of cellulose and roughage.
  • sere - black, like burnt leaves.
  • subsume - to swallow whole, as does the ocean
  • terse - cut short.
  • verdure - a bounty of compost, rich and rotting green things.
  • widdershins - the direction which, when walked, you cannot see your shadow. The path that goes against the sun.
qaraxuanzenith
supreme-leader-stoat

Nothing makes me want to call math fake as much as the Monty Hall problem. Not even 0.999999... equaling 1. Yes I understand the proof yes it technically makes sense but I just hate the Monty Hall problem so, so much.

such-justice-wow

Is that the game show one with the doors?

supreme-leader-stoat

Correct. The basic scenario is that there is a car behind one door and a goat behind two doors, and you don't know which is which but the game show host does. If you pick the door with the car, you win the car. The host let's you pick a door, then opens one of the two doors you didn't pick, revealing a goat. The host then offers you one last chance to switch your pick from your original door to the other remaining closed door.

The Monty Hall problem states that you should always switch your pick, and that by doing so you will double your chances of winning the car.

Which, intuitively, that's nonsense. Your choice has no actual impact on the reality of the situation. You're guessing blindly the same as before, it's just now that you have a one-in-two chance of guessing the right door instead of a one-in-three chance.

EXCEPT

During your first round of choosing, you had a 1/3 chance of guessing the car vs a 2/3 chance of guessing a goat, if you were only allowed that one guess. But once it's narrowed down to two doors, one with a goat and one with a car, you're now guaranteed to get the exact opposite outcome of what your original guess would have been if you switch. So if you stick with your first choice, you still have a 1/3 chance of getting the car and 2/3 chance of getting a goat. But if you switch, then suddenly that becomes a 1/3 chance of getting a goat, and a 2/3 chance of getting the car.

It's bullshit and I hate it so much.

such-justice-wow

I understand it but i hate it, like the maths is right but logically it just doesn't click

supreme-leader-stoat

See, you understand my pain.

supreme-leader-stoat

#why doesn’t choosing the same door you already chose have the same effect? that’s what I want to know#like does math not agree with the sage advice of ya authors that not choosing is also a choice?

The trick to it is that you're technically playing two games in a row, and the second one is the only one that you actually have to win.

In the first game, you have two chances to lose (picking a goat) and once chance to win (picking a car). Worse-than-even odds. But the important thing is, you don't actually get a prize for winning this first game. It's just set-up for the second one.

In the second game, sticking with your door is basically saying "I think I made a lucky guess in the first game, I'm sticking with that decision." Switching doors is saying "I don't think I got lucky in the first round, so I'm going to change my decision." You are gambling on whether you won or lost the first game, and what wins or loses you the prize is guessing correctly whether you were lucky in the first game. And because the odds of the first game were worse-than-even, guessing that you lost the first game is the safer bet, because you probably weren't lucky.

The really painful part of it is that our brains want to interpret it all as one game, where you've basically got 50/50 odds no matter what you do. That's what our every instinct is screaming at us should be happening, because the physical endgame is two closed doors, only one of them with something we want behind it, which has been there from the start. But it isn't one game with 50/50 odds. It's two games in a trenchcoat, and their combined odds are skewed.

thefoolsbitch

“You are gambling on whether you won or lost the first game” is in fact the only time the Monty Hall problem has ever made even a shadow of sense to me, and I think you should get an honorary PhD in math or maybe philosophy for writing it down.

supreme-leader-stoat

That's actually very flattering, especially considering how long I've wrestled with this thing, thank you.

go-drink-the-kool-aid-deactivat

Ok but lets be honest id be happier with a goat

supreme-leader-stoat

image
tinsnip

image

OH

qaraxuanzenith

the monty hall problem made me so angry for so many years until i turned it around in my head to think about what is going on in the game show host's head.

because the host HAS to open a door with a goat, which is not the door i picked, after i make my first choice.

When I make my first choice, one of two things has happened: either i picked the car (1/3 chance), or i picked a goat (2/3 chance).

but either way, the host now has to open a different door and reveal a goat!

now if my first choice was the car (1/3 chance), then the host can just pick either door, and there is no meaning to the door he opens.

BUT if my first choice was a goat (2/3 chance) then, unbeknownst to me, there is only one POSSIBLE remaining door that the host can open, because there's only ONE goat left that i didn't pick, and the other one is the car.

so it's not that suddenly if i switch my guess i get a 1/2 chance of car instead of the 1/3 chance before because abstract math overrules real life events.

it's that there is a TWO OUT OF THREE CHANCE that my first choice was a goat and THEREFORE the host has revealed to me which door is the car by opening the other one to show me what (according to this 2/3 chance) is the only goat left.

in conclusion, i now agree that it makes sense to change your guess, because you actually have a 2/3 chance of getting the car if you do.

cheeseanonioncrisps
creekfiend

I have to remember every 5 years that when I was a little kid my dad was having obsessive spirals about things he did wrong like 30 years prior and his talked to his therapist about it and you know what they did NOT say. They did not say "hmmm well have you learned your lesson changed your behavior and atoned?"

They said "that sounds like a really unhelpful and distressing thing that your brain is making you think about All The Time. How about when that happens you try to think about something that makes you happy instead"

(My dad carried a picture of me at age 4 with a large inflatable dinosaur in his wallet for this purpose) (hard to ruminate about past failures when looking at a picture of your kid enjoying a large inflatable dinosaur)

Anyway. Fucking... stop thinking you can Solve Ethics by spiraling you fool. It's the Ethics Cuckoo. Fuck that guy

cheeseanonioncrisps
jessicalprice

how can you be so controversial and yet so brave

(reposted from Twitter)

Hey so, have I ever told you about the time I was at an interfaith event (my rabbi, who was on the panel, didn't want to be the only Jew there), and there was a panel with representatives of 7 different traditions, from Baha'i to Zoroastrian?

The setup was each panelist got asked the same question by the moderator, had 3 minutes to respond, and then they moved on to the next panelist.

The Christian dude talked for 8 minutes and kept waving off the poor, flustered, terminally polite Unitarian moderator.

The next panelist was a Hindu lady, who just said drily, "I'll try to keep my answer to under a minute so everyone else still has a chance to answer." (I, incidentally, am at a table with I think the only other non-Christian audience members, a handful of Muslims and a Zorastrian.)

So then we get to the audience questions part. No one's asking any questions, so finally I decide to get things rolling, and raise my hand and the very polite moderator comes over and gives me the mic.

I briefly explain Stendahl's concept of "holy envy" and ask what each of theirs is.

(If you're not familiar, Stendahl had 3 tenets for learning about other traditions, and one was leave room for "holy envy," being able to say, I am happy in my tradition and don't desire to convert, but this is something about another tradition that I admire and wish we had.)

The answers were lovely. My rabbi said she admired the Buddhist comfort with silence and wished we could learn to have that spaciousness in our practice. The Hindu said she admired the Jewish and Muslim commitment to social justice & changing, rather than accepting, the status quo.

The Christian dude said he envied that everyone else on the panel had the opportunity to newly accept Jesus.

I shit you not.

Dead silence. The Buddhist and Baha'i panelists are resolutely holding poker faces. The Hindu lady has placed her hands on the table and folded them and seems to be holding them very tightly. Over on the middle eastern end of the table, the rabbi, the imam, and the Zoroastrian lady are all leaning away from the Christian at identical angles with identical expressions of disgust. The terminally polite Unitarian moderator is literally wringing his hands in distress.

A Christian lady at the table next to me, somehow unable to pick up on the emotional currents in the room, sighs happily and says to her fellow church lady, "What a beautiful answer."

anyway I love my rabbi to death and would do anything for her

except attend another interfaith event

jessicalprice

What.

@taketwoinink

image

“Let’s keep the wonderful diversity we have in this world by having everyone accept Jesus as one of their own.”

Fuck you.

I have no need for Jesus.

My life is perfectly complete without worshipping your weird Greek god-man.

My culture predates Jesus and is perfectly complete and good without his Johnny-come-lately ass.

Fuck you and your desire to make everyone like you but with a thin “diversity” coat of paint.

taketwoinink

But I feel loved by my god and I want everyone to have a chance to feel loved like that. And that's really what I was trying to say

jessicalprice

jessicalprice:

jessicalprice:

how can you be so controversial and yet so brave

(reposted from Twitter)

Hey so, have I ever told you about the time I was at an interfaith event (my rabbi, who was on the panel, didn't want to be the only Jew there), and there was a panel with representatives of 7 different traditions, from Baha'i to Zoroastrian?

The setup was each panelist got asked the same question by the moderator, had 3 minutes to respond, and then they moved on to the next panelist.

The Christian dude talked for 8 minutes and kept waving off the poor, flustered, terminally polite Unitarian moderator.

The next panelist was a Hindu lady, who just said drily, "I'll try to keep my answer to under a minute so everyone else still has a chance to answer." (I, incidentally, am at a table with I think the only other non-Christian audience members, a handful of Muslims and a Zorastrian.)

So then we get to the audience questions part. No one's asking any questions, so finally I decide to get things rolling, and raise my hand and the very polite moderator comes over and gives me the mic.

I briefly explain Stendahl's concept of "holy envy" and ask what each of theirs is.

(If you're not familiar, Stendahl had 3 tenets for learning about other traditions, and one was leave room for "holy envy," being able to say, I am happy in my tradition and don't desire to convert, but this is something about another tradition that I admire and wish we had.)

The answers were lovely. My rabbi said she admired the Buddhist comfort with silence and wished we could learn to have that spaciousness in our practice. The Hindu said she admired the Jewish and Muslim commitment to social justice & changing, rather than accepting, the status quo.

The Christian dude said he envied that everyone else on the panel had the opportunity to newly accept Jesus.

I shit you not.

Dead silence. The Buddhist and Baha'i panelists are resolutely holding poker faces. The Hindu lady has placed her hands on the table and folded them and seems to be holding them very tightly. Over on the middle eastern end of the table, the rabbi, the imam, and the Zoroastrian lady are all leaning away from the Christian at identical angles with identical expressions of disgust. The terminally polite Unitarian moderator is literally wringing his hands in distress.

A Christian lady at the table next to me, somehow unable to pick up on the emotional currents in the room, sighs happily and says to her fellow church lady, "What a beautiful answer."

anyway I love my rabbi to death and would do anything for her

except attend another interfaith event

What.

@taketwoinink

image

“Let’s keep the wonderful diversity we have in this world by having everyone accept Jesus as one of their own.”

Fuck you.

I have no need for Jesus.

My life is perfectly complete without worshipping your weird Greek god-man.

My culture predates Jesus and is perfectly complete and good without his Johnny-come-lately ass.

Fuck you and your desire to make everyone like you but with a thin “diversity” coat of paint.

I'm sorry that what I said came across as wrong or as insensitive or selfish because that's not what I intended. I didn't think very hard about how I phrased what I was saying, and now I see maybe that was a mistake

I'm not saying you need my Jesus. You absolutely do not. What I meant was more a poorly worded way of me trying to relate to people who have different faiths than me. I don't understand other people's gods, but I know mine, so what I really meant was let's find the similarities between us and use that to bridge the differences. I don't know much about other religions and I haven't been given many opportunities to learn.

I think that there is a place for religion in life and not everyone wants or needs it. But I feel loved by my god and I want everyone to have a chance to feel loved like that. And that's really what I was trying to say

I think there's a lot of beauty in other faiths though and I want to have a chance to experience some of that and see what it really is that they believe

So I'm sorry that I offended you. It really wasn't my intention. If you'd like, I'll go and delete my reblog and all of the tags and we can pretend this didn't happen

You are still engaging in the very Christian practice of talking about people who aren’t like you as if we need to be fixed. As if we’re missing something.

Just because you like a particular thing does not mean that everyone else should have it or like it or need it.

I’m glad you have a relationship with your god that you experience as loving.

You can actually just… stop there in your interaction with people from different cultures.

Just, you know, encounter them as they are.

penrosesun

Ok, for Christians who just don’t get it, try this metaphor on for size. Imagine that you approach me, another grown adult, and you say:

“I love my mom! She’s the best mom in the world!”

“Oh, um, that’s really nice!” I say. “It’s great that you have such a close relationship with her - I love that for you.”

You nod, excitedly, and then continue, “You should be adopted by her.”

“Uh... what?” I reply.

“Well, she’s an amazing mom,” you explain. “I have a really great relationship with her. And she’d be happy to adopt you - I’ve already checked with her. She’s happy to legally adopt anyone!”

“Well that’s very... nice,” I hazard, “But uh, I actually have my own parents, thanks.”

“Oh,” you say, “But surely your parents aren’t as nice as my mom is. My mom would be a much better parent if you just gave her a chance and signed the adoption paperwork.”

“Well,” I say slowly, “Look: I’m not doubting your mom’s niceness or anything, but I actually have a preexisting relationship with my parents and have no desire to sever my ties with them in order to be adopted by your mom. She didn’t raise me, I’ve never actually had a positive interaction with her, and if I’m being honest, it’s a little weird that you’re pushing this on me given that I’m an adult and fully capable of getting by on my own - parents or not. Even if I didn’t have parents of my own - which to be clear, I do - that still wouldn’t mean I’d necessarily want to be adopted. And that’s true even if your mom is the nicest mom in the world. Most adults who are not currently the children of your mom don’t necessarily want to become children of your mom. Does that make sense?”

“But–!” you say “But I feel loved by my mom and I want everyone to have a chance to feel loved like that. That’s all I’m trying to say here.”

“I also feel loved by my parents?” I say, “And it’s pretty offensive that you assumed - without ever having met my parents - that they weren’t capable of loving me the way your mom loves you?”

“I’m sorry, but I don’t know much about other people’s parents and I haven’t been given many opportunities to learn.”

“Er... with all due respect, that’s not really my problem? You don’t have to have a personal relationship with my parents in order to not come up to me and loudly assume that they didn’t love me and that I’d want to be adopted by your mom instead. Can’t you see how that’s a totally inappropriate thing to say to a stranger you know nothing about?”

“Well I’m sorry that I offended you. It really wasn’t my intention. If you want to have a relationship with my mom that’s not a formal adoption, that’s fine too – diversity is important and everyone can love my mom in their own way if that’s better for them."

“I gotta say, after having this interaction, I’d honestly prefer to never meet your mom at all.

“Well, I think that there is a place for family in life, even if not everyone wants or needs it. And I think everyone who does value family should have an opportunity to get to know my mom, so that they can know what real family is like.”

“Uh, yeah,” I say, backing slowly away, “I’m going to go now...”

“I’m sure my mom will find you one day!” you call after me, as I book it out of there as fast as humanly possible, “You might not even know she’s my mom - you might mistake her for one of your own parents - and that’s fine for you! In fact, you think you love your parents, but maybe your mom is secretly my mom right now! Whatever diverse relationship you choose to have with my mom is fine, just so long as it’s my mom you love, because my mom is the only mom that matters!”

jessicalprice

cheeseanonioncrisps
imsobadatnicknames2

The fact that there's an actually functional website for the library of Babel is one of those things that fucks me up more and more the more I think about the implications.

imsobadatnicknames2

So, if anyone hasn’t encountered the concept of the library of Babel, the idea comes from a story of the same name by Jorge Luis Borges, which is set inside a seemingly infinite library which contains every possible combination of letters, periods, commas and spaces that fits within 410 pages.

So like... It isn’t THAT out there that someone was able to make a digital version of it. Making an algorithm that randomly generates every possible combination of those 29 characters within that space and making a website that lets you explore those combinations are things that are pretty squarely within the scope of things you’d expect someone to be able to make a computer do.

But it begins to get pretty out there when you start thinking about all the things that are technically contained there (and that someone randomly browsing it could THEORETICALLY stumble upon) just by virtue of being one of those possible combinations of letters, spaces, commas, and periods.

Somewhere in that website there IS a book that specifically mentions me by full name before giving an accurate, excruciatingly detailed, 410-page long physical description of me. There’ also many more books that SEEM to be that but are actually factually inaccurate. There’s also versions of all of those containing every possible combination of every possible typo, spelling mistake, and grammatical error.

Somewhere in that website there IS a book that’s a perfectly accurate prediction of how and when I will die narrated in third person over the course of 410 pages. There’s also a book that contains the exact same events narrated in first person. Not only for me, but for every person in the world. There are many more that claim to be that but are actually inaccurate.

Somewhere in that website there IS a book that’s completely blank except for the world’s funniest dick joke written right at the end of the very last page.

But chances are no one browsing that website is EVER going to see any of that because for every book we would consider useful, interesting, or even intelligible there are millions upon millions upon millions more that are just completely full of gibberish from cover to cover.

imsobadatnicknames2

Every single thing I will ever write (barring punctuation marks that arent periods or commas and the letter ñ) is already contained somewhere on that website.

cheeseanonioncrisps
micdotcom

Do this four times repeatedly and you’ll be out. But how does it work? There’s some real brain science behind it.

discoverynews

We’re trying this tonight!

askragtatter

It’s about time someone got around to uncovering all the cheat codes for this “human being” software. It’s only been out for like 10,000 years.

queenofsabah

?????????????

santagivemeapony

I’ve used this technique for about a year, and I can safely say that it has efficiently transformed my sleeping habits from several hours of struggle to fall asleep, to passing out in a matter of minutes.

rewritethis-story

It’s a form of Alexander Technique. It’s a technique that was designed for actors to keep their body in ready working condition and give it the best way to perform. This is the method used to calm, and center the body. Once the body is at that point it can perform anything you want it to.

queensimia

Reblogging for later reference after I tried it earlier today to try to calm down. It actually does help a lot, not just for sleep but if you have problems with anxiety.

My default mental setting is “vibrating intensely in the background.” After doing this, I felt noticeably calm and relaxed - I wasn’t as fixated on my breathing, I wasn’t tense, my movements weren’t jerky and I didn’t feel like I had to be as tense as possible to be under control. 10/10 would recommend.

orikomi

me gonna try it

aconitvms

dont wanna reblog but insomnia is a bitch for some ppl so heres for my mutuals having trouble sleeping.

Source: mic.com