honestly if you want to take proper care of your goths you shouldn’t take them outside in hot weather at all, just winter and MAYBE late autumn/early spring if you live in a cool climate
people really should do this kind of research before getting goths at all but as long as they’re willing to learn and adapt i guess
there are breeds of goth suitable for warmer climes but you have to be very careful when looking for one and you cannot assume that your goth is one of them if you don’t know for sure what they are
even the warm-climate breeds still usually do better in their native locale’s winter temperatures though, and shouldn’t be left outside in the summer unattended or, at the bare minimum, they should be given plentiful shade, cold water, and appropriate music to keep them calm
Honestly, if you want something less fragile than a goth, you should be considering something like a punk anyway. There’s no need to expose goths to the heat, IMHO. Admittedly there’s differences you need to do research on, but punks are very rewarding. And for God’s sake, if anyone tells you ANY emo can handle the heat, run. They don’t know what the fuck they’re talking about.
goths aren’t fragile though? they’re not heat-tolerant but they’re extremely hardy in dark and stormy weather, metal concerts, and dramatic emotional episodes. just because they aren’t well-suited to one weather pattern doesn’t mean they can’t be extremely hardy and rewarding to keep under conditions they’re better suited to.
Forget the climate thing, there’s a more important husbandry issue here:
WHO THE FUCK PUT THEM OUT IN THE DAYTIME?
Direct sunlight is extremely harmful to goths! THey should never be outdoors before twilight!
Do your damn research, people.
you’re missing a key point though
goths need the opportunity to complain about sunlight, it’s vital to their wellbeing; as long as their time in it is carefully controlled and they’re given sufficient sunscreen and shade, it can be amazing and 100% necessary enrichment
Look at that picture. Look at it. Please tell me where the shade is, because I don’t see any. I see two goths wilting in direct sunlight. Just look at how flat their hair is! This is not even remotely acceptable care.
i never said the picture was a good example of goth husbandry, i think it’s sort of taken as a given that it’s not – nobody in this threat is endorsing it, op included
i’m just saying that it isn’t a black and white issue
Fair enough. I’ll concede that a properly-shaded porch or sunroom-type area can help them get the outdoor enrichment and complaining opportunities they need, without putting them at risk of direct sunlight or actually touching anything outdoors. But be careful not to overexpose them.
Aren’t there some varieties of goth that are built for sunlight, or is that me mistaking a similar species for goths?
You’re thinking of either New Romantics – unfortunately presumed extinct, you could tell them apart by their lack of Victorian plumage and occasional colouration – or Emos, which are the product of a crossbreeding with Shoegazers.
A little more context (and expansion) for that Barbara Mann quote I posted earlier. Also the other quote from that talk which came up earlier and prompted me to look at the transcript again.
(Source through those links. There’s more of interest in that talk.)
I don’t have a lot of spoons to comment right now. But, what she’s talking about here is relevant to way too much.
Including some of my frustrations dealing with some people who are coming at things from some very different base assumptions, in a variety of contexts.
Also had to think about that rather disturbing bizarro assertion from a while back that “inclusionist ideas are much more abstract and harder to understand” 🤔
Anyway, long quote time:
And one of the things that tells us is that the One Good Mind of consensus actually requires the active participation of everybody in the community, that it can’t be done without active participation by all. So, everybody matters, everybody counts. And I remember my mother specifically saying, “Don’t leave anyone out, don’t leave anyone out”. And if anything was ever counted up and somebody was left out, you started counting again, from the very beginning. Why? Because somebody was left out. And that’s not acceptable, because exclusivism destroys community. It’s the first and best way to destroy community. Inclusivism, on the other hand, is very important to creating community; it hears absolutely every comment, it hears everything that’s going on, and it hears it in the voices that raised the issue. That’s pretty important.
I think one of the most damaging misunderstanding of Good Mindedness is something that, something that Heidi was just talking about, is the assumption that because everyone is equal, everyone possesses equal amounts of wisdom and talent–and, therefore, everyone should share equal amounts of power. OK, well this is a prescription for disaster if I ever heard one. [laughs] Because people simply do not have the same type or amount of talent or wisdom; everybody has a different thing. That’s why, in the words before all else, we acknowledge the special things that each one is bringing. If everybody was bringing the same thing, there’d be no need for those words. It’s basically patriarchal monotheism that thinks that everybody looks alike. You know, seen one seen ‘em all. That’s a patriarchal idea.
Instead, everyone has a limited amount of wisdom, and a limited amount of talent, and the idea is to make it all work together for the good of everybody. No one person is going to be able to do this alone. And each spirit has a limited amount of knowledge; that goes for human beings, that goes for any of these spirits. For example, if you want to know about corn, what do you do? Well, you go ask Sister Corn, that’s what you do. She sure knows a lot about being corn, she knows more than you and I do. She knows more about being corn than Sister Squash does. But, guess what: if you ask her about Brother Tobacco, she might know a little bit about him, but she doesn’t really know about Brother Tobacco. If you want to know about him, you’d better go and ask him.
And one of the important points spiritually about this is that there’s nothing that’s all-knowing. There’s no all-knowing spirit anywhere. Everything is a collective attempt, we all dump it into the center and see what we’ve got when we’re done collecting up all of what we have…
So, there’s no omniscience… [P]eople have frailties, they have failings, and that’s understood and recognized without any prejudice. It’s just something you’re going to work around. So, no one council arrogates the right to dictate to anybody else, it just is not going to happen, it better not happen… [B]asically claiming more wisdom than you have is actually a crime. It’s actually a crime against the people. And all that’s going to happen is that it’s going to create havoc in its wake.
I always enjoyed working with autistic campers ‘cause many of them had genuine questions about rules and wanted full explanations for why it’s not appropriate to say or do certain things at camp, and I was happy to answer. Even if it meant sitting in the dirt for an hour finding different ways to explain why certain words are considered bad or rude.
I don’t think you can assume that children will understand why something is offensive unless you are prepared to give them genuine reasons. It was so frustrating to watch my coworkers offer “because” or “that’s just the way it is” as explanations for rules when the child clearly did not ‘get it’ and was not old or experienced enough to figure it out. You can say that breaking a rule is bad, but unless you show what its greater purpose is, how can you expect a child to respect it?
Agreed up to the last point. I desperately wanted answers – but even when given the “Just Because” explanation I still respected the rules; the same goes for my siblings and friends. A kid doesn’t need a reason to be a good person.
“A kid doesn’t need a reason to be a good person.” I think a kid needs to understand why something is considered good and why something else is considered bad. Example: we do not throw things in public. Some children have already figured out that throwing things is not allowed because it could easily hurt someone, or damage something that people care about. Most people think that “hurting people is bad” is self-evident, but is it really? Kids are still figuring out where they end and the rest of the world begins, and sometimes you really do need to explain to them reasons why they should be considerate of other people’s feelings.
You don’t necessarily need a reason to be obedient, but I think “goodness” is learned and then put into practice through reasoning and experience. Obedience is convenient for adults, but I think it’s important that we give children more explanation for it if we want them to grow.
When kids in my classes say something that’s not okay to say, they usually know it’s bad. What I often discover is that they don’t know WHY.
And there is a wide array of inappropriate behaviours. Saying ‘fuck’ is not appropriate, but it’s not the same thing as calling someone a retard. Calling another kid a shithead is not the same thing as calling them a faggot- both are inappropriate, but you gotta explain things a bit instead of just throwing all of these behaviours into the big bag of Things Adults Don’t Like.
A kid says ‘fuck’- I tell them, look, I know you know this word, I know adults use this word, I know everyone uses this word, but we’re in class in a cultural centre and this kind of language is not pleasant, and it’s actually not allowed. That’s why I don’t use it either, even though I sometimes do in other situations. You go ahead and say that at home if your parents don’t mind, but not here.
A kid says ‘you’re retarded’- I ask them what they meant, and when they inevitably shrink back from the answer- because they KNOW it’s wrong!- I start talking to them and everyone else about mentally disabled people, about different types of brains, I ask them if they know anyone like that, if they’ve seen anyone like that. I tell them about the ones I know. And I explain that the word hurts, how it hurts, why people use it to hurt, why they caused harm without meaning to. Finally I tell them the word is not allowed here, and they now know exactly why.
Kids like to push boundaries because it’s part of growing up, and some of the boundaries adults set are completely arbitrary and inconsistent. It’s important to explain things.
And adults are not always right. Their rules are not always fair or safe- asking ‘why’ is good for survival.
To latch on ‘throwing things in public’ I constantly have to deal with this and kids respond much better to ‘don’t throw plasticine, please, you are wasting it, it costs money, it makes everything dirty, and you might damage something in this room, like the tv for example, and then you will have to pay for it’ than ‘don’t throw things, that’s bad!’
Kids respond to explanations better because all their childhood they get a lot of orders, all the time, which they are expected to follow unquestioningly. Come here, put that down, don’t touch, don’t do this, stand here, go into class, sit down, stand up, we’re leaving, we’re going, do this first, do that later. They are not in control of their own time, no one asks their opinion, and also no one takes the time to explain why things are done a certain way- and if they question these things, they’re usually called disobedient and bad, or stubborn, or at the very least stupid for not understanding.
It’s more efficient for the group, but it’s disrespectful and upsetting for the individual.
I totally get that wacky conspiracy theories are fun to joke about – but if you’re going to joke about lizard people, you should probably be aware that “reptilians” is a code-phrase for “crypto-Jews”.
When conspiracy nuts talk about politicians and celebrities secretly being lizard people, what they’re really implying is that they’re secretly Jewish. The whole “Reptoid conspiracy” thing is just a verbal smoke-screen – a veneer of plausible deniability.
Sure, you probably didn’t mean it that way when you joked about it. You probably weren’t aware of the double meaning at all. This stuff is pretty good at flying under the radar; indeed, that’s the whole point.
But, well, now you know.
is this really a thing? cause a lot of people think they are literally shapshifting lizards, and use stuff like red eye (from camera flashes) as evidence that they’re lizards and not human.
Short version: “Reptilian” to mean “crypto-Jew” does happen, but that’s not how it started out or how most people actually use it.
As far as I can tell, the “reptilians” thing started with David Icke, who literally believes that certain people are in fact shapeshifting reptilian aliens who have infiltrated society. A lot of people have been convinced by him. (It is shockingly easy to get people to believe Secret Truths, especially when they have certain mental illnesses.)
However, recently (and by that I mean within the last ten years or so) white supremacists – they like to call themselves “Nationalists” – have decided that when people talk about “Reptilians”, they’re really talking about crypto-Judaism, and have twisted the whole “Reptilian” narrative to fit their anti-Semitic agenda.
So. When the average conspiracy nut talks about politicians and celebrities secretly being lizard people, they literally believe this. When a white supremacist talks about politicians and celebrities secretly being lizard people, it’s an anti-Semitic dogwhistle.
So, well, now you know.
There is a massive overlap tho, between “white supremacists” and “conspiracy theorists,” and this is just one example of how the former sees the latter as fertile ground for conversion, and uses the latter’s own ideas to prepare them for racist ideology
Except that David Icke is actually a huge anti-semite who believes Jews control the world, but often back pedals in saying “no, not all jews, just the ones allied with the Rothchild’s. He’s been accused of anti-semitism for a long time, so now he says “Rothchild Zionists” as code for “Just those Jews I think control the world.”
He literally blames the Jews for both world wars and terrorism. Sometimes he says the Jews are the reptilians, sometimes he says they are allies of the reptilians, but he uses them interchangeably in his “who controls the world” ramblings.
He probably does mean the word Reptilian as interchangeable.
Also, please remember when folks like David Icke use the word “Zionism” they are not talking about Israeli nationalism, but rather are using it as a term for the Jews that they think control the world. It is not a mistake that people throw out the word Zionism as cover for their antisemitism – they are borrowing the use of the term from these people. More-over, people like David Icke have taken to using Israel and the Israel-related uses of the word Zionism as well as any anti-Zionist movements as a cover for the anti-semitic shit they spew. When people use Zionism to mean “all Jews” or “all Jews I disagree with” these are the people you are helping promote.
Even outside of his conflation, all the tropes he uses when talking about Lizard People are straight out of a long tradition of anti-semitism. Like he literally uses the term “blood drinking” all the time.
He’s a gross anti-semite and a terrible way to claim that Reptilians is anything but code for Jews.
I’m not saying a bunch of people don’t actually mean shape shifting lizards / lizard aliens. I’m sure most celebrities who use it, or people who joke about it on tumblr do mean it that way. But still all of the tropes used in those posts grow directly out of antisemitic rhetoric.
I wanted to list a bunch of videos for you, but honestly I really can’t deal with this rhetoric long enough to pick one or two. With the way some people on this site are so quick to latch onto old anti-semitic tropes and use them in what they claim is just anti-zionism, I’m super hesitant to link to them anyway. There is a reason he’s been around as long as he has and that he’s convinced so many people. He’s a con man, and he’s using millennia of hatred for Jews to peddle his books. If you do want to look up “David Icke + Jews” on youtube, pay attention to the ways he tries to rhetorically dodge the fact that he’s saying Jews control the world. He uses code words instead. One of them is Reptilians. And do not take a single fact he says as truth. Even the ones that aren’t straight up lies are only half-truths. The real kicker, is that these lies have been around so long that you can find all kinds of “citations” or “sources” for them. You’ve likely heard some of them before. Do NOT believe anything out of this man or any of his allies.
TL;DR – David Icke is a raging antisemite and the Reptilian rhetoric is about Jews whether or not the person who uses it knows that’s where it came from.
quick survey: please reblog if the way someone chooses to dress themselves has NEVER had a negative impact on your education
I was at school/collage between 1984 and 1997 and was in uniform till 87 then my own clothes till i left full time education in 87 we never got told what to ware in school, only not to have racist,sexist or rude slogens on our tshirts or tops.we could (and did) colour our hair what ever way we wanted (i started year 9 with purple hair and left collage with a bleached blonde pixie cut)the class was mixed sporty, preppy ,hippy, rocker and gothsand we all did well and worked together how we dressed had no effect on our work some times it even helped with conversations in group work .the only people that had problems with our clothing were the pervy teachers and we told them to fuck off if they made a comment “as it wasnt being very inclusive to students.”
I have to add again that, IME, the return this stuff is fairly recent in the US too.
I graduated from HS in 1993, and we never had anything like that. What did get described as potentially “distracting”? The main restrictions I recall: “no hats inside, no obscenities/nudity/obvious drug or alcohol references on clothing”. You were covered to where you wouldn’t get arrested on the street? Fine.
Applied in a totally gender neutral way. Even that one crank of a middle school principal I mentioned there who hated shorts and tank tops (but was fine with any skirt length) didn’t want any students wearing them, period.
They at least didn’t seem to think they could get away with blatantly sexist regulations like that in public schools, even if some of them probably would have been fine with the idea otherwise.
It wasn’t until later in the ‘90s-early 2000s that I started hearing anything about "unnatural” hair colors getting turned into a problem, for that matter. And my mother (who did grow up under similarly restrictive dress codes) was complaining then that she thought this shit was settled by the early ’70s. So many things.
The changes there are still pretty disturbing. Not least because of the creepy attitudes from adults on open display 😨
Urocyon's Jaunts 2.0 