Bonus points: if someone asks about it, say that the bark is worse than their bite!

Disturbed’s cover of Sound of Silence is not only awful, it is an antithesis of the meaning of the song. Anyone who likes that version better than S&G’s arguably doesn’t understand the point of the song, and the fact that everyone holds it up as the gold standard of “covers better than the original” is even worse.

A close second is Postmodern Jukebox and their horrendous tendencies to take tempos to an opposite extreme instead of finding more meaningful ways of changing the genre of a song. I like some of their stuff, but the number of people who love their cover of Welcome to the Jungle is mind-boggling to me.

There are plenty of songs that I prefer the cover of to the original (Whitney Houston’s ‘I Will Always Love You’), or ones that just give the original a modern coat of paint without changing much else (Smash Mouth’s ‘I’m a Believer’), but these songs in particular are just awful imo.

If you like that and want more, I also recommend her book The Will to Change. It is about the same length, but goes into much greater detail about the ills that men, especially marginalized men, experience under patriarchy.

Avocados and peppers to make guacamole 😋

I am good at finding things because I think about things in context of their place in the world.

At my job, I am good at finding problems in data because I know how all the files work and how our systems interlink. If something is missing, I know where it gets taken from and work backwards from there. If some additional is there that shouldn’t be, I know the rules of why things get taken and can figure out why.

At home, I can find objects easily because I know what they are used for and have a good memory, so I can easily remember the last thing an item was used for and start there. This helps a lot with a partner who has ADHD and is constantly misplacing things.

My finding skills have also been great for finding stuff on the Internet, but Search Engine Optimization is slowly degrading that. I am still very good at finding deals on things people need on Craigslist though, as I am very good at figuring out which listings are good and which are ads just based on the description given.

My memory for general facts. My husband has ADHD that impacts his working memory, so he is constantly losing or forgetting things. Meanwhile my brain will remember where he put down his measuring tape three weeks ago and why he left it there. I also remember thing like song lyrics, history facts, fantasy/sci fi lore, and other stuff almost indefinitely. I do not have a perfect/eidetic memory, just a very good one, according to most people.

The downside of this is that it was cited as a main reason a psych, who agreed I met the criteria of being on the ASD spectrum, refused to give me an official diagnosis. He said that this meant I didn’t have a specific special interest, and therefore I couldn’t have autism. So now I have to find someone else who actually follows the criteria.

Asking for people’s thoughts on a subject is encouraging discussion, not asking for a favor. And why do I need to provide further evidence of having watched the video when, as I have stated before, the contents of the video are secondary to the existence of the video in the first place? This video is exactly like several other videos and articles about the subject, except it is the newest one, and is being posted in a space where (supposedly) people recognize that we have a very flawed legal system.

Given the fact that you have been the one dismissive of me, given that you assumed I hadn’t watched the video based solely on the fact that I disagreed, tells me that you aren’t interested in actually engaging in the discussion around my question. Instead you seem entirely focused on luring me into a discussion around whether the video’s claims are true or not, which, as I said earlier, has nothing to do with the topic I am trying to stick to.

So again, even if everything in the video is 100% correct as stated, I still want to know what people think should be accepted as evidence of change of character. Obviously it is case dependent, but having a guideline will be helpful, especially if we are pushing for something like prison abolition, which a lot of people will see as extreme if there is no example of a replacement. Given that we specifically want a solution that involves reintegration of a person into society, determining what is required for that reintegration is key. Because right now, we are advocating for these policies while currently supporting a pattern of refusing to allow people like Beau to participate in communities based on past actions, even when all actions since are showing someone who is genuine and in no position to repeat past offences.

Why are you looking to change the subject? I already said that my point stands even if the claims in the video were supported by the documents. I am not here for discussion of nitpicks of the video, I am here to see what people have to say about the topic of people with complicated histories being allowed to be active within anarchist spaces. If you agree with the person in the video, then answer my question, instead of trying to deflect.

I did watch the video. I also read the sources at the bottom of the video, and like several other comments noticed, the documents do not support a lot of the claims made in the video. However, even if they were supported by the documents, I still don’t agree with the stance of the video.

The argument is that because he did something bad at one point, people should consider his past actions before any of his current ones, and that this justifies distrust of his current actions. When we live and operate in a world where trust is necessary for cooperation and survival, even suggesting to distrust someone indefinitely for long past actions and ignoring all steps taken to remedy is asking for him to be barred from that society.

It also assumes that the only reason people would support him is if they were unaware of his past actions, and they heavily imply that people who do trust him are unable to make sound decisions, not in the least by doing one of the least anarchist things possible by trusting the words of government entities known for targeting leftists and charging them with exaggerated crimes.

You are right that you can’t institutionalize trust, but I am calling out a pattern that I am recognizing of people who advocate for this particular social model being unwilling to put their money where their mouth is in regards to acknowledging and supporting input from people with convictions or marred histories. The video states nothing new and instead is continuing to repeat this ‘questioning’ without accounting for the fact that this questioning has already taken place and done nothing except draw people away from a community that values direct action and social support.

If his past had anything to do with his current content and actions, I agree more scrutiny would be needed. But my question still stands, what should the guidelines be for deciding that a person no longer deserves to have their participation in society treated as suspect or worthy of excess questioning? At what point do people deserve to be allowed to change and exist without their motive being questioned?

Beau has stated before that he was involved in some awful stuff. But I agree with a commenter on the video: while it is important to not hide past doings, a lot more of society needs to accept that people can, and do, change.

This is someone who very clearly did something wrong, but he also did his time and is now working on further paying back society. It doesn’t make what he did go away, but I also don’t know why suddenly so many people are wanting to ‘expose’ him. He isn’t in any position to repeat his actions, his current actions are inarguably for the betterment of society as a whole, as well as for individuals in need in his own community and others.

Even if you can’t get past what he did, I would ask: what exactly would it take for you to say that he has paid for what he did? Anarchism explicitly calls for the abolition of prisons and our current legal structure, and Beau has (in my opinion) paid for his actions both within the current system and outside of it. After someone has done their time, so to speak, are they barred from society until the end of days? If not, then what would they need to do to be accepted that Beau hasn’t done?

I ask these questions, not as someone who is trying to cause issues or argue, but as someone with a lot of respect for this movement. I ask because I genuinely want to know what people expect from people like Beau through an anarchist lens.

A big thing that helped me is knowing that, even if nobody knows what it is like to be me, specifically, everything I have ever felt and experienced has been felt and experienced by at least one other person, somewhere. Feelings are far more universal that we realize as we are feeling them, and no matter how alone you feel, there are other people with that same feeling.

This isn’t meant to minimize your experience. In fact, it enhanced mine. By realizing that a lot of people feel the same feelings as me, it helped me communicate better. Even if I have a hard time identifying the name of a feeling, describing it in general terms opens a new point of communication that can bridge a lot of gaps.

For example, I have been able to go to a friend group and explain that, while jokes are okay, a particular joke made me feel unwelcome, and explained why. The fact that I felt excluded stopped being seen as a barrier, and instead it was the thing that started the conversation about the joke, why it was made, and it helped both parties learn some context for next time.

Even if it doesn’t work in your current situation, it can help in similar, future situations by helping you avoid this feelings trap in the future. It has certainly helped me a lot.

Kettle corn! I learned how to make it myself in my stovetop popcorn spinner pot. Super easy, helps mitigate migraines (salt and sugar help raise my chronic low blood pressure), and has a very unique texture that I love.

Either pumpkin pie or apple pie are my favorites!

Thanksgiving is for pies in my family, any other desserts wait until Christmas.

According to my husband and all my friends, the weirdest thing about me is my name for a sandwich.

Apparently, everyone else calls it a ‘grilled cheese’. I have always called it by it’s proper name, a ‘toasted cheese’.

If you make it in a panini press, then it is a grilled cheese. But if you make a sandwich by buttering each side and toasting it in a pan on the stove until the cheese melts, then it is a toasted cheese. But every time I say ‘toasted cheese’, people look at me as though I have grown another head.