valentinesmith

also the eyes moving to one side. First time I have ever read about this, thanks for sharing

Die Videoauswertung ist wirklich echt detailliert und gut. Wirklich schändlich es dann so zu formulieren wie der NDR. Können sie doch schreiben, dass die Polizei was Anderes sagt, aber zumindest klar das Video beschreiben wäre doch angebracht und das Mindestmaß.

Ich fänd es wirklich toll, wenn es Anreize geben würde wie von der NABU-Person beschrieben, dass man versuchen würde Grünflächen beizubehalten und eher über Gewerbeflächen baut, sprich zweiter dritter Stock oder Umbau von Gewerbeflächen hin zu Wohnraum.

2 Monate für Einspruch wenn es die Gemeinde bewilligt, ist wirklich Turbo und fühlt sich auch einfach nur nach der anderen Seite des Extrems an. In so einer Zeit kriegt ja niemand wirklich einen geplanten Widerspruch hin :X

woooow! Oh danke für den Link, das klingt ja wirklich nach etwas, was ich Mal ausprobieren möchte mit dem Inventar :)

Auf englisch unter „butlerian jihad“ findest du eher was: „The Butlerian Jihad, an event in the back-story of Herbert's universe, leads to the outlawing of certain technologies, primarily "thinking machines", a collective term for computers and artificial intelligence of any kind. This prohibition is a key influence on the nature of Herbert's fictional setting.“

Aber basically dass thinking machines verboten werden und ein hartes Limit darauf gelegt wurde wie weit Technologie gehen darf.

For what it‘s worth I think you are correct. Even if I feel triggered in feeling that you came in hot, but you are speaking truth and in a mental health forum I think that is most important.

I think in my response I should have rather touched upon that what the other poster is touching upon is that for a Glimmer we sometimes have to learn to experience them fully, which is not a clear distinction between the two. There can also be negative triggers you do not catch up on.

So yes, I drew a false dichotomy and should have approached this differently, thank you for correcting it.

I mean I think we are joking here and I did chuckle, but I would agree that there is a clear distinction.

A trigger is a conditioning you have that brings up negative past experiences and associations.

These glimmers are basically you conditioning yourself to check-in with yourself and appreciate a moment and be more conscious of positive emotions or associations. So yes both conditioning, but one is a totally involuntary conditioning and the latter is a trained conditioning.

And I would say in their intensity they will also be very different. We are just very wired to feel negative emotions incredibly visceral to immediately change our behaviour. The same is not really true for conditioning ourselves to appreciate a moment or perspective.

aaay that's so cool! Thanks for setting it up Kaity! I'm looking forward to giving it both a try and thanks for providing a space (again)!

uh interesting. I think I like the setup of the joke in this one more but it is basically the same joke yes.

Possibly, but I also honestly find it an interesting idea.

The way it is described it doesn’t sound like they recommend doing it with total strangers but have a conflict/discussion with a group that can chime in but is not focused on resolving the conflict but more processing it together. And honestly I think for some people that could be a good way to potentially learn and hone their way of speaking to each other.

I also really like the contra-culture idea they establish that conflict does not have to be uncontrollable and that we are responsible and accountable for our behaviour in conflict. So I think this could be an experience where you are able to air things that unsettle you while reaffirming that you bring it up because you care about the other person.

But I‘m sure this is not for everyone and is most likely a potentially energy intense way. I think the meme as well is more aimed in: I wanna butt in and say my piece without really having skin in the game.

Hmm okay I think I get your point but I don‘t know if I follow the premise that a narrow definition of rape is ultimately better for rape survivors/victims.

I think I would argue that especially in public discourse opening up what sexual harassment is and how we define rape allows more victims to step forward and share their experiences.

In the example for male rape survivors for example a common contention to not believe them is that they could physically overpower their abuser. And awareness work aims to show that even strong men can be forced and coerced. (The actor from Brooklyn 911 was an example for that discourse)

So that’s why I would not feel its a disservice if we call it rape because as the others have mentioned, it hinges a lot on the fact that we have learnt that the victim was dead at that time.

Just wanted to share my perspective but I feel I get yours a bit better now

Thanks for posting this!

As a cis man I have to admit I always enjoy it when experiences of women are put in the spotlight in discussions. I think if we keep our ears open and listen empathically we can learn how to do better and the knee-jerk reaction of: „But men also suffer!“ Always feels so weird because I think why isn’t our reaction: „God this really is happening to all of us, let’s finally combat it!“

Thanks for bringing the topic up and I hope future discussions will not be met with such a barrage of trolling and opposition. Thanks for the moderation as well.

I think I also wanna highlight that WHEN we listen we also hear that the demands and wishes being proposed by women especially in a health setting are not only totally achievable and doable but would also improve service for EVERYONE. So there is also a lot of good stuff to gain from listening and acting on it.