Speaking from a bad place, so bear with me. Has anyone thought about how being important or special to other people is based just on the people closest to you?
We regard strangers as people who are fairly irrelevant to us, because they have little to no impact to our life, and their lives and struggles won't generally touch us. In contrast, lives of people directly around us have a great impact on us, and they decide our relevancy. We give them roles in our lives, like friends, mentors, partners, lovers, caretakers, and in that regard they're special to us, irreplaceable. We also want to have an equally strong meaning in their life, to have a warm place in their heart and respect in their minds, as they do for us.
When people around us who hold great relevancy for us, also give us that same relevancy back, we feel important, we know we're special to them. That our role in their life shapes their experience, gives them gratitude and they've accepted us as someone they want and need around.
In contrast to that, when people in our life refuse to give us that same respect, warmth and relevancy, then we wonder what is wrong with us. What is missing so we can't be appreciated and regarded with the same love and respect that we show to them. Lack of mutuality makes us sink down with insecurity, self doubt and deep feeling that we're not enough, that we've done something wrong, not to deserve the same that we give to others.
And it also works out the same in isolation, if you have no one close to you, no one who has your well being in mind or cares for what becomes of you, it feels like you're important to no one, like you are not special whatsoever, even like you could be disposable if nobody cares at all.
But none of that is based on what's inside of us, who we are or how much love and good we are capable of giving and showing. It's nothing even related to our behaviour and actions, you could put anyone in these situations and results would be generally similar; person who is not experiencing reciprocity, or is left to fend for themselves alone, will lose the feeling that they're important or special in any way.
Isn't that weird? That we can end up judging our own worth based on nothing we did, or nothing we are, just based on how people around us are treating us, or whether we have anyone around us at all. In our essence we didn't change at all, it's just who is or isn't around, that determines our worth.
If we're put in a group of people who want to create bonds based on good things they see in us, we'll become able of seeing that good in ourselves. If we're surrounded by people who all feel the same as we do, act on the same moral code, readily reciprocate respect and warmth that we show to them, we won't feel like anything is wrong with us. We'll feel at home.
And since this is so intrinsic to being a person, to long for this and only feel relevant, safe and cared for in these circumstances, isn't it natural that we all deserve that? To be surrounded by people who make us feel like nothing is wrong with us, and like we're at home? Who help us focus on everything good in us, and give us no reasons to believe that we should be rejected or banished at all? Since abuse did the absolute opposite, and forced us to believe there's only reasons for abandonment, hatred and contempt, I believe being in the environment where people see many reasons to want us in their lives, would heal us.
136 notes
·
View notes
helloooo my dearest darling listeners, i am back on my soapbox to regale you all with the marvelous things i witnessed/experienced on my Whimsical As Fuck™️ three hour drive today. not necessarily in order <3
some cute does with bigass floppy ears / very sweet waitress who called me "hon" and put the most tasty looking crepes on my table / a pair of hawks divebombing a golden eagle / a kite (the bird) / a flock of magpies / some GORGEOUS scenery / a rainbow / lovely rain sprinklings / MORE gorgeous scenery, i mean what the fuck / fields of purple/orange/red tipped bushes / a meadow of buttercup-yellow very tall grass, in which many picturesque trees stood / lots of fluffy, adorable, tasty cows / a large herd of likely-feral horses with a wonderful variety of patterns & colors / the fluffiest husky ever / the juxtaposition of cold wind through an open window + warm sunlight / the most stunning snow-coated mountain of whites and blues in the sun, wreathed in clouds / no seriously some really fucking Gorgeous scenery, i was near tears with some of it
54 notes
·
View notes
eiffel's problem is that he sees every injustice as an interpersonal issue. he doesn't understand how his flippancy or apparent leniency towards hilbert might look to hera; in his mind, it doesn't contradict his support for her. to eiffel, it seems obvious - he is also one of hilbert's victims, hera is his friend, of course he's completely on her side - but he fails to fully grasp how the stakes are different for her.
ep 19: "you need to stop treating this like a joke, officer eiffel." / "hey, i'm the person for whom the joke tolls." / "i get you're scared he put something inside you. but i hope you haven't forgotten emergency code alpha victor. he put that in me." and ep 51: "they're just jokes! they don't really mean anything." / "see, eiffel, you get to have that. they can be 'just jokes' for you because you're... well, you. but we don't get that."
the issue in shut up and listen is eiffel's repeated, if unintentional, microaggressions, but it's also his general use of dark humor as a coping mechanism - jokes he feels justified in making because of how the subjects of those jokes have impacted him. eiffel sincerely believes in treating people equally, but his idea of 'equal treatment' can be idealistic and naive. he has an awareness of interpersonal harm, but he's lived most of his life without ever being confronted with the reality of structural harm - being pre-judged and othered and having his life devalued on the basis of outside categorization.
but the thing about that is that it has happened to him, too. eiffel is an addict, and a convict, and marked as from a lower socioeconomic class than minkowski or lovelace, and those things are the reasons goddard futuristics was able to buy him as prison labor and - without his consent - consider him expendable for medical experimentation. none of that is a coincidence, but he doesn't see the systems at work, only his own actions and regrets. which he then equivocates to the worst actions of people who don't share his sense of morality or guilt.
eiffel's ability to recognize and bring out the humanity in the people around him is one of his best qualities, but... on the basis of his identity, he's been able to live a life where he conceptualizes himself as the default person, and that's been reinforced by the pop culture he loves so much. that's a massive blind spot. he assumes everyone navigates the world in a similar way, and so, on some level, he sees everyone around him as an extension of or a reflection of himself. if evil is always personal, then it can always be reasoned with.
122 notes
·
View notes