I miss the voices
- Inicie sesión ou rexístrese para enviar comentarios
(serious post posted in The Troll Lounge solely for being offtopic)
Ok, so I've been diagnosed with schizophrenia (initally diagnosed as "psychotic disorder") one or two (?) years ago, it is a quite benign form mind you (pun not intended), with my symptoms mostly being a natural defense reaction of living under the corrupt oppressive society in the State of Brazil (some paranoia is justified if they are actually out to get you, note how paranoia is one of the defining features of schizophrenia). I noticed a disgusting pattern of prejudice in the institutions I would go to, labeling my bad state as if it was something "just in my head" rather than as a result of the oppressive material and ideological conditions within life in society. They told me to get pills ("antipsychotics", "antidepressants"), which wasn't so bad at first and people around me noticed great improvement in me (though the improvement might also have to do with me stopping being forced to physically attend that evil oppressive Bolsonaro-style military school (they have those in Brazil). However, I constantly was afraid of the pills, I don't remember ever truly trusting them and considering the prejudice institutions have had in regards to my autism and schizophrenia, I eventually snapped due to my intense thoughts telling me that, perhaps, those who wanted me to take those pills didn't have good intentions and simply wanted to oppress a defining part of me, the schizophrenic/autistic part which I value so much, I was so confused and felt as if I wasn't really me as if the pills were controlling me (considering I watch epic woke trans propaganda and am trans myself, the "not really me" part really hit me). I snapped and stopped taking the pills cold turkey (I'm NOT saying everyone should do this, I know there are lots of people who have a much more malign form of schizophrenia and would be destroyed if they tried to do what I did). Doctor told me that I would have more hallucinations if I stopped taking the "antipsychotics", which I saw as a great thing as my hallucinations are generally soothing and conforting rather than the stereotypical violent hallucinations that are found in more severe states of schizophrenia. Not sure if due to my "ENOUGH!" snap or due to the possibility of the anti_____s causing me harm, but I've greatly improved after ceasing to take the pills, I generally feel much more "me" and my mind is behaving much more logically, also the oppressive sleepiness I would feel has become much less intense with me being able to engage in much more Night Owl behaviour, However, there's something I've noticed... I'm not really hallucinating more, in fact there's a SCARCITY of hallucinations. One of my friends said that the "antipsychotics" might still be in my blood somewhat. I really hope these remains go away because I'm very upset that I'm not getting the wholesome conforting hallunations I was expecting
I am not 100% sure why people want to be trans nor do I understand it, but people should be allowed to make their own decisions as long a other people aren't being harmed deliberately. Since its harmless, I say the haters should let it go
While this seems to comes from a place of tolerance, it still frames being trans as a "want" or a "choice," rather than an inherent part of who someone is. Maybe a good example to help with understanding could be asking: When you did choose not to be trans?
People don't choose to be trans any more than they choose to be tall, or to have brown eyes. Or with whatever other color.
A better way to approach it would be: "I may not fully understand what it means to be trans, but I recognize that it's not a choice - it's who people are. Everyone deserves the right to live authentically, and trans people aren’t harming anyone by existing, and I support their right to be themselves."
Understanding isn’t always necessary for respect and acceptance, but learning and listening can help to move beyond passive tolerance to active support.
I am a translator!
> While this seems to comes from a place of tolerance, it still frames being trans as a "want" or a "choice," rather than an inherent part of who someone is. Maybe a good example to help with understanding could be asking: When you did choose not to be trans?
To me, everyone should have the choice to make decisions for oneself, which includes choosing a gender that is not the one that was assigned by society.
I also find that forced binary gender assignment may hinder people's development, including people who don't view themselves as trans, and that it contributes to sexism and discrimination, so this is something I'd like to change.
I support trans people (although I am lacking knowledge here) but I would rather say that society should not tell people how to live their life, people should choose for themselves.
I really appreciate your support for trans people and your concern about the harms of forced binary gender norms. You're absolutely right that society should not dictate how people live their lives. One small clarification, though - being trans isn’t about 'choosing' a gender, but rather recognizing and affirming one's true self. Just like a cisgender person doesn’t choose to be cis, a trans person doesn’t choose to be trans - it’s simply who they are; they come to understand who they are, often in the face of societal pressure to conform. What is a choice is whether society respects and supports trans people in living as their authentic selves. And, as you pointed out, rigid gender norms harm everyone, so working toward a world where people are free to express themselves without restriction benefits us all.
There are other ways being rigid are problematic. This is why some people shouldn't be police, lawmakers, etc...
Being strict without compassion, can cause a myriad of problems.
I am a translator!
> being trans isn’t about 'choosing' a gender, but rather recognizing and affirming one's true self.
Being trans is certainly about recognizing and affirming one's true self.
If someone feels as belonging to one gender, being treated as belonging to the other gender is certainly a terrible experience, and one should be able to change that.
But does it matter to call this 'choice' or not? I said choice because each person should decide the gender as which she should be treated (not sure the English is correct, in French the word "person" is grammatically feminine) and why she should be treated as that gender needs no justification.
Because of this discussion, I have searched for more information and I have seen extracts of a show called "Mérou" (grouper in French) made by someone who present himself as a trans man and explains that he chose that name because the grouper lives for a certain time with a gender and can change and live with another gender, and this is how his true self is. He also sometimes seem to hesitate between feminine and masculine grammatical pronouns. I am glad I am discovering different people.
I see where you're coming from when you talk about 'choice'—you're emphasizing that people should have the right to define themselves and be treated accordingly, without needing to justify it. That’s an important point.
I really appreciate your openness to learning and exploring different perspectives! The example of the grouper is interesting, and it’s great that you’re discovering more about the diversity of experiences within the trans community.
To your question—does it matter whether we call it a ‘choice’? In some ways, yes, because words shape understanding. When anti-trans people use the word ‘choice,’ they often mean something very different. They use it to imply that being trans is not real or valid, but rather a phase or a mistake, something that can or should be ‘corrected.’ This framing has been used to justify harmful policies, like denying healthcare or legal recognition, and even forcing trans people into so-called ‘conversion therapy.’
So while it’s true that people should have the autonomy to live as their true selves, it's important to be cautious about the language we use because some terms, like ‘choice,’ have been weaponized to undermine trans rights. That’s why many trans people and allies avoid calling gender identity a choice, even though transitioning itself involves choices about how to express and affirm one’s identity. You might find this to be an interesting read: https://ourtransitionallife.com/being-transgender-not-choice/
You raise some interesting thoughts. I guess I was not aware it wasn't a choice. I am by no means a perfect person, but yes, I don't always understand what people are or aren't.
Matter of fact, times like this, I very much am confused.
In any case, people with my particular faith are not always as friendly. It's a pity, because hate is the wrong answer to just about everything.
But yes, your approach sounds good. I was merely saying, that people should not try to control each other. The only time I would want to come within controlling someone is if they are acting harmful to other people and even then, its not the right answer likely.
Thanks for your thoughts though Jason.
Thanks y'all :)
I appreciated your post. The 'choosing or ...' discussion with your story as a backdrop is something I have thought a lot about as the subject gets so much attention these days.
I want to match your honesty a bit. As a young boy, I didn't experience any reason to think I was anything other than a boy. That didn't mean growing up was easy. I found an unfortunate 'gender fixation' which was way beyond normal. I was fixated on the other gender and it was a sexual thing. I stumbled into this 'fixation' at age 10 and it was overwhelming. I was already a shy kid but a sense that I had something wrong with me that was beyond my control and which I had to hide took my shyness to a new level. In the years that followed I experienced a lot of emotional pain and emerged into adulthood somewhat twisted and scarred. I believe I developed to be schizoid. As I look back, I truly think it might have been better if I could have brought myself to talk to someone about what was going on. But this secret was too shameful in my eyes to let anyone see it.
I have psychologists in my family and one told me recently that 1 out of 100 people are born with both genitalia and those babies didn't make a choice to be born that way. I don't know much about Trans whatever. On one level, it doesn't matter. Anything that causes a child to disconnect socially and be troubled ought to be helped if we can do it.
The Golden Rule is awesome - Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Do unto 'others' - others are 100 out of 100 babies born. He who taught that Golden Rule and demonstrated it with His life was expressing: love is where it's at!!! Laws, rules, expectations, etc. have their reasons, some good and some bad I guess - but love is where it's at!!! I confess this old schizoid dude isn't always there. But love is merciful, compassionate and kind so I can keep trying.
Pills, wholesome comforting hallucinations, no pills, maybe no wholesome comforting hallucinations...autism, you write very well so you would be high functioning I guess. I hope you have an expert you can work with that can monitor these situations. Someone you trust and are compatible with. A two cent suggestion: wholesome comforting music might be a good substitute for the voices.
And thanks for the socially redeeming content you gave the forum. It is refreshing.
Thank you so much, thank you for your thankfulness. Though I should talk about something:
> The Golden Rule is awesome - Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
I'm not sure if I'm exactly a fan of "The Golden Rule" as it implies that everyone has the same interests, doing to others what would result in happiness if they did the same to me implies that they have the same interests as me and that they would be pleased the same way, but in practice people tend to have very different interests; for example, a formerly-fat person who has been fat-shamed into losing weight might see the shaming as a cause of happiness (I've seen people unironically advocating for fat-shaming on this basis), so if a formerly fat-person fat shames others because the person themself saw being fatshamed as a cause of happiness, that would lead to an extreme amount of harm, because people's interests are different and I believe most people do not appreciate being fat-shamed. In this way, "The Golden Rule" can be very dangerous, we should focus on making people happy, equal and free but not in the forceful "Golden Rule" way that presumes others have the same interests as us. Sorry, I don't mean to be rude, I hope you understand.
the golden rule is fine as long as people use common sense.
But yeah, different people can have different ideals and beliefs, that is true.
It may be difficult to fully understand the weight society puts on those who are, feel or choose to behave different to the "norm", unless or until you are one of those.
Has anybody here ever visited a psychiatric ward or had a schizophrenic relative or friend?
I am a translator!
This is quite different from schizophrenia, my mother have been taking valproate for something like 3+ decades, for a bipolar disorder, and I don't know whether this diagnosis is accurate or not. I don't think it really matches with what I read about bipolar disorder but I am not a doctor.
She is a difficult person. I am totally unable to predict how she will react to anything, she can be very nice and she can also be extremely offensive, sometimes for really little things, even with people trying to help her, so that made many people try to avoid her, including me for a period of time. Still, she has some friends, I am guessing she has never been that offensive with them.
Recently, she was told to stop valproate, I'll see how it goes.
> I am guessing she has never been that offensive with them.
Maybe they have been more understanding than society in general, and accepted her.
I see your point, Kiki. But I look at it differently.
The "Golden Rule" was stated another way in the 10 commandments: "Love your neighbor as you love yourself." It is so simple, no? Except as you have shown, my neighbor is incredibly deep and complicated. Well, just maybe we're not so different in that.
But I want to say, I can't fix you and you can't fix me but if I do my best to love you as I love myself and do unto you as I would like you to do unto me, then I am working to fix myself, then I am working to be the person I am supposed to be.
> Has anybody here ever visited a psychiatric ward or had a schizophrenic relative or friend? <
I recently read an awesome book called "NeuroTribes, the Legacy of Autism and the Future of Neurodiversity." That might be as close as I have come to a psychiatric ward. It was a great read.
In my family, there have been two cases of Alzheimer's but no schizophrenia. How about you, prospero?
The "Golden Rule" was stated another way in the 10 commandments: "Love your neighbor as you love yourself."
Unless you are referring to the "Book of the Law of the Lord", there is no such imperative statement in the ten commandments: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments#Religious_traditions
There is in Matthew 19:19: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Bible_(King_James)/Matthew#cite_ref-539
I believe this has been superseded by the Platinum Rule.
Thanks MB, my mistake, I stand corrected.
Matthew 22:36-40
“Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment.
And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’
All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
The story of the good Samaritan comes on the heels of this when someone asks 'Who is my neighbor?'
“You shall love your neighbor as yourself” is from Leviticus 19:18.
Actually in tne bible Jesus does say that in at least one of the gospels. That the 10 commandments are summed up by love your neighbor as yourself.
I don't claim to know everything about the bible, but I am trying to humble myself due to my past darkness. Arrogance is a hard pill to defeat. It always tries to sneak up on you, making you think you deserve better, etc...
Arrogance is a problem for all people to deal with, religious and lack thereof or agnostic as well.
@Geshmy: I have been visiting a close friend who had had schizophrenic episodes, followed by long-term stays in various institutions. I knew the family well enough to notice that their reactions were ranging from something close to shame (triggered by social stigma, not by the situation itself) to confident hope and a determined will to speak up and maintain as many social contacts as possible. The situation was made even more difficult to deal with because schizophrenia has remained an almost complete mystery to science and medicine until quite recently. In fact, the pressure and the unjustified burden also extend to the relatives, and they often become buffers without a warning and without any way to prepare for it.
Clearly, society often decides that unusual behaviours should be rejected and hidden from view, no matter the consequences for their bearers. In France, sometimes a judge is needed to tell society that it should not lock you up just because you need help to keep up with your daily routine. In some places in the US it looks like you may well get shot for lack of adequate medical support. It almost feels like society trying to get rid of its own members because it lacks the capability to understand them, possibly out of fear. Sometimes it tries to "accommodate" them, which usually still implies labelling them. This is true for people with disabilities and psychiatric affections, but also for people who are simply different, and also generally for people who have ideas about the world that differ from the dominant views of the time.
Certainly some societies and cultures have had opposite attitudes to individual behavioural variations, and I have always found it puzzling that some societies became so antagonistic to their own members, while others seem to have spontaneously fostered all their members and made those who needed it most the focal point of their care.
Has your friend's situation been made better? I hardly know what to say about all you wrote there. At least there are people who are trying to care for your friend. Current trend in the USA is there will be less and less invested in all forms of assistance for those who need help. It's a very sad time for us.
> Has your friend's situation been made better?
From what little knowledge is currently available about it, schizophrenia is a degenerative disorder. Symptoms can be alleviated by careful dosage of various treatments, though.
> I hardly know what to say about all you wrote there.
Exactly.
About being a transgender person, most times it's hard to even coming out in family/public places without consequences of hate speech or worse things.
And like being a person in Autism Spectrum, some of trans people have extreme gender dysphoria (social/how body looks/voice) or some having only gender dysphoria (socially) and only need changing gender expression or/and used name socially/in documents* (if needed*)
And being forced by society using old name or/and pronouns most time in my personal experience creates gender dysphoria, even worse if that person knows that and continues this.
> And being forced by society using old name or/and pronouns most time in my personal experience creates gender dysphoria, even worse if that person knows that and continues this.
I'm extremely sorry about this, you deserve way better
Thanks for your helpful reply
I also have autism, so I understand that part. It can be messy.
People expect you to know something or focus on something because its a social norm.
Likely though, you the person with autism is so far away from understanding whatever it is.
As for the issue of being deadnamed, I still stand what I said before, tolerance makes way more sense.
Too many people are willing to fuel the flames of hatred in this world, its ugly...
Sorry you went through such problems.
Some examples of insulting ableism from "good" old Wiki-pee'd-ya ("Wikipedia"), e.g. compare https://wikiless.tiekoetter.com/wiki/Autism and https://wikiless.tiekoetter.com/wiki/Schizophrenia to https://wikiless.tiekoetter.com/wiki/Psychopathy :
> Autism spectrum disorder[a] (ASD), or simply autism, is a neurodevelopmental disorder [...]
> Schizophrenia is a mental disorder[17][7] [...]
> Psychopathy, or psychopathic personality,[1] is a personality construct[2][3] characterized by impaired empathy and remorse [..]
There are the first words of each article, the use of the term "personality construct" in the third instead of "disorder" is very much intentional. The rest of the article might imply that "psychopathy" is a "mental illness", but the mere fact that the FIRST sentence already calls it a "personal construct" already builds up a deliberate vibe. Many people won't read the rest of the article and will just focus on the article's deliberate focus on "personality construct" as the first paragraph.
Oh, so my neurodivergence is somehow a serious illness and I deserve to be bashed and seen as incapable for it, but "psychopathy" as defined by mainstream society as lack of empathy is somehow just a "personality construct"?
Congrats on Slanderpedia for somehow managing to be so ableist so as to classify even mild cases of autism as somehow being more of a disorder than lack of empathy. (sarcasm)
Not that I support classifying the term "psychopathy" as a mental disorder either, e.g. the term psychopathy as used today seems very likely to be just as a misleading ableist propaganda pseudoscientific term itself: "Psychopathy" = "Psycho" (Mind) + "pathy" (suffering, think as in how the "pathy" in "empathy" implies regard for the suffering of others), so psychopathy is simply a buzzword that would be translated as simply "mind suffering", notice how the modern-day definition of psychopathy as "lacking empathy" is very similar to older definitions of autism which define autists as being unable to treat others as people. Ableist pseudoscientific shuffling of words for no reason other than oppression through e.g. discrimination. How come they use a term as unclear as "psychopathy" ("mind suffering") for this, when something much more clear that also ends with "pathy" could e.g. be "chronic unempathy". In fact a clearer term did exist prior to the popularization of the term "psychopathy": "Moral Insanity". And the "psycho" in "psychopathy" seems to also be linked to "psychosis", which means someone with psychotic conditions such as me (who has schizophrenia) could arguably be considered a "psychopath"
they think it's always supposed to be the individual to be blamed for having "wrong genetics" and not being able to fit in, it's always supposed to be individuals who are "mentally ill" rather than treating the agony of society as a signal of "systemic illness" rather than the mental state of individuals.
Also notice how in the schizophrenia article the sidebar lists "Harm to self or others" as the first complication, while the "psychopathy" article has no "Complications" section at all and lists the first "symptom" as mere "boldness".
Also, to look at the first sentence again:
> Psychopathy, or psychopathic personality,[1] is a personality construct[2][3] characterized by impaired empathy and remorse [..]
Psychopathic personality? Then why don't they call my schizophrenia a "schizophrenic personality" rather than a mental illness?
I'm sick of society telling me how "ill" I am for being autistic, for being schizophrenic, for being trans. Many of us are suffering, but that's not an excuse to treat us like inferior trash.
Given that people on the spectrum oppose fascism more than neurotypicals, I tend to think if anyone is inferior trash, it would be them. Less people who are on the spectrum supported hitler because they were targets true, but they also are harder to fool.
If we even have to ask who is inferior that is.
Usually inferiority is determined by what you have to do, to feel confident and good about yourself, etc... that kind of stuff is how I determine if someone is inferior or not if I feel like I have to.
Like for example rich people, they hoard money for this exact reason, it feeds their damn egos. Power is also a factor, but why do they want power? Yeah exactly, only people with bad egos feel like they need to be control freaks to be happy with themselves, etc...
Anywho that's my take on the whole inferiority situation.
> I tend to think if anyone is inferior trash, it would be them.
This misses the point, I do not want to be considered "superior", I reject ableism altogether and and certainly do not approve for neurotypicals to face the "inferior trash" treatment I get, I want end of oppression, not to oppress them, I do not want "privilege" and you should not treat me as superior and I refuse such label, and in fact this very sort of labelling people as "inferior" vs. "superior" is a core concept of fascism and related systems based on oppression such as colonialism.
You do raise a point, I am merely saying, that if we have to go down that path, that is what I would say.
But even if someone says we have to, I suppose it is not necessarily their choice alone.
I do however dislike that neurotypicals seem to be easier to cultify.
People on the spectrum are usually harder to brainwash anyways though.
I have said this before though so... yeah.
And an update to the "I miss the voices" part of the article: The hallucinations have thankfully returned. I'm glad :)
By the way, ableism and other forms of oppression are not just through individual words but also in how sentences are constructed, so simply replacing a term that would imply ableism with another "softer" word of the same meaning does not do anything but simply hide one's intentions, an example being a post I saw on Crappedit[1] ("Reddit") of someone expressing hatred for one's political opponents by saying something like: "These worm-filled-brain people should be sent to the camps to be isolated in the desert, they are a threat to society.". Is this suddenly non-ableist simply because what's considered a trigger word (such as "retarded") was replaced by a non-medical-term ("worm-filled") of the same meaning, of seeing the person as inherently inferior and worthy of being oppressed? No, this is still ableism.
Change in words can be good but it also has to come with change in mindset, an example being a conscious switch from "open-source" to "free software" to value freedom. And with people just taking newly-popularized terms and perverting their meaning to reinvent discrimination makes me so mad, even with a neutral term such as "neurodivergent" people somehow try to define it as "people who are mentally ill" rather than acknowledging that simply being divergent does not at all need to imply illness, and "mental illness" implies that someone is mentally uncapable and must be "dominated" by the "mentally sound" even if it's against the will of the neurodivergent, that simply being different means you are inferior and need to be "treated" even if it's by force, that simply being mentally different is an excuse to treat your autonomy as "lesser". And with this it's shown that shaming people as mentally ill is not at all about caring about them ("freedom"), but rather dominating them ("power"): https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/freedom-or-power.html
I know I might have come across as victim-blaming in the past, maybe I was, and I'm sorry, but when I criticize ableism now, I'm not just criticizing ableism but other mechanisms of oppression. And with me not wanting to victim-blame, I'm sorry if I ever blamed individuals in a way that makes it seem like it's was all their fault, all of us sentient beings are all oppressed and I wouldn't want to form another way of victim-blaming like ableism is. I try to be loving of the individuals in society no matter what, but what I do not have love for is for the undemocratic structures and systems of government that promote evil-doing as a means of gaining power in a way that makes a large part of the population take part in their own enslavement and the enslavement of others. I do find a lot of wisdom in the GNU Project's and Stallman's practice of twisting terms of evil undemocratic concepts to show their oppression (e.g. "Digital Rights Management" to "Digital Restrictions Management" and even "Digital handcuffs"), but I did eventually begin to find unconfortable how Stallman twists the name of even individuals (e.g. in https://stallman.org/glossary.html changing the name of dictator Duterte to "Do-dirty"), which I find similar to the anti-trans discriminatory practice of deadnaming people to make a political point. I have little to no mercy to undemocratic institutions and projects that oppress people, by being undemocratic by definition those entities are not sentient but rather an organ of oppressing sentient beings, so I have little to no mercy with these projects and do not recognize sainthood of these projects, I use terms such as "Slanderpedia" and "Ubunut" (the distro "Ubuntu") to refer to these oppressive projects as a means of mocking them rather than granting them legitimacy by using their preferred name, but when it comes to the personhood of beings, attacking sentient beings is not my target so I don't want to dehumanize people and so I've stopped using terms such as "Muskrat" (which is one of the terms Stallman uses for Musk) as such terms can be very speciecist and dehumanizing of sentient beings.
Speaking of respect, I avoid sabotaging other people's projects from inside. I hate Debiain't ("Debian") as a project and I actively speak against its policy, but just as I support censorship (I am NOT using an euphemism) in the sense of keeping FSDG-compliant distros strictly aligned with free software and not tolerating goals that explicitly go against software freedom, I do also tolerate Debiain't similar goal to NOT tolerate internal influence from people like me, because tolerating people like me wastes not just Debiain'ts time by me annoying them for no reason but also mine by me failing to convince a project that can't be convinced from inside, I keep my criticism external in places where people are already interested in ethics of software freedom (such as this forum) instead of trying to infiltrate Debiain't to annoy people who definitively won't listen and will understandably feel infuriated with me due to them having different goals other than absolute software freedom (I understand that some people may be brick walls and can't be convinced, I am a brick wall in many aspects too and I don't want to annoy these people just as I don't want these people to annoy me) and me trying to forcefully change the distro's structure from within. I'm not an anarchist in the sense of opposing all structure, and even though I believe Debiain't is inherently abusive, I still respect people's desire for structure even if many of these people from these systems don't respect the structure of FSDG-compliant systems. My support of censorship shouldn't be onesided in an hypocritical undemocratic power-tripping sense, if we can censor proprietary software and advocacy for such software from within our projects then so should others have their own mechanisms to keep groups with different goals ideologically separate rather than constantly competing for space.
[1]. As a mainstream capitalist-corporation-controlled garbage website promoting toxicity through its algorithm, Crappedit can be good as a means of showing the absolute most cruel views in society, every single major subcrappedit in Crappedit is filled to the brim with things like genocide apologia and manipulation. It's like a time capsule of the 30s/40s world filled with openly-fascist "ideals", with society's mask of empathy simply falling apart and allowing you to see the true picture. Browsing this garbage-hole can be a good way to spot such garbage cruelty, but I heavily recommend NOT making an account in Crappedit, you can view it from afar as some sort of cruel "social experiment" where one can identify horrible aspects that society tries to hide. And I do NOT recommend browinsg the official site, one can use a proxy such as https://lr.vern.cc/, which works for almost all things JavaScript-free except for sound, but since I generally just indiscriminately reject running JavaScript from websites entirely I simply do not know enough about such JavaScript feature to recommend it so for safety just don't use the sound feature, JavaScript's design (https://blog.lx.oliva.nom.br/pub/wwworst-app-store.en.html) means checking for freedom issues is such a massive pain so it's better for me to just avoid such JavaScript entirely even if somehow turned out that a JavaScript code online could technically be free. And what I've said about Crappedit also applies to Wikipeedia: undemocratic body mass-pushing mainstream manipulation (slander, hence my term Slanderpedia or Wikislander) through it's "Neutral" Point Of View ("NPOV") policy designed to maintain a pretense of neutrality while promoting toxic viewpoints that legitimize oppression