Etherial Cat

Definitely warranted a "praise the lord, hallelujah !" One minute you’re a hardcore, conditioned scientific reductionist-materialist, laughing at anyone who doesn’t speak in atoms and Big Bangs; the next, you’re staring wide-eyed and open-mouthed after apparently experiencing God through some butt-kicking salience . That face must have made it into the universal blooper reel.

I wouldn’t say it gives me anything even remotely close to the effect of alcohol. For me, alcohol has been more of a sense-of-self-boosting substance, which I attribute mainly to its disinhibiting effects. I’ve noticed that it can bring me closer to unconscious drives, but without the right kind of discernment, so it can easily backfire. After drinking, I usually feel that I need to clear things up karmically and return to a more qualitative baseline. But I’m fine with having a drink every now and then- one glass or so. I mostly use alcohol for social bonding. I wouldn’t be able to bond as much through THC, because most people, and sometimes even I can’t really follow what happens in my mind once it kicks in. I tend to become more insightful and creative, but that increase in awareness isn’t always easy to communicate. Weed is very meta-reflexive for me, but also quite unstable in terms of whatever happens to surface. It’s also very thought-based and gives me an annoying tendency to hyperfocus, but in a rather chaotic way. The only element I've found it consistent for is that it does one hell of a good job to clear veil and push me to face self-deception. Less but not least, except for the joy of creativity and new insights, it does little for heart opening to me. Mescaline for exemple makes for a much wholesome experience due to the latter. Yeah. Very much congruent with what I've observed. Unsure if it's the genetic or something else, but the average person is like 100x more tolerant than I am. These days I could probably smoke 1 puff and be caught on a ride. I actually owe my atheistic salvation due to a THC trip in my early 20s that sent me straight to realize God.

That seems to be a very reasonable take. I think any worthy relationships needs perspective to flow. Otherwise, are we anyway really with someone?

For years, I’ve seen people on subreddits call him a predator and say he had somehow managed to avoid consequences by sheer luck. It seems the smoke finally caught up with him.

I’ve always thought that people often frame relationships the wrong way around. Instead of immediately labelling something as “a romantic relationship” that one must either commit to or flee from, why not first ask whether you genuinely enjoy getting to know each other — and whether both people can operate from the principle of what is best for us, meaning both you and me at the same time? Often, anxious types are drawn to dismissive avoidants or fearful avoidants. The latter two can be very good at rationalizing away any concrete chance at intimacy through protective narratives. I’m not saying this is necessarily what is happening in your case, but I would suggest looking into your own attachment style too. Learning how to be a good partner is a process. Imagining that a “magic” person will eventually appear in the future and be immediately recognizable as the right one can sometimes be a lofty, convenient projection. If she is not the right person for you, it will not work out anyway. But if there is something real there, dare to be vulnerable and honest about your feelings — with tact. Emotional intelligence is a sine qua non condition for any meaningful relationship.

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.