Monthly Archives: January 2012

Hmm.

I can’t decide if frothy mixtures of lube and fecal matter made Rick Santorum more disgusting, or if Rick Santorum made frothy mixtures of lube and fecal matter more disgusting

 

EDIT: WordPress, why did you suggest “Fecal Matter” as a tag after I published this? Is this a commonly used tag?

Advertisements

Let Me Tell You About Homestuck

So there’s this website, MS paint adventures.

On it, a story called Homestuck.

I would call it a webcomic, but that name doesn’t quite do it justice considering it’s more just a category of its own. I’ve heard it called a web-epic before, and that term fits well.

Now I’m not about to go telling people to read it. You should read it, that’s for sure, but in order to read it all fully and get caught up on the plot you need about one full week with nothing to do, or maybe a few months if you’re a normal human being, so I can’t really advocate it. Nor will I bother going over the plot at all here, because that’s a whole blog post worth of information.

But there’s something that I want to mention about it.

It’s a story that revolves around a plethora of characters, which is a bit of an understatement.

Some of these characters are of an alien race for whom gender doesn’t factor into reproduction, and as a result they don’t have a concept of heterosexuality. It makes for a nice nod to the stupidity of the idea that heterosexuality is the default, but it’s not too impressive.

But now we have a new human character, and he’s gay.

And honestly, that’s about it.

He just is gay.

He’s not flamboyant.

Effeminate.

A child molester.

A bizarre sexual deviant.

Anything like that. He’s not a token either; the fact that he’s gay is brought up mostly in passing, and carried into conversation about as casually as someone might mention the weather. He has a crush on another character (who may or may not be gay), and it’s not portrayed as creepy. He has a female friend who is aware that he’s gay, and she’s not a “fag hag” or something stupid like that.

And I have to say that it’s just wonderful. The writer is, to my knowledge, entirely heterosexual. He isn’t a fighter for gay rights or anything, and as such he isn’t doing this as an attempt at shoehorning LGBT acceptance into media. He’s just writing a gay character.

It shouldn’t be something even worth mentioning, and yet it is. This is the first time I’ve seen a character be gay and not be defined by it, or alternately not be a token put in place to get Ally-Cookies. It’s the first time I’ve seen a gay character written correctly. He’s added in to the story like it isn’t even a big deal, about as simply as any other writer puts in a heterosexual character.

So I just want to say that I’m impressed, and I’m happy. Happy that there’s a character in fiction that is gay, realistically portrayed, and treated as normal.

Writers take note; if you want to write a LGBT character, that is how you do it.

That is One Angry Lesbian

I’ve got quite a few pet peeves when it comes to LGBT issues. I hate the idea that gay men and gay women act and look certain ways. I hate it when people act like the possibility that someone is gay is either a disappointment or disgusting. I hate when people toss the words fag and dyke and tranny around like beads on Mardi Gras.

And I have those little hatreds. They mostly just make me roll my eyes, and sometimes make me correct people who set off those little peeves, but are otherwise small issues.

But then on top of that pile of peeves I’ve got a big damn berserk button. The trigger for that button, however, is rather small; a simple idea that can be compressed into a simple phrase:

“Bisexuals are HOT!”

If you’re like me, perhaps your head just exploded into a geyser of rage at being reminded of this. If not, allow me to explain.

There are women (and I’m sure men, but I have no experience being a male bisexual) who like to pretend to be bisexual. They are straight women. Solely interested in men.

They use my sexuality as a tool to attract men. Now of course, it’s not just my sexuality; it’s the sexuality of many people. Many people who face hatred, fear and discrimination for the crime of being attracted to the same sex.

And there are people who want to pretend to be attracted to the same sex. For attention. Do I have to spell out what is wrong with this? Why it’s so infuriating to see people trivialize all of the shit I have to go through just because I’m not heterosexual? To see people choose to be bisexual for something as petty as special attention, as if sexuality is a choice and the sexuality in question is nothing more than a fetish?

There’s even more nuance to why this is such a rage-trigger for me. Why the hell does a woman being bisexual make them more sexually attractive? It seems that it’s the same reason so many people like to spout things like “LESBIANS ARE HOT!!!”, which also holds a special place in the anger-chamber of my heart. Because, you know, ONE woman is hot, but TWO? And they’re having sex with eachother?! It’s like some sort of two for one deal of sexual objectification; But with purely homosexual lesbians, you get a problem- they’re not going to want to have sex with a guy.

But bisexuals? They’re just lesbians that’ll let you watch them be gay, and then be straight with you! Win-win! You might even get to have a threesome with them!

Sweet evil jesus the rage.

I have so many problems with this. The people who think homosexuality is gross, unless it’s women and then it’s hot. The people who think that just because a woman is gay, she’ll let you watch her have sex with her girlfriend, and if she’s bisexual, she’ll let you join in. As if there’s no such thing as being bisexual and monogamous.

And the biggest problem is when someone graced with the privilege of heterosexuality decides to forgo that privilege, just so they can reinforce those stereotypes.

Being gay is hard. Being bisexual is harder. There are people who think that being bisexual only makes you half gay. There are people who think that bisexuals just can’t make up their mind. Thanks to people pretending to be bisexual, people even get to assume that you’re a fake bisexual too.

And these people are LGBT. Not churches with signs declaring that God hates fags, not people who think that homosexuality causes terrorism, or think that man on man sex leads to man on dog sex. LGBT people.

Being bisexual is hard, and there are people who do it for fun.

It’s like dressing in blackface in the early 1900s, because it sounds like fun. Its like pretending to be a woman to take advantage of female privilege that doesn’t exist.

 

It’s insulting, it’s wrong, and it makes me want to boil a kitten in a pot of rage.

I’ve been thinking.

You know those kids who are really gifted when they first start school, really prodigious and stuff? Full of great ideas, envied by their peers, teachers use them as a role model, pretty much just all around great?

And then once they hit high school they just stop giving a shit because they’re so used to being the best, so they let their minds rot, get involved in weird shit and only manage to coast through success because it’s second nature to them?

And then they ultimately end up an embarrassment because of all the potential they waste?

That’s sort of how I think of the US.

On Male and Female Strength Differences

I just started an Archery class today, and promptly learned that my coach is a sexist.

So I’mma do a little post on male/female strength differences today.

Mainly, the notion that in any given group of people, the men will be unilaterally stronger than the women.

 

There’s a few things that I want to point out to begin with. First off, yes, average strength differences between men and women do exist. Thing is, people interpret this to mean that every single man is stronger than every single woman. I’m really sort of tempted to attribute this to the piss poor quality of math teachers here, but I digress.

For the mathematically challenged, here’s an example; two little lists of numbers:

X: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Y: 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

The average of x is 3, while the average of y is 4.

We can see three things clearly here: Y is, on average, a greater list. We can also see that there is a huge overlap in the two lists. Finally, despite X being smaller on average than Y, there are quite a few instances between the two lists where a number on X is larger than a number on Y.

 

Now, when we talk about numbers, nobody is going to say that X’s 5 is lower than Y’s 5, or Y’s 3, or that any given number taken from X will definitely be lower than Y. That’s stupid.

But we do similarly stupid things when giving those numbers genders.

 

When presented with a group of women and a group of men, there’s no logical reason to assume that one given woman and one given man are going to have a predictable strength difference.

Let’s say that the women in the group can lift, oh, 50 – 100 pounds. The men in the group could lift 70 – 120 pounds. Even though the strongest man will be stronger than the strongest woman, it’s not a good idea to assume that if you grabbed a woman from her group and a man from his group, the man would be stronger. Maybe he is, but assuming that he is makes no logical sense. It’s perfectly likely that he can only lift 60 pounds when the given woman can lift 80, fitting perfectly within both of their groups while going against the averages- which is perfectly understandable. Groups of people make up the averages, but averages do not make up groups of people, and making assumptions about individuals based on a group average is foolish.

 

Now, there’s a second thing I want to bring up.

Strength isn’t something that a person is born with. Nobody punches their way out of the womb and declares themselves strong, or similarly flails out and then declares that they’re weak, and this isn’t just because babies can’t talk.

Strength is something that you have to work towards. While women on average may develop less muscle mass than men, but past this the strength of an individual is based on individual habits. A man who does no physical exercise of any kind is going to be weaker than a woman who exercises. A woman who has trained herself to be able to lift 100 pounds will be stronger than a man who has trained himself to lift 90, and so on.

But obsessing over gender differences is silly. Gender is not the only thing that determines whether or not someone is predisposed towards building muscle mass or not. Different body types also determine how easy it is to gain muscle mass,  but we don’t see people splitting into different teams for different body types and ethnicities. And yet, we do this for (or shall I say, against) women.

This is a problem. It’s sexism, as much as people like to scream “body differences!” at anyone who suggests as much. I won’t call sexism on the fact that strength averages between genders involve a discrepancy- that’s true- but judging individuals by a group average is stereotyping, and unreliable. My archery coach informed the women- unanimously- that we should go for a 20-25 pound bow. Men, 25-30 pounds. To be fair, I’m surprised there’s an overlap at 25 pounds, but it brings up an important point. Why are we assuming that a woman wouldn’t be able to pull back 30 pounds, or that all men should be able to pull back 25? Why don’t we just say “when trying out bows, stick to the 20-30 pound range”, and leave out the narrow worldviews? If it just so happens that the entire class fits into his gendered ranges, then great. But if a woman can pull back 30 pounds, then it shouldn’t be assumed that that would be for the men. Similarly, if a man can only pull back 20, he shouldn’t be pushed to pulling 25, simply because otherwise he’d be in the “girls’ range”.

For all my coach knows, there are women in his class who spend their weekends in the gym and men with exercise schedules closer to mine- which is nonexistent. He should respect that stereotyping is useless in determining actual strength between individuals, and that such comments serve to convince women that they actually are weaker. Which isn’t something that I appreciate, really.

 

Now, for the reason that I decided to make an entire post on this matter:

As I left class today, I asked my coach what sort of exercises I would want to do to strength train for Archery. After all, I’m not exactly a person who loves exercise, so I wouldn’t have a clue which muscles are involved in shooting a bow, or for that matter, how to strengthen them.

The response I received was “women’s pushups”.

Not pushups, but the ones for women.

And that pissed me off.  Without knowing my history, he made the assumption that I couldn’t do a simple god damned pushup based solely on the fact that I’m female. It’s offensive, but I must admit I’m lucky. There are some women who would become discouraged and add that to the brainwashing that tells them that they will always be weaker and lesser than men.

Now if you’ll excuse me, despite the fact that I haven’t worked out in years and I’m a frail little womanfolk, I’m going to go do legitimate fucking pushups.

About Allies

There seems to be a lot of confusion, primarily by people who call themselves allies, about what it means to be an ally to minority groups. It comes up a lot in the Atheist/Skeptic community though (as some people like to consider all Atheists allied, which is not something I could agree with sadly), so I figure it’s probably rather relevant here.

Of course, nobody seems to be able to come to a consensus on what makes an ally an ally. Being one person, I can’t speak for everyone about what makes someone an ally. I can say what makes me consider you an ally though, and what I would consider reasonable requirements for being one.

First and foremost, the one requirement that is usually brought up in argument: You can not determine yourself to be an ally. Whether or not you are an ally depends on whether or not the people you are allied to think you are one. For some reason, people seem to have trouble with this. The typical situation is that one person (usually someone who doesn’t face discrimination themselves, might I add) declares themselves an ally to a minority group. The person then goes on to say something, do something, or otherwise find some way to utterly insult that particular minority group. The “ally” then claims that they are one the same side as the minority group, as if that protects them from any critique. Said minority group proceeds to tear said “ally” a new asshole, usually.  As a rule of thumb, when you’re having to go “nuh uh, I’m on your guys’ side!” to someone, you probably aren’t actually on their side.

Remember, you are an ally to them, not the other way around. You work for them and aid them. Saying that you were an ally all along is about as stupid as blatantly slacking off at work and then getting indignant when your boss confronts you over it. Because you’re a worker, duh, how dare he assume that you weren’t working when your title clearly says that you work!

The second requirement that I want to bring up should be obvious: You have to actually keep the best interests of the group you’re allied to at heart. If you realize that you’ve done something that hurt the group you’re trying to help, that should make you feel bad. You should be compelled to apologize, to try to make things right. If your first reaction is to become angry that they had the gall to stop praising you for your selfless alliance to them, then you never had a goddamned selfless alliance to them. It is okay to be hurt to think that you insulted someone that you try to help, but it is not okay to hurt them back. Doing that means that you don’t actually care how they feel, only how righteous and kind-hearted they make you feel when they praise you. Getting pissy at them not praising you, though, is kinda like me stepping on my dog’s paw, feeling bad when he yelps, and then kicking him across the room because how dare he acknowledge that I hurt him.

This leads into the third requirement which is very often overlooked, I believe: You must be selflessly invested in helping the group you’re allied to. You have to actually realize that being an ally to someone is not just some way to gain an infinite number of brownie points. It’s not a two way deal, really. All you get out of being an ally is the feeling that you’re helping people who need it. You don’t get a free pass for being a jerk to them, or some sort of protection against any form of critique. You don’t get anything. If that’s a dealbreaker for you, you’re not an ally. You’re a leech.

The fourth requirement, with which I move straight from “obvious” to “seriously, this should never be news ever” is this: You can’t actively hurt the group you’re allied to. That should be brain-meltingly obvious, but it seems to be overlooked.

Imagine that instead of defending your group from bias and hatred, you’re actually battling with them in a war or something. Now, you should be shooting at their enemies. This is what it means to be on the same side.

For some reason, though, some people with a so-called alliance to one side of a battle take a liking to gunning down that side’s own god damned troops. If the battles of equality and prejudice were a physical war, nobody would have a problem with people calling the guy who makes a hobby out of friendly fire a traitor. But since there isn’t a battlefield, people don’t seem to see the similarity between shooting at your own troops, and actively making homophobic comments when being allied to LGBT people, or saying something misogynistic when claiming to be a feminist, or racist when claiming to be against racism, etc. ad infinitum.

There is a similarity though, and just like you should take the gun away from someone who shoots at people they call their friends, so should we take the title of “ally” away from someone who uses it in this way.

Now, this is all my own opinion of what constitutes an ally. That said, I would consider these four requirements relatively uncontroversial (except to people who wouldn’t be an ally by this list- I’m sure they’ll be furious) and pretty basic guidelines for how to not be a shit ally. If you really want to try to be an ally to some person or group and not be called a fraud, this list would probably be good to keep in mind.

No, you are not a psychic.

In response to this video, and all other psychics like this woman:

Asking vague questions and making vague statements, and then asking more vague questions and making more vague statements that go along with the answers to the initial questions isn’t being psychic.

That’s just playing twenty questions. 

Seriously, the entire premise of that game is that you start with one question “I see an M or J?” and then being told yes “Well yeah, there’s an M” or no “Uh, that’s my daughter, not my mother” and then going from that until you reach a conclusion.

And really, assuming that a little girl might be friends with a little boy is about on par with “Is it larger than a breadbox?”

Holy Shit, Science

That’s basically the most descriptive title I can come up with right now.

Researchers have discovered a way to store 1 bit of data using 12 atoms.

one byte requires 96 atoms.

Going by that, one terabyte would require 105,553,116,266,496 atoms.

For comparison,  one gram of iron is 10,750,000,000,000,000,000,000 atoms.

If my math is correct, this means that we could store a terabyte of data on roughly 10 nano-grams of iron.

That is an amount so small that I can’t even wrap my head around it.

 

Of course, there are still problems to be worked out. So far, these atoms can only be controlled at temperatures incredibly close to absolute zero, and on top of that, it requires special machinery to manipulate the atoms in such ways.

There’s a part of me that knows that I shouldn’t be too excited, because even if all of the problems are worked out of this and it is proven to be worth it (I would have to imagine that creating entire hard disks with this method would be extremely expensive), it’ll probably still be quite a long time before this technology becomes mainstream.

That said,

Holy shit.

Vaccines, Stupidity, Disproportionate Responses, et. al.

I went and got vaccinated against meningitis the other day, as per a requirement for enrolling in community college.

I tend to complain a lot when I get vaccinated against things. I elect to have it done in my left arm, because I use it considerably less and so I can pretend that it’s been lopped off  and I can’t use it for a few days while I wait for the soreness to go away. I treat my vaccinated arm like it’s a volatile explosive or something– If I exert any pressure on it, if I lift anything more than a few ounces, well gee, that fucker may very well blow right off. I sleep on the other side of my body so that I don’t crush and destroy my poor, weakened arm.

I keep the bandage on for about a day, even though after an hour there’s a voice in my head saying “Okay seriously, if you’re still bleeding now you probably have leukemia.

I’m basically a complete nut about it.

And yet I go and get all of the vaccinations required of me. Hell, I even get the non-required ones like Gardasil, because you know what doesn’t seem fun? Cancer. Kinda like how meningitis sounds like a real downer, and tetanus would just really ruin my day.

It helps that my “reaction” to vaccines are pretty much me being a hypochondriac, but the thing is? Even if I went and got vaccinated and then spent the rest of the day feeling like I’d eaten rotten poison and dead kittens, vaccines would still be worth it.

But apparently, there’s a growing number of people who go along with the thought process “Little Suzy might get the sniffles? Fuck that,   Measles sounds considerably better.”

But of course, they don’t think like that; they believe that since they don’t see people with measles, they can’t possibly get measles. Which in a sense is entirely true! It’s why vaccinating parents/caregivers/etc. against whooping cough is an effective way of preventing it in babies, who can’t be vaccinated but certainly can get whooping cough. It also provides a bit of a safety net for people who can’t get vaccines for legitimate reasons (read: too sick, not too stupid).

Those two things work, though, because we’ve got a nice thing called herd immunity, which works similarly to a plastic bubble of immunity. To expand this metaphor, we have a big plastic dome-o-notmeasles that we all live in. Some of us have our own little notmeasles bubbles, which is great for us. However, some of us don’t have our own bubbles. Ideally, that “some of us” would be entirely composed of those who are too sick to be vaccinated, but due to this anti-vaccine crusade, that “some of us” is growing. Those people still live under the big plastic dome, and so they’re pretty much safe as long as measles does not penetrate our bubble.

The thing about diseases, though, is that they like penetrating bubbles. It’s kind of what they do, how they survive. It happens when someone who isn’t personally immunized comes in contact with a disease, catches it, and then goes back into the bubble where everyone else is. Suddenly, this isn’t a notmeasles bubble, it’s a measles bubble. Full of measles.

This metaphor is becoming a bit stretched. Let’s change it from a bubble to, say…

A school?

Right. So we have our school with 100 students. A few years ago perhaps, only 1 of these 100 were not vaccinated- maybe she has a weakened immune system?  But the other 99 were vaccinated, so they kept her safe.

Fast forward a few years, one kid has autism. The parents, who don’t understand how correlation doesn’t equal causation, assumed that this was caused by a vaccine (protip- that doesn’t happen, if there was any doubt). The parents then go and start a crusade against vaccines! Fun.

Now 50 out of the 100 students are unvaccinated. This poses a problem.

I don’t know the actual statistics, so I’m going to pull one out of my ass. let’s say that, while unvaccinated, you have, oh… a 2% chance of catching the disease. 1 out of 50.

When we only have one unvaccinated child, it’s sort of like  rolling a 50 sided die once. There’s a very low chance she’ll end up with measles, and if she does, only she is affected. That’s a maximum of 1 child out of 100 getting a horrible disease.

But if we roll that dice 50 times, it’s statistically probable that we will land on measles atleast once. Let’s pretend we did roll the measles dice, and now one of our kids has measles.

So, 50 unvaccinated kids (one with measles!),  50 vaccinated kids (one with autism!)

Fast forward a very short amount of time, those 49 other unvaccinated kids were exposed to measles from the single child, and now 90% of the children who weren’t vaccinated have measles. In real life, schools would close pretty damn quick, but keep in mind that there’s a sizable amount of time between that one child becoming infected and then showing enough symptoms to be diagnosed in which he could infect any number of other students.

so now we’ve got 45 kids with measles. 45 kids who wouldn’t have had measles if they had been vaccinated. 45 kids who wouldn’t have spread it to other kids and infected other kids if they had been infected.

One goddamned kid who infected the whole unvaccinated population of the school just because his parents thought vaccines were evil.

One kid who couldn’t be vaccinated for legitimate medical reasons, who relied on the herd immunity to protect her, and who was infected by people who don’t understand how that works.

And one kid with Autism that wasn’t caused by a vaccine, whose parents jumpstarted this whole thing.

 

Anti-vaccination crusades are bad, okay?

On depression

I’ve dealt with depression (and social anxiety) for around five years now. As this issue is given more light in the skeptical movement, I’ve been tempted to write a post about my own experiences.

At the moment I can’t think of a good way to write out my story in full, it being long and rather convoluted, but I do have two points that I want to make to sum up my thoughts on depression at the moment.

First, I want to talk about the nature of depression.

I’m currently in a Junior in high school, and working on my courses from home. To spare you of a long explanation (which I will go in depth about when I do finally get a story together), this is essentially because it provides a less stressful environment in which I can handle my depression. It’s also worth mentioning that, for reasons I will also go into later, I’m unable to get proper therapy or drugs to help with depression.

To my mother– and I am sure many others– this sounds like avoidance.I’m not going to deny that it is. It very much is avoidance, and I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that. No, avoidance does not make my depression go away, a fact that sometimes makes itself very apparent.

But there’s something I want to say about that, about the fact that I’m merely avoiding depression as opposed to combating it.

When you live with depression, your first goal isn’t to live an entirely normal life.

No, when you live with depression, your first goal is to live.

When you have that goal under control you can move on to trying to function at a minimum. When you can function at a minimum, then maybe you can move up to functioning like a normal human being.

Avoidance allows me to live. It allows me to function at a minimum. To someone who has never suffered from depression, this likely doesn’t sound like an accomplishment. It is. It is an accomplishment when this avoidance allows me to go weeks without feeling crippled by depression, when I can actually get work done and be productive.

Some might say that this is because avoidance is an easy way out. Indeed, avoidance is easier than the alternatives. That’s why I’m still alive and writing this post today; because I took the easy way.

There’s no reason to fetishize difficulty when the goal is living. I’m playing a game where I have a single life, and if I die I can’t hit the reset button. Of course, everyone else in the world is playing the same game, so why can’t I play it the same? Because my game is bugged. If the game of life is a platformer, then my character is programmed with an extra affinity towards pools of lava and bottomless pits, and when I’m jumping over those like everybody else, I have to put that much more effort into it.

In short, easy mode to one person is hard mode to someone with depression. Don’t fault us for sticking to those modes.

 

Now for a second point on the topic of the nature of depression.

My mother has made it clear before that when I’m avoiding the things that trigger anxiety and depression, I don’t appear depressed. This unfortunately leads her to believe that I don’t actually have depression.

I’ve thought of this some, and realized something.

Someone who has a severe peanut allergy will not show symptoms of a peanut allergy while avoiding peanuts. Depression is the exact same way. We don’t doubt that a person with a peanut allergy truly has one just because we haven’t witnessed it, and yet when a person with depression can actually go a while without feeling depressed (because they avoid the triggers, similarly to someone avoiding peanuts) we doubt that they ever had depression.

Which is just damn wrong.

Damn wrong, and dangerous,

I’ve been asked before, by my mother, what would happen if I were to be forced out of my avoidance and made to live a normal life.

I couldn’t reply to her, not out of not knowing the answer, but out of hesitancy. It was very clear to me that suddenly being forced into a very stressful situation in a stressful way would end similarly to someone with a peanut allergy being force-fed peanuts– in a hospital.

I try, very slowly, to move myself into being less nervous socially. At the moment that manifests itself in enrolling at a community college to take extra courses there, something that despite definitely being social doesn’t quite trigger that much anxiety in me. It’s a safe slope up towards normal functioning.

And that safe slope is necessary. Just like a paraplegic can’t ram her wheelchair against a staircase and go up, I can’t jump from the bottom of this pit of depression up to the top.

It’s also worth mentioning that it’s really quite silly to ask a depressed person, or a person with anxiety in any form, why certain things depress or panic them. We can’t point to one thing and say “yep, it’s that” and then make “that” go away and never feel depressed or panic again.

We just… are depressed. We just do have our anxiety triggered by things. We can’t think our way out of it, we can’t will ourselves out of it. It’s irrational sadness and irrational fears, and those can’t be killed by rationality, nor can we pinpoint reasons for said irrationality.

 

Now, for my second point.

The recent decision of the skeptical blogging community to embrace mental illness is just beautiful. So often do people get depression wrong. So often I’ve heard anecdotes that range from “I was sad once and got over it” to “I had depression once, and then it went away forever once I took pill” which are just so god damned wrong.

So it’s refreshing when I see posts like this one where the writer so clearly gets what it’s like to have depression (even after experiencing a minimal form of it– that in itself is amazing, because true understanding of depression is usually limited to those who experience it).

It’s beautiful to read things like “I am amazed by Jenny, by Allie, by Chris and the thousands of others who fight to survive every day and find their way through the darkness, only to know that it could consume them again at any time.” Because that is so damned accurate. Depression does act like that. You fight through it, and then it consumes you at random.

It’s just so refreshing to know that there is some real light being shed on the actual truth of what depression is like. After dealing so long with such wrong information, truth and accuracy are the greatest things ever.