Wednesday's society's woes

Making a cultural impact because it's an Addams Family sequel: Wednesday. A new American teen comedy on Netflix.

it was enough to see some of it on a Youtube reaction video, here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGcS9Q1N4wM, by emotonally moderate reactor Sesskasays who is not the swaggery-cool yob type of reactor,to know my reaction, and what to say. That needs saying and too many folks will fear to say lest it make them uncool.

WHEN A SOCIETY FAILED ENOUGH TOWARDS KIDS' SAFETY TO SUFFER FROM FREQUENT GUN CRIMES, OFTEN IN SCHOOLS, HAS FOR 40 YEARS CONTINUED A FASHION TO MAKE EMOTIONALLY SAVAGE + VIOLENT COMEDY ABOUT SCHOOLS + TEENAGE PROBLEMS WITH SOCIAL INCLUSION, THAT ARE UTTERLY CALCULATED TO TIP VULNERABLE EMOTIONS OVER + CAUSE MORE HORROR CRIMES. THAT IS A SOCIETY DESTROYING ITSELF AND CRIMINALLY ENDANGERING ALL ITS KIDS.

Compared to all previous Addams Family depictions, this is extreme and sickfest for the EXPLOITING harm-profit sake of it.

#sicktv #tvviolence #savagecomedy #violentcomedy #wednesdayaddams #teendrama #antischool #usagunlaws #gunviolenceawareness #bullyingawareness #gunviolenceneedstostop #gunviolenceprevention

confident In a virtual Social Space for us ?

The online conference Autism From the Inside, hosted from Australia, is okay: the video interviews have been enlightened and about efforts against backward attitudes, and with commentability. But the online Social Gathering Space program it tried out was way overambitious, and in my perception it did not work, because it relied too much on having confidence to initiate contacts.

It was full of little graphics of tables or rooms or little cabins, that were set as private spaces or as talking spaces defined by topic. "Talking tables". Loads of them, sometimes stacked in rows, while few were being used. Because they were places to either go and sit waiting to start when someone else came there, or to join someone else in, a chat or conversation.

To initiate a social contact. WHEN IT'S TOO HARD TO DO THAT, BECAUSE WE ARE AUTISTIC, INNIT ? What else was ever going to happen ?

A meet and greet area, kind of in a graphic of a tent, where no folks were meeting and greeting. A branch-off section of the graphic callled the "learning lab", that included a stage for making your own announcements like Speaker's Corner - but who to? At what times would there be anyone there to hear them? No times if intending speakers + audience were checking for each other's presence before they had the motive or confidence to turn up.

What did the pictures of wasps denote? What of the graphics like signposts? When you used the chat column to the right, who were you reaching, more than just the help staff?

It was problematically high data using, too. Despite a guide to use on mobiles that was supposed to hold for tablets too, it did not work on tablets: on mobile setting it did not load, on desktop setting the graphics froze. These graphics would not run on an old laptop either. Even library computers could only run them after you installed an update of the Chrome browser first.

So this "virtual world all to ourselves" was too optimistic, and in effect was for the tech-savvy type of aspie in affluent possession of the latest computing hardware, who was hoped to be socially confident against the point of autism too! I only ever saw a few folks exploring it at a time. All those chatting spaces might have worked in a utopian ideal aspie scene where all are warm reliable friends.

Not in the real scene that's wrecked by too much militant anger around, many folks fearful of getting turned on for using wrong words, when they can't keep up with which words have become wrong, and of getting branded "ableist" while its meaning is unclear + in constant flux. Nobody is confident to chat in a scene like that.

Maurice Frank
26 Sep 2022

using fresh water

The best type of vindication is when it comes by itself, when there was nothing you could do to make it come. When events for other folks show your idea was right, or when folks who have not heard a controversial thought from you come up with it themselves. Because that is objective evidence for its reasonability. It corroborates your reasoning.

Yesterday's ELAS meet let me see other folks, by themselves, producing and sharing the thought that baths don't feel quite logically clean, because you are covering yourself all over in the same water as the worst of your body. Shit actually mentioned. How the unpleasantness of your body's dirtiest point, the back passage, is in the same water as the rest of you. Added to that they take up more time. This about bath water is against hygienic common sense and makes them a less attractive choice than other washing methods: including, than either showers or strip washes at the sink.

This when I had never mentioned baths, so that it came at no prompting from me. Yet it is exactly the same insight as I argued in teenage to the staff of my adolescent unit, to their great hostility and contrary dogmatic certainty. Harvey Jones Adolescent Unit, Cardiff, 1980s, proved wrong. Proved that thoughts they arrogantly rubbished as personally aberrant and wrong are there in other people's common sense reasoning. following logically from simple factual observation.

Authoritarians towards youth are found wrong again as they always are.

Maurice Frank
17 Jul 2022

politics column provokes an angry Doctor Who lesson on taking victims' side

From a Guardian politics column by Andrew Rawnsley on the Boris Johnson partygate crisis: " I hear some Conservative MPs arguing that he should be given a period of "probation" to see whether he can put together a more professional team at No 10 and run a better government. That's like having Dracula before you and a stake to hand, but offering him 3 months to prove he can be a vegetarian. "

It's exactly what it angers me to see the Doctor disgustingly do for the Master, who is already a mass murderer meriting vengefulness, in Doctor Who episode "World Enough and Time". DW writers seem to rate as a moral virtue and good audience selling point, this rubbishy strand in the Doctor's character, to have a persistent mercy relationship with a persistent megavillain who is still taunting him as he does it! instead of prior moral anger for his victims including those close to the Doctor's past friends. A choice that in that episode costs the innocent life of Bill Potts.

Which makes that episode and that strand in DW a strong moral lesson against the unjust, hence nasty, and stupid idea of keeping giving one-sided redemption mercy to cruel wrongers instead of vengeance, an idea some folks see as Christian. Too right written on a Sunday !