#omelas — Public Fediverse posts

The tortured child in #Omelas was an intuition pump for you to *believe* a utopia is possible.

Ones who walk away from Omelas aren't the morally superior. They aren't the ones who just won't get over the sacrifice. They are the ones who CAN IMAGINE a utopia existing without a sacrifice.

So when you start writing/creating a #utopia, start with Omelas or nobody will believe you. Make an imperfection, a sacrifice , techno solutionist mediocrety, an Omelas child. Then, slowly, make people believe in this world. Then remove the Omelas child and show how it was never necessary. That's the basic recipe for a compelling utopia that would lead people with shivers.

#solarpunk

The tortured child in #Omelas was an intuition pump for you to *believe* a utopia is possible.

Ones who walk away from Omelas aren't the morally superior. They aren't the ones who just won't get over the sacrifice. They are the ones who CAN IMAGINE a utopia existing without a sacrifice.

So when you start writing/creating a #utopia, start with Omelas or nobody will believe you. Make an imperfection, a sacrifice , techno solutionist mediocrety, an Omelas child. Then, slowly, make people believe in this world. Then remove the Omelas child and show how it was never necessary. That's the basic recipe for a compelling utopia that would lead people with shivers.

#solarpunk

The tortured child in #Omelas was an intuition pump for you to *believe* a utopia is possible.

Ones who walk away from Omelas aren't the morally superior. They aren't the ones who just won't get over the sacrifice. They are the ones who CAN IMAGINE a utopia existing without a sacrifice.

So when you start writing/creating a #utopia, start with Omelas or nobody will believe you. Make an imperfection, a sacrifice , techno solutionist mediocrety, an Omelas child. Then, slowly, make people believe in this world. Then remove the Omelas child and show how it was never necessary. That's the basic recipe for a compelling utopia that would lead people with shivers.

#solarpunk

The tortured child in #Omelas was an intuition pump for you to *believe* a utopia is possible.

Ones who walk away from Omelas aren't the morally superior. They aren't the ones who just won't get over the sacrifice. They are the ones who CAN IMAGINE a utopia existing without a sacrifice.

So when you start writing/creating a #utopia, start with Omelas or nobody will believe you. Make an imperfection, a sacrifice , techno solutionist mediocrety, an Omelas child. Then, slowly, make people believe in this world. Then remove the Omelas child and show how it was never necessary. That's the basic recipe for a compelling utopia that would lead people with shivers.

#solarpunk

The tortured child in #Omelas was an intuition pump for you to *believe* a utopia is possible.

Ones who walk away from Omelas aren't the morally superior. They aren't the ones who just won't get over the sacrifice. They are the ones who CAN IMAGINE a utopia existing without a sacrifice.

So when you start writing/creating a #utopia, start with Omelas or nobody will believe you. Make an imperfection, a sacrifice , techno solutionist mediocrety, an Omelas child. Then, slowly, make people believe in this world. Then remove the Omelas child and show how it was never necessary. That's the basic recipe for a compelling utopia that would lead people with shivers.

#solarpunk

How to build #solarpunk (the aesthetic vision without the social change) - watch now 00:59s

Instructions were unclear. Penis stuck in an #elysium sky paradise for the rich while the poor are burning on the wastelands.

Do not. Walk. Towards. Omelas.

#omelas #dystopia #cyberpunk #scifi #ursulaLeGuin #LeGuin #greenwashing #climateCatastrophe

How to build #solarpunk (the aesthetic vision without the social change) - watch now 00:59s

Instructions were unclear. Penis stuck in an #elysium sky paradise for the rich while the poor are burning on the wastelands.

Do not. Walk. Towards. Omelas.

#omelas #dystopia #cyberpunk #scifi #ursulaLeGuin #LeGuin #greenwashing #climateCatastrophe

How to build #solarpunk (the aesthetic vision without the social change) - watch now 00:59s

Instructions were unclear. Penis stuck in an #elysium sky paradise for the rich while the poor are burning on the wastelands.

Do not. Walk. Towards. Omelas.

#omelas #dystopia #cyberpunk #scifi #ursulaLeGuin #LeGuin #greenwashing #climateCatastrophe

How to build #solarpunk (the aesthetic vision without the social change) - watch now 00:59s

Instructions were unclear. Penis stuck in an #elysium sky paradise for the rich while the poor are burning on the wastelands.

Do not. Walk. Towards. Omelas.

#omelas #dystopia #cyberpunk #scifi #ursulaLeGuin #LeGuin #greenwashing #climateCatastrophe

How to build #solarpunk (the aesthetic vision without the social change) - watch now 00:59s

Instructions were unclear. Penis stuck in an #elysium sky paradise for the rich while the poor are burning on the wastelands.

Do not. Walk. Towards. Omelas.

#omelas #dystopia #cyberpunk #scifi #ursulaLeGuin #LeGuin #greenwashing #climateCatastrophe

A change.org petition to paint a nice mural on the walls of the pit of suffering.

#omelas

A change.org petition to paint a nice mural on the walls of the pit of suffering.

#omelas

A change.org petition to paint a nice mural on the walls of the pit of suffering.

#omelas

3/3
And I can't stress enough that this isn't about being jaded or cynical. Take the inverse, let's call it Salemo. "This place has only unending suffering where everyone is tortured all the time and there's no hope." Boring. Literally the tvtropes page of Darkness-Induced Audience Apathy. "They do this because it ensures a perfect life for one child." Wow! Mass self-sacrifice! What's so important about the child that they all agree to undergo extreme suffering? Tell me more! Is there a lesson I could apply to my own life? I don't believe in perfect joy without a catch, sure, but I don't believe in perfect pain without a catch either. Even stories that start bad and end bad don't stay bad all the way through. Instead it's "Ah, things are terrible. Oh look, the main character is trying to turn things around! Oh no, they failed because of some tragic flaw in their character that they couldn't overcome!" And I say "Wow, what a bad fate, I should think about what kind of flaws I have."

I'm almost wondering if this was her actual point? To play around with what makes a story complete? Not just call me an edgelord?

#omelas #ursulaleguin #books

2/3
I think where the disconnect lies is that I'm engaging with her story as just that, a story. The purpose of a story is both to entertain and to convey some information to get us to think about our own life and experience. An interesting story makes us have interesting thoughts. The story of "this place is perfect and nothing ever goes wrong" isn't interesting, but not because we think that's naive, it's because there's no useful information being conveyed there. Okay, they're perfect. Why? How did they become this way? Can I apply anything they do to my life so that I can make things better? Oh, you don't want to tell me? Then it's not a full narrative, it's only a snapshot of a setting. My brain is starving here.

Oh, they torture a child! Wow, what a shocking moral dilemma. One innocent's suffering for the welfare of thousands, hm, that makes my brain think about whether I would want to live there. Now I'm engaged and interested, not because a child is being tortured but because there's actually a topic of discussion.

#omelas #ursulaleguin #books

So, I'm thinking about Omelas. Maybe I'm misreading, but the point is to make you think about why you didn't believe in the perfect place and felt it's more believable when a kid was being tortured to make it perfect, right? The whole "The trouble is that we have a bad habit, encouraged by pedants and sophisticates, of considering happiness as something rather stupid. Only pain is intellectual, only evil interesting." Like, not really? Maybe that was true in her context. All the pedants and sophisticates I see constantly stress that things are terrible right now and that we have the power to make them better. (This could be just a byproduct of social media used for mass political mobilization?)

1/3

#omelas #ursulaleguin #books

So, I'm thinking about Omelas. Maybe I'm misreading, but the point is to make you think about why you didn't believe in the perfect place and felt it's more believable when a kid was being tortured to make it perfect, right? The whole "The trouble is that we have a bad habit, encouraged by pedants and sophisticates, of considering happiness as something rather stupid. Only pain is intellectual, only evil interesting." Like, not really? Maybe that was true in her context. All the pedants and sophisticates I see constantly stress that things are terrible right now and that we have the power to make them better. (This could be just a byproduct of social media used for mass political mobilization?)

1/3

#omelas #ursulaleguin #books

RE: https://mastodon.social/@gwynnion/116483532834192001

This post notes out that defending absurd levels of wealth and income inequality with no social safety net is similar to believing “there must always be an Omelas child.”

“The Ones Who Walk Away from
Omelas” by Ursula K. #LeGuin describes a utopian city called #Omelas “whose prosperity depends on the perpetual misery of a single child.”

This idea critiques the moral philosophy of standard #utilitarianism, which allow such situations if happiness outweighs suffering

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ones_Who_Walk_Away_from_Omelas

RE: https://mastodon.social/@gwynnion/116483532834192001

This post notes out that defending absurd levels of wealth and income inequality with no social safety net is similar to believing “there must always be an Omelas child.”

“The Ones Who Walk Away from
Omelas” by Ursula K. #LeGuin describes a utopian city called #Omelas “whose prosperity depends on the perpetual misery of a single child.”

This idea critiques the moral philosophy of standard #utilitarianism, which allow such situations if happiness outweighs suffering

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ones_Who_Walk_Away_from_Omelas

RE: https://mastodon.social/@gwynnion/116483532834192001

This post notes out that defending absurd levels of wealth and income inequality with no social safety net is similar to believing “there must always be an Omelas child.”

“The Ones Who Walk Away from
Omelas” by Ursula K. #LeGuin describes a utopian city called #Omelas “whose prosperity depends on the perpetual misery of a single child.”

This idea critiques the moral philosophy of standard #utilitarianism, which allow such situations if happiness outweighs suffering

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ones_Who_Walk_Away_from_Omelas

RE: https://mastodon.social/@gwynnion/116483532834192001

This post notes out that defending absurd levels of wealth and income inequality with no social safety net is similar to believing “there must always be an Omelas child.”

“The Ones Who Walk Away from
Omelas” by Ursula K. #LeGuin describes a utopian city called #Omelas “whose prosperity depends on the perpetual misery of a single child.”

This idea critiques the moral philosophy of standard #utilitarianism, which allow such situations if happiness outweighs suffering

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ones_Who_Walk_Away_from_Omelas

RE: https://mastodon.social/@gwynnion/116483532834192001

This post notes out that defending absurd levels of wealth and income inequality with no social safety net is similar to believing “there must always be an Omelas child.”

“The Ones Who Walk Away from
Omelas” by Ursula K. #LeGuin describes a utopian city called #Omelas “whose prosperity depends on the perpetual misery of a single child.”

This idea critiques the moral philosophy of standard #utilitarianism, which allow such situations if happiness outweighs suffering

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ones_Who_Walk_Away_from_Omelas

Just walk away

Just walk away

https://piefed.social/c/lotrmemes/p/1985138/just-walk-away

Just walk away

Just walk away

RE: https://dair-community.social/@emilymbender/116109623550360087

I really enjoyed this. Tante touches on the ethics of using ill-gotten research, Le Guin’s #Omelas story, and possibly a wink to Illich’s #ToolsForConviviality. #OpenSource #Accelerationism #LLMao

RE: https://dair-community.social/@emilymbender/116109623550360087

I really enjoyed this. Tante touches on the ethics of using ill-gotten research, Le Guin’s #Omelas story, and possibly a wink to Illich’s #ToolsForConviviality. #OpenSource #Accelerationism #LLMao

Two posts from 2014: Trolley Problems, Nuclear Weapons, Snowden, Jocks, and Meat-Grinders

These are a pair of Facebook posts from 2014 which I just want to transfer over to my blog for ease of finding; but if you are particularly interested in questions of utilitarianism and outcomes (having seen multiple references to “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas” in the past few weeks) they might be interesting…

Part 1: Why you should Shoot the Button

So my friend Glyn has been going around and posing a question something along the lines of:

« You are locked in a room with a man. You have a gun. The man has his finger poised over a button which will unleash nuclear armageddon upon the earth. Do you shoot the man? »

…which is apparently one of those questions being used to explore morality in a crisis; there are various spins on it, like you shoot him and he hits the button anyway, or will you kill one man to save one million people you don’t know, etc. From what I understand this question vexed some denizens of the Privacy International office for several hours.

Then they asked me, down the pub. I thought for a moment and said “shoot the button”, which caused consternation as nobody had suggested that before. The answer was relayed to Glyn via SMS who nitpicked it as above – “you might cause a short and incinerate the world” – so I wrote up my response as follows:

«This question (as posed to me) is actually a metaquestion, one which can be rationally disambiguated by the fact that someone asked it.

If it were up to me then, faced with a guy with his finger over the Armageddon button, I would certainly shoot him, in the head or heart, whichever presented minimal risk of accidental button-pushing on the way down. Quick kill, low risk.

I would do this because my threat model would be protection of the people whom I love, elsewhere, who would die in the conflagration. With this threat model, this is the only rational action other than suicide which would be nihilistic rejection of the choice.

However: if you are in a position to ask the question then you clearly have a different threat model. Specifically, if you are experiencing a moral quandry about killing one person to preserve the lives of millions, then you are already discounting numeric disparity and for some reason see the killing of one person as equally bad as the killing of 200 million.

In *that* threat model (choosing between two equally bad scenarios) then shooting the button, whatever the result, is the rational action. This is because shooting the button moves you from a state of having two bad outcomes (killing one, or seeing 200 million killed) to a situation where there are two bad and one good outcome (the former, plus: break the button and nobody dies).

This is clearly an improvement in your situation and therefore you should take it.

Any nitpicking about “it might be a drill” is compensated by “if so, the base commander may have filled your gun with blanks”, so can be safely ignored.

Welcome to thinking like a defender [ed: … as opposed to a pentester]»

Part 2: John Kerry vs: Edward Snowden

From what I remember of growing up, when jocks are defeated by geeks who are either/both better equipped than, or can outthink their opponents, three complaints – three unmanly whines – are to be heard from the defeated:

1. it’s cheating (because he didn’t attack me head-on)
2. it’s not fair (because I didn’t expect what happened)
3. he’s a coward for not fighting fair or honourably

The latter is particularly odd because part of the whole point of out-thinking your opponents is so that you don’t have to go up against their strongest suit. Throwing yourself into a meatgrinder may be “brave” or “daring” but sometimes it’s plain stupid, especially if going around the side is smarter.

In other news, John Kerry: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/kerry-snowden-coward-traitor-n116366

Back to 2025

If you’re still into Trolley Problems, my solution is: grab the lever and try to cause a derailment; but apparently that’s cheating.

#Omelas #philospohy #snowden #trolleyProblems

Two posts from 2014: Trolley Problems, Nuclear Weapons, Snowden, Jocks, and Meat-Grinders

These are a pair of Facebook posts from 2014 which I just want to transfer over to my blog for ease of finding; but if you are particularly interested in questions of utilitarianism and outcomes (having seen multiple references to “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas” in the past few weeks) they might be interesting…

Part 1: Why you should Shoot the Button

So my friend Glyn has been going around and posing a question something along the lines of:

« You are locked in a room with a man. You have a gun. The man has his finger poised over a button which will unleash nuclear armageddon upon the earth. Do you shoot the man? »

…which is apparently one of those questions being used to explore morality in a crisis; there are various spins on it, like you shoot him and he hits the button anyway, or will you kill one man to save one million people you don’t know, etc. From what I understand this question vexed some denizens of the Privacy International office for several hours.

Then they asked me, down the pub. I thought for a moment and said “shoot the button”, which caused consternation as nobody had suggested that before. The answer was relayed to Glyn via SMS who nitpicked it as above – “you might cause a short and incinerate the world” – so I wrote up my response as follows:

«This question (as posed to me) is actually a metaquestion, one which can be rationally disambiguated by the fact that someone asked it.

If it were up to me then, faced with a guy with his finger over the Armageddon button, I would certainly shoot him, in the head or heart, whichever presented minimal risk of accidental button-pushing on the way down. Quick kill, low risk.

I would do this because my threat model would be protection of the people whom I love, elsewhere, who would die in the conflagration. With this threat model, this is the only rational action other than suicide which would be nihilistic rejection of the choice.

However: if you are in a position to ask the question then you clearly have a different threat model. Specifically, if you are experiencing a moral quandry about killing one person to preserve the lives of millions, then you are already discounting numeric disparity and for some reason see the killing of one person as equally bad as the killing of 200 million.

In *that* threat model (choosing between two equally bad scenarios) then shooting the button, whatever the result, is the rational action. This is because shooting the button moves you from a state of having two bad outcomes (killing one, or seeing 200 million killed) to a situation where there are two bad and one good outcome (the former, plus: break the button and nobody dies).

This is clearly an improvement in your situation and therefore you should take it.

Any nitpicking about “it might be a drill” is compensated by “if so, the base commander may have filled your gun with blanks”, so can be safely ignored.

Welcome to thinking like a defender [ed: … as opposed to a pentester]»

Part 2: John Kerry vs: Edward Snowden

From what I remember of growing up, when jocks are defeated by geeks who are either/both better equipped than, or can outthink their opponents, three complaints – three unmanly whines – are to be heard from the defeated:

1. it’s cheating (because he didn’t attack me head-on)
2. it’s not fair (because I didn’t expect what happened)
3. he’s a coward for not fighting fair or honourably

The latter is particularly odd because part of the whole point of out-thinking your opponents is so that you don’t have to go up against their strongest suit. Throwing yourself into a meatgrinder may be “brave” or “daring” but sometimes it’s plain stupid, especially if going around the side is smarter.

In other news, John Kerry: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/kerry-snowden-coward-traitor-n116366

Back to 2025

If you’re still into Trolley Problems, my solution is: grab the lever and try to cause a derailment; but apparently that’s cheating.

#Omelas #philospohy #snowden #trolleyProblems

Two posts from 2014: Trolley Problems, Nuclear Weapons, Snowden, Jocks, and Meat-Grinders

These are a pair of Facebook posts from 2014 which I just want to transfer over to my blog for ease of finding; but if you are particularly interested in questions of utilitarianism and outcomes (having seen multiple references to “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas” in the past few weeks) they might be interesting…

Part 1: Why you should Shoot the Button

So my friend Glyn has been going around and posing a question something along the lines of:

« You are locked in a room with a man. You have a gun. The man has his finger poised over a button which will unleash nuclear armageddon upon the earth. Do you shoot the man? »

…which is apparently one of those questions being used to explore morality in a crisis; there are various spins on it, like you shoot him and he hits the button anyway, or will you kill one man to save one million people you don’t know, etc. From what I understand this question vexed some denizens of the Privacy International office for several hours.

Then they asked me, down the pub. I thought for a moment and said “shoot the button”, which caused consternation as nobody had suggested that before. The answer was relayed to Glyn via SMS who nitpicked it as above – “you might cause a short and incinerate the world” – so I wrote up my response as follows:

«This question (as posed to me) is actually a metaquestion, one which can be rationally disambiguated by the fact that someone asked it.

If it were up to me then, faced with a guy with his finger over the Armageddon button, I would certainly shoot him, in the head or heart, whichever presented minimal risk of accidental button-pushing on the way down. Quick kill, low risk.

I would do this because my threat model would be protection of the people whom I love, elsewhere, who would die in the conflagration. With this threat model, this is the only rational action other than suicide which would be nihilistic rejection of the choice.

However: if you are in a position to ask the question then you clearly have a different threat model. Specifically, if you are experiencing a moral quandry about killing one person to preserve the lives of millions, then you are already discounting numeric disparity and for some reason see the killing of one person as equally bad as the killing of 200 million.

In *that* threat model (choosing between two equally bad scenarios) then shooting the button, whatever the result, is the rational action. This is because shooting the button moves you from a state of having two bad outcomes (killing one, or seeing 200 million killed) to a situation where there are two bad and one good outcome (the former, plus: break the button and nobody dies).

This is clearly an improvement in your situation and therefore you should take it.

Any nitpicking about “it might be a drill” is compensated by “if so, the base commander may have filled your gun with blanks”, so can be safely ignored.

Welcome to thinking like a defender [ed: … as opposed to a pentester]»

Part 2: John Kerry vs: Edward Snowden

From what I remember of growing up, when jocks are defeated by geeks who are either/both better equipped than, or can outthink their opponents, three complaints – three unmanly whines – are to be heard from the defeated:

1. it’s cheating (because he didn’t attack me head-on)
2. it’s not fair (because I didn’t expect what happened)
3. he’s a coward for not fighting fair or honourably

The latter is particularly odd because part of the whole point of out-thinking your opponents is so that you don’t have to go up against their strongest suit. Throwing yourself into a meatgrinder may be “brave” or “daring” but sometimes it’s plain stupid, especially if going around the side is smarter.

In other news, John Kerry: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/kerry-snowden-coward-traitor-n116366

Back to 2025

If you’re still into Trolley Problems, my solution is: grab the lever and try to cause a derailment; but apparently that’s cheating.

#Omelas #philospohy #snowden #trolleyProblems

Finally got round to reading Le Guin's "those who walk away from Omelas". I never realised it was a short story - completed it in 5 mins. Wish I'd. Known sooner.
#boostodon #omelas

Finally got round to reading Le Guin's "those who walk away from Omelas". I never realised it was a short story - completed it in 5 mins. Wish I'd. Known sooner.
#boostodon #omelas

Finally got round to reading Le Guin's "those who walk away from Omelas". I never realised it was a short story - completed it in 5 mins. Wish I'd. Known sooner.
#boostodon #omelas

Finally got round to reading Le Guin's "those who walk away from Omelas". I never realised it was a short story - completed it in 5 mins. Wish I'd. Known sooner.
#boostodon #omelas

Do you need a compass to walk away from Omelas?

Do you need a compass to walk away from Omelas?

https://piefed.social/c/politicalcompassmemes/p/1502691/do-you-need-a-compass-to-walk-away-from-omelas

Do you need a compass to walk away from Omelas?

Do you need a compass to walk away from Omelas?

Do you need a compass to walk away from Omelas?

https://piefed.social/c/politicalcompassmemes/p/1502691/do-you-need-a-compass-to-walk-away-from-omelas

I wrote a post about Trust & Safety that I have been meaning to write for a while, but @caseynewton wrote something recently that reminded me.

It acts as a useful mission statement for the advocacy organisation I am slowly creating, which I have talked about in a few interviews, but not gotten around to yet - The problems with C-PTSD and AuDHD in concert mean that everything comes at a glacial start :)

https://superhighwayman.com/2025/the-ones-who-thrive-in-omelas/

#Writing #TrustAndSafety #Blog #Security #Infosec #Advocacy #SocialMedia #Online #Dating #OnlineSafetyAct #Moderation #Wellness #Health #PTSD #ADHD #AuDHD #Omelas #SciFi #UrsulaLeGuin

I wrote a post about Trust & Safety that I have been meaning to write for a while, but @caseynewton wrote something recently that reminded me.

It acts as a useful mission statement for the advocacy organisation I am slowly creating, which I have talked about in a few interviews, but not gotten around to yet - The problems with C-PTSD and AuDHD in concert mean that everything comes at a glacial start :)

https://superhighwayman.com/2025/the-ones-who-thrive-in-omelas/

#Writing #TrustAndSafety #Blog #Security #Infosec #Advocacy #SocialMedia #Online #Dating #OnlineSafetyAct #Moderation #Wellness #Health #PTSD #ADHD #AuDHD #Omelas #SciFi #UrsulaLeGuin

I wrote a post about Trust & Safety that I have been meaning to write for a while, but @caseynewton wrote something recently that reminded me.

It acts as a useful mission statement for the advocacy organisation I am slowly creating, which I have talked about in a few interviews, but not gotten around to yet - The problems with C-PTSD and AuDHD in concert mean that everything comes at a glacial start :)

https://superhighwayman.com/2025/the-ones-who-thrive-in-omelas/

#Writing #TrustAndSafety #Blog #Security #Infosec #Advocacy #SocialMedia #Online #Dating #OnlineSafetyAct #Moderation #Wellness #Health #PTSD #ADHD #AuDHD #Omelas #SciFi #UrsulaLeGuin

I wrote a post about Trust & Safety that I have been meaning to write for a while, but @caseynewton wrote something recently that reminded me.

It acts as a useful mission statement for the advocacy organisation I am slowly creating, which I have talked about in a few interviews, but not gotten around to yet - The problems with C-PTSD and AuDHD in concert mean that everything comes at a glacial start :)

https://superhighwayman.com/2025/the-ones-who-thrive-in-omelas/

#Writing #TrustAndSafety #Blog #Security #Infosec #Advocacy #SocialMedia #Online #Dating #OnlineSafetyAct #Moderation #Wellness #Health #PTSD #ADHD #AuDHD #Omelas #SciFi #UrsulaLeGuin

I wrote a post about Trust & Safety that I have been meaning to write for a while, but @caseynewton wrote something recently that reminded me.

It acts as a useful mission statement for the advocacy organisation I am slowly creating, which I have talked about in a few interviews, but not gotten around to yet - The problems with C-PTSD and AuDHD in concert mean that everything comes at a glacial start :)

https://superhighwayman.com/2025/the-ones-who-thrive-in-omelas/

#Writing #TrustAndSafety #Blog #Security #Infosec #Advocacy #SocialMedia #Online #Dating #OnlineSafetyAct #Moderation #Wellness #Health #PTSD #ADHD #AuDHD #Omelas #SciFi #UrsulaLeGuin

It's kinda of blatantly obvious where the "load-bearing suffering children" of today are. #omelas
https://clarkesworldmagazine.com/kim_02_24/

It's kinda of blatantly obvious where the "load-bearing suffering children" of today are. #omelas
https://clarkesworldmagazine.com/kim_02_24/

It's kinda of blatantly obvious where the "load-bearing suffering children" of today are. #omelas
https://clarkesworldmagazine.com/kim_02_24/

I have sadly forgotten who made this, but yeah, it tracks. #omelas #booksky #LeGuin #politics

I have sadly forgotten who made this, but yeah, it tracks. #omelas #booksky #LeGuin #politics

The outies are the ones who stayed in Omelas, they and Lumon are the villains.

The innies are the better parts of themselves, suppressed.

Mark Scout is toxic; wallowing, immature, rageful, and refuses therapy.

Helena is cruel and complicit.

Bert Goodman told us he's going to Hell.

Irving Bailiff is a mystery.

Dylan George is aloof and immature.

They are all selfish, eminently self-serving.

"Who are you?"

To each outie, not a person

#Severance #AppleTV #tv #innies #outies #Lumon #Omelas

The outies are the ones who stayed in Omelas, they and Lumon are the villains.

The innies are the better parts of themselves, suppressed.

Mark Scout is toxic; wallowing, immature, rageful, and refuses therapy.

Helena is cruel and complicit.

Bert Goodman told us he's going to Hell.

Irving Bailiff is a mystery.

Dylan George is aloof and immature.

They are all selfish, eminently self-serving.

"Who are you?"

To each outie, not a person

#Severance #AppleTV #tv #innies #outies #Lumon #Omelas

The outies are the ones who stayed in Omelas, they and Lumon are the villains.

The innies are the better parts of themselves, suppressed.

Mark Scout is toxic; wallowing, immature, rageful, and refuses therapy.

Helena is cruel and complicit.

Bert Goodman told us he's going to Hell.

Irving Bailiff is a mystery.

Dylan George is aloof and immature.

They are all selfish, eminently self-serving.

"Who are you?"

To each outie, not a person

#Severance #AppleTV #tv #innies #outies #Lumon #Omelas

The outies are the ones who stayed in Omelas, they and Lumon are the villains.

The innies are the better parts of themselves, suppressed.

Mark Scout is toxic; wallowing, immature, rageful, and refuses therapy.

Helena is cruel and complicit.

Bert Goodman told us he's going to Hell.

Irving Bailiff is a mystery.

Dylan George is aloof and immature.

They are all selfish, eminently self-serving.

"Who are you?"

To each outie, not a person

#Severance #AppleTV #tv #innies #outies #Lumon #Omelas

The outies are the ones who stayed in Omelas, they and Lumon are the villains.

The innies are the better parts of themselves, suppressed.

Mark Scout is toxic; wallowing, immature, rageful, and refuses therapy.

Helena is cruel and complicit.

Bert Goodman told us he's going to Hell.

Irving Bailiff is a mystery.

Dylan George is aloof and immature.

They are all selfish, eminently self-serving.

"Who are you?"

To each outie, not a person

#Severance #AppleTV #tv #innies #outies #Lumon #Omelas