Etherial Cat

Yep. Agree. CPTSD is what she made her niche about. I am wondering if anything would have been done if the lingo was different, but this is still ridiculous.

What seems important here is that this may be one of the first cases where a licensing board is going after a non-psychologist for giving self-help content and advice about healing. Annie Runkle is clear that she is not a psychologist or therapist. She uses disclaimers and presents her work as coaching for people trying to heal themselves, even if she could have even more pushed that narrative. I guess she thought that what she did to draw the line was enough. The broader issue is that regulated professions do not always react well when popular unlicensed people start working in areas they see as their territory. There is obviously a legitimate need to regulate diagnosis, treatment, false claims and dangerous practices. But that is not the same as saying psychologists should have a monopoly over all advice about trauma, emotions, relationships or personal growth and start expensive litigations. Modern psychology is valuable, but it is not enough on its own. Good advice also comes from philosophy, spirituality, lived experience and wisdom. Mental health is not only a scientific question. I was until quite recently on therapy - which I had to interrupt because my therapist thought that he didn't have the ressource to help someone like me. Not because I am insane ( ) but because after years of spiritual, self-help and investigation work, he feels like modern therapy left him unequipped with the challenge I'm going through or something. Anyway... That is why this case matters. It is really about where we draw the line between regulated psychological treatment and coaching, self-help, education and peer support. Choosing who you like to give you advices shouldn't be reduced to people with a licence. Therapist do have trainings. But the most insightful people who have been giving life advices often are not. And going after B because A is seen as the legit thing when it's rather meh most of the time is something I would not want to see.

I've been following the dispute involving Anna Runkle (Crappy Childhood Fairy) and California regulators, and I'm curious what people here think. For anyone unfamiliar, Anna runs a large YouTube channel focused on trauma recovery, CPTSD, emotional healing, and related topics. She openly states that she is not a licensed therapist, psychologist, physician, or other mental health professional, and includes disclaimers to that effect. At the same time, she operates a business offering courses, coaching, groups, and paid programs related to healing and recovery. According to her account, California regulators have challenged aspects of her activities on the grounds that they may constitute the unlicensed practice of psychology on pretty general claims. She has responded by filing a federal lawsuit alleging violations of her constitutional rights, particularly free speech protections. Literally, where does the practice of psychology starts?

The real thing you've got to look at is that girls and women want to feel loved and attract positive experiences that help get their needs met. Yes, being physically attractive can generate envy as a means of obtaining for oneself what is desired, but that is only a surface-level motivation. The root cause is that she wants to feel loved, cared for, and seen, and there is much more to it than physical attractiveness alone. So what you are seeing is an obvious pain point, but it's just the tree that hides the forest. If she is well loved, feels good about herself, and understands that physical attractiveness is temporary, she will have the wisdom to accept herself as she is and get her core needs met in other ways. Physical attractiveness is not the holy grail. It is not a solid enough foundation on its own, and it comes with its own set of problems. Why obsess over it when there are life circumstances and forms of companionship in which attraction is much more holistic, and where sexual attraction can endure far beyond one's outward appearance? Sisterhood relies on a whole range of emotions, including love, compassion, nurturing and understanding. Many women develop an early dislike of objectification and commodification, and often have an ambivalent relationship with the power of physical attraction. I think that helps mitigate envy, because there is nothing more contrary to genuine love than wondering whether you are valued for your body or for who you are as a person. People want to be loved both unconditionally and conditionally at the same time. Feeling loved conditionally is terrifying because in this life, the relative will give you up and downs and conditional love is all about maintaining the highs which is impossible.

MAGA turns the Pokémon entrance theme into sheer obscenity. Undocumented migrants are referred to as 'Pokémons,' followed by 'Gotta catch them all". This video, shared by the department of Homeland and Security ends with South American flag mugshot collecting cards of Latinos. What a timeline. 💩💩💩

Nope. I'm Swiss (french speaking part).

I got curious.

Clyeton Bigsby West 2025 is gonna bankrupt the onion.

It depends on each person. I’d say it lasts until you’re psychologically aligned enough to stop chasing and projecting a repressed anima onto women who aren’t truly a great fit— which would systematically lead to relationships that feel like an ordeal and ultimately leave you unfulfilled. The priority should be to deal with your own baggage. Even then, it’s likely you’ll still learn through trial and error. Some people never break out of this cycle. Your anima is your wife.

If critical thinking was their forte, they wouldn't be Republicans. They are masters at self-deception, and easily turn on anything that isn't conform to the party line.

Yeah. Basically, there is a need for a totally new military strategy. Can't comment on what it would entail because all I could do is Dunning-Krugering with my level of ignorance at what the current game would look like. It's just so beyond the scope of what the average citizen can fathom cause defense is so interdisciplinary, and that is even more true if you add on top of it all the top secret knowledge etc. Yesterday, I was sitting on a lecture of AI and data protection, and was contemplating how much danger the current situation we were in represented. And it's just ONE aspect of modern warfare. That said, I think it is safe to say that Charles de Gaulle is the reason why the EU has got just enough dissuasive power not to be potentially mercilessly gobbled up at the first tantrum. Without France's arsenal, we'd be all absolutely hopelessly cooked. Canadians are currently shaking because they actually don't hold nuke themselves. The US look and talk to them like a thirsty rapist that is angry at hearing "no". Gross times!

Trump is admirative of Putin and vibes with him more than he does with EU liberal democracies. The wish of Ukraine to be part of that block is of no interest to him. Beside, he is salty Danemark won't give them Greenland and that France and Germany told him they would respond to a military invasion. Also, Vance's message in Munich was clear - he wants to turn the continent into the same facist kakistocracy as what we are seeing currently in the US. They operate like a mafia who found out a working marketing formula to seize power, and want to export it there too. The lunatic gaslighting talking points about how the EU has shitty free speech rules were nothing but a request for us to let them spread their zombie turning desinformation propaganda to start seizing more effectively power here. The EU tonight is in a terrible position. Two huninged autocrate bullies to deal with, that want to undermine it's structure and are a direct menace to its autonomy. The issue being that the EU is not fully independent and is more akin to an american semi-protectorate. From a hard power perspective, the US has half a foot within. Multiple strategic attack vector that can't be repelled because the EU has been blindly counting on the EU/US allieship (or perhaps to be more accurate, being strategically corrupted by 80 years of US expensionist imperialism). Now it's all over the continent shocked pikachu face at the realization that this lack of boundaries might turn sour. Until last year, you'd have been laughed at for even mentioning the danger of this position. Russia... Where to start? I am not even sure what to say about it. Not to get into the minutia of its politics, it can be summed up as a dystopian nation with a non stop track record of horrible autocratic governement/adminisations mishandling its population. The constant feedback I got from my russian buddies is "we are never going back there". It's a stage red/blue country and all european nations that have a border with it compares it with the Wall in GOT lol. The others are relieved that there is a buffer country in between that have to deal with them. In either case, the current US administration and Russia operate through the same paradigm. Can defend yourself? No? So you are mine to exploit til oblivion. Don't get me wrong. European nations are also exploitative both internationally and domestically. It's just that they are after what was guarantying a minimum of human right decency and this alone is really worth preserving.

I also had no idea before, but this is what is taught in a lot of criminology course in law schools using scientific reasoning and studies. I eventually got convinced and never looked back. I would be happy to share the main ideas/points behind that in a further post if you are interested in reading and assessing the arguments made. I just need to dig it up as I don't have everything in mind right now.