Sensitive content

This media may contain sensitive content.

Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

На главную

Part 2: MAGNIFICENT CLIMAX! Grip unbreakable-🍎 Shay 🍎's ass claps with fury. bouncing wild as she trembles in surrender 💥🍑. Relentless pounding, legs quivering, trans supremacy reigns on this stage of ecstasy 😵‍💫🔥 A masterpiece that ends worlds! #NSFW #trans #Tgirl

54,981 просмотров • 6 месяцев назад •via X (Twitter)

Комментарии: 0

Нет доступных комментариев

Здесь появятся комментарии из оригинального поста

Похожие видео

🚨 SHOCKING: Candace Owens EPIC Takedown Of Detractors At Congressional Hearing on "Trans Mass Shootings" – They ALL Ganged Up On Her & FAILED! 🔥👑 Have you ever seen a congressional hearing where they straight-up allow witnesses to testify just to ATTACK another witness? I haven't. This is WILD—total gang-up on Candace, with the chairman even calling it out: "Obviously this is a gang up on you... I find it unfair." But Candace? She turns the tables and DESTROYS them! Flashback to this ICONIC clip: Candace getting ambushed in a bogus hearing on "trans mass shootings" and "white supremacy." They twist her words, claim she's laughing at tragedy—nah, she's calling out the farce. "I object strenuously... The audacity to make it seem as if I laughed at people slaughtered by a homicidal maniac is ABSOLUTELY DESPICABLE!" BOOM—Candace goes nuclear: White supremacy? NOT even top 100 for Black America. Real threats? Father absence, broken education, illegal immigration, abortion. "This hearing is a FARCE... Three Caucasian people testifying on expertise? Mine? BLACK IN AMERICA my whole life—all 30 years!" They've been gunning to MUZZLE her for a DECADE because she's the SPEARHEAD of resistance, exposing "lone gunman" mass shootings as CIA FALSE FLAGS to sow division, grab guns, and ignite racial fires pre-elections. Classic deep state playbook—every cycle, on repeat. What a DRAGON SLAYER! Don't ever change, Queen. She's constantly battling the swamp while they pile on. This clip? Eternal proof she's light-years ahead. Wake up, patriots—the fight's on! 🇺🇸💥 RT if you've NEVER seen a hearing this rigged and stand with Candace Owens !

Project Constitution

291,777 просмотров • 6 месяцев назад

💥Food for thought y'all! The BAD APPLE EFFECT 🍎 I'm seeing more and more people that fall victim to this phenomenon. One negative reaction attracts others to it like a magnet. One that's hard to loosen the grip from once you submit to it! We also have to ponder how many negative comments are actually bots trying to bring you down and draw you into this field that consequentially affects your quality of life! I believe we recently found out that 50% of the comments on social media are bots. That leads me to believe that this is a planned weapon being used against others. When you listen to this video you'll understand how taking part in their narrative is only a set up for our failure as God's children! God is of love, comfort, and forgiveness. God is not of hate, fear, or division. Anyone sowing discord is either part of that plan to bring you down or is falling into the trap themselves! "Sowing discord" means intentionally causing division, conflict, distrust, or strife among a group of people, often through gossip, talebearing, or constant criticism. Derived from a biblical context (notably Proverbs 6:19), it describes the act of planting seeds of hatred or disharmony, which is considered a harmful behavior that breaks down relationships and unity. Key aspects of sewing discord include: Deliberate Action: It involves purposefully spreading negative or divisive information to stir up trouble. Method: Frequently achieved by manipulating emotions, or acting to create sides. Biblical Context: The phrase is often associated with Proverbs 6:16-19, which lists it as an action that causes severe disharmony, particularly among family or community members (brethren). Consequences: It is considered a deeply destructive action, often leading to broken relationships and serious spiritual or social consequences, including, in some interpretations, "sudden calamity". God desires harmony, and these actions work directly against that, causing lasting damage. Put your Armor of God on my friends and fasten it tightly! 📱Link: Capt Kyle

Capt Kyle

56,437 просмотров • 8 месяцев назад

QUESTION: What is the relationship between section 91(2)—the term limit provision—and section 95(2)—the term length provision in the Constitution of Zimbabwe (2013)? ANSWER: Section 91(2) is the term-limit provision. It regulates the President’s tenure by limiting the length of time that he or she may hold or occupy the Presidency as a public officer to a maximum of two terms—whether consecutive or not—where three or more years’ service is deemed a full term. By contrast, section 95(2) is the term-length provision. It regulates the electoral cycle of the Presidency as an office or institution by defining a single term as five years (now proposed to be seven years under Clause 4 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe (Amendment No. 3) H.B. 1 Bill, 2026). The relationship between sections 91(2) and 95(2) is therefore as clear and straightforward as that between a truck driver and a 500 km highway: section 91(2) limits the driver, while section 95(2) defines the length of the highway. Section 91(2) caps the time any individual may occupy the Presidency; section 95(2) sets the institutional length or duration of each presidential term or electoral cycle. This distinction matters because a persistent misconception claims that section 91(2) is not the presidential term-limit provision but merely a qualification rule for election as President, asserts that section 95(2) is the actual term-limit clause. Many who advance this incorrect view rely on one sentence in the obiter dictum by Patel JCC at paragraph 50 of the precedent-setting judgment in Marx Mupungu v Minister of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs & 6 Ors (CCZ 7/21, 2021) [see: which includes section 95(2) among examples of term-limit provisions. That misconception overlooks a fundamental constitutional imperative: a presidential term-limit provision is, by definition, a disqualifier for election as President. Term limits on presidents are necessarily about elections. They limit qualification for election. Where there is no presidential term limit, re-election is unlimited. In a recent discussion with D. Tinashé Hofisi on 23 April 2026 [ on the Constitution of Zimbabwe (Amendment No. 3) Bill hosted by The Southern African Times, I explained the relationship between the two sections. Below is the verbatim text of the attached clip extracted from the discussion addressing the import of section 91(2) and its relationship with section 95(2): ME: “It’s a clear term limit provision; is similar to term limit provisions in other jurisdictions that are comparable to Zimbabwe. And when you say it doesn’t have time, it doesn’t make reference to time, I’m at a loss as to what that means, and where that is coming from, with respect to Dr Hofisi, because it says a person is disqualified for election as President or appointment as Vice President if he or she has already held office as President under this constitution for two terms. This is the only section which tells us how many terms a President is limited to. Section 95 doesn’t even tell us that he’s limited to one term. There’s no limit. This one limits the President to two terms. And the two terms, the last time I checked, was a reference to time. And in this case, the section doesn’t leave us doubting or not knowing what a term is or what sort of time a term is. Because it continues to say these two terms are counted whether they follow each other or not. But most significantly, for the purpose of the limit on the President, the term limit on the President, which is provided in this section: three or more years. That’s time. You said there’s no time here. Three years is time. The length of time is three years minimum, and the maximum is more. It’s not defined here. It’s three or more years. It’s more because that is subject to what the relevant law about electoral cycles says is the electoral cycle of the institution that the President occupies”. [verbatim text of clip from The 500 km Highway Metaphor: Distinguishing Sections 91(2) and 95(2) of the Constitution To clearly understand the relationship between sections 91(2) and 95(2), imagine the Presidency as a magnificent 500-kilometre highway built and maintained by section 95(2) of the Constitution. This provision creates the presidential highway itself: it defines the office of the President as a permanent public institution and sets the exact length of each single term — currently five years, now proposed under the Bill to be seven years. It establishes a structured, recurring electoral cycle that belongs to the people of Zimbabwe, ensuring regular, orderly renewal of leadership. Without section 95(2), there would be no defined road — only an open plain of indefinite power. Section 91(2) governs the individual truck driver on that highway. It imposes an absolute lifetime limit: no person may complete more than two full trips along this 500 km highway, whether those trips are taken back-to-back or years apart. Any segment of 300 kilometres or more — that is, three or more years in office — counts as one complete trip. There are no partial credits or exceptions. After two full trips, the driver is permanently disqualified from driving on that highway, again. The distinction is sharp and deliberate: Section 95(2) builds the highway and determines the length of each journey. Section 91(2) limits how many times any single individual is permitted to travel it. One structures the office; the other limits the person who occupies it. Together, they form the Constitution’s twin safeguards — working in perfect harmony to keep power temporary, accountable, and subordinate to the will of the people. To conflate their distinct roles is to weaken these vital safeguards and to invite the very tyranny the Constitution was written to prevent. The Profound and Protective Meaning of “Three or More Years” in Section 91(2) of the Constitution At the heart of section 91(2) lies one of the Constitution’s most brilliant safeguards: “for the purpose of this subsection, three or more years’ service is deemed to be a full term.” The word “more” is no mere drafting flourish—it is deliberate constitutional genius. It declares that section 91(2), as the personal lifetime term-limit provision, imposes no rigid numerical ceiling. Subject to what is reasonable and justifiable in a constitutional democracy under section 95(2), service of four years, five years, six years, seven years, or even longer—once it exceeds the three-year threshold—is unequivocally deemed a complete term for the purpose of lifetime disqualification. This flexibility is not a loophole; it is a wise design that refuses to let the term-limit clause under section 91(2) become brittle or easily evaded. This open-ended “more” is anchored in section 91(2)’s harmonious relationship with section 95(2)(b), which defines the official electoral cycle of the Presidency as a permanent public institution whose five-year lifespan is inextricably intertwined with that of Parliament. Section 91(2) places an iron-clad personal disqualification on the individual; section 95(2) defines the dimensions of the highway itself. Crucially, section 95(2) is not a term-limit provision under subsections (1) and (7) of section 328. Unlike the referendum-protected personal term limit in section 91(2), it may be amended by Parliament under section 328(5) without a national referendum. This distinction is no accident; it is constitutional wisdom. It allows the institutional framework of the Presidency to evolve with the nation’s needs while the unbreakable personal lifetime bar on any single individual remains forever sacrosanct. All told, sections 91(2) and 95(2) differ in character and purpose—one limits the President, the other structures the public office or institution of the Presidency—yet they stand together as the Constitution’s twin guardians. This elegant complementarity keeps presidential power temporary, accountable, and forever subordinate to the sovereign will of the people through the institution or office of the Presidency. To respect and defend this relationship is to honour the very soul of the Constitution: ensuring that no individual can ever turn the highway into their driveway—turning the public office into a personal fiefdom—and that the highway of governance remains open, regularly renewed, and eternally in faithful service to the people of Zimbabwe. This is the promise the Constitution makes!

Prof Jonathan Moyo

13,203 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад

EXIT WOUND THEORY Charlie Kirk assassination. If this IS the EXIT WOUND and NOT the ENTRANCE, this theory is very plausible. This entire video brings up every crucial point to take into consideration with analysis if the shooter was behind Charlie. FBI Dir. Kash Patel even brought up the possibility of 2 or more shooters, and George Zinn alone should tell you that more people were involved along with the people in the crowd and Discord and all the social media posts before Charlie was shot. Recent possible theories and videos/information: - Shooter Tyler .30-06 straight on "Official story so far" - Video of Charlie's MIC on shirt possibly being an explosive device - Shooters located behind Charlie where we see a flash consistent with gun shot sound's timing. - Possible shooters located and seen on other building roof tops before the shot. - Other possible shooter location behind Charlie near area where flash is caught and by stairwell - Video of projectile caught in front of Charlie coming from crowd, then seen past Charlie which lines up in a perfect horizontal line for a moving projectile. - Videos of security team possibly grabbing projectile or some sort of evidence on table in front of Charlie and passing something off to each other right after Charlie is shot. - Cameras were all taken down immediately by Charlie's crew after shot. - Man named Russell Kennington wearing scrubs and doctors over coat breaking into Charlie crime scene, specifically the WOODBURY building, charged for trespassing - Weird Hollywood connection to the movie "Snake Eyes" "Charles Kirkland, September 10th, shot in neck, etc." - GEORGE ZINN, who yelled that he k*lled Charlie immediately after Charlie was shot and "Shoot Me," also was at 9/11, Boston bombing? And called in a bomb threat at other event - No video of Tyler Robinson taking the sho, in the prone position, or with the weapon in-hand, as we know of, just running off the roof - Original description of shooter was all black tactical gear with mask and headgear? - New witness description of shooter matched original sighting in black tactical gear, said he saw him then with a mask, reminded him of someone foreign, saw him sprint away, considered him young, and saw weapon, said it was not the gun the FBI claimed it was but smaller, maybe a .223 caliber and the gun maybe being a HORNADY V-MAX or similar light weight .223. - Video of random person with police badge on shirt and takes it off as soon as he realizes he's on camera. - HUNTER KOZAK, who asked Charlie the last "CUE" question about TRANS SHOOTERS is also part of a far left group tied to the streamer DESTINY who's group goes to different conservative and TPUSA events to harass the members and Charlie across the country. Tied to other radical groups and trans community, fury community. - TWIGGS has disappeared, random people with out of state license plates showed up to his and TYER ROBINSON'S HOUSE days before shooting, "Did not look friendly. TWIGGS connected to trans community and fury community. - Social media and DISCORD group connections, multiple people online posted clear messages that showed they had prior knowledge that Charlie was going to be shot. - Ballistics show a human neck would not stop a .30-06. Also backed by multiple real world snipers and hunter. A .30-06 can and will shatter ELK BONE at 500 yards. go through 3/8 thick steel plates, etc. Ballistics also showed a .30-06 round also traveled 23 and 3/8" inches worth of penetration through a solid block of ballistics gel. That's almost 2 feet of penetration before the bullet stopped. - No gun seen in Tyler pants. - Utah Valley University safe house located next to where and near where Tyler's alleged Rifle was found by the FBI. There is so much more information, but what I will tell you is that this investigation is far from over and the FBI is NOT releasing more information because of it. After all info is released we can hopefully come up with a solid conclusion. Please add any important info I missed in the comments that you believe are relevant and important to this case and finding the truth. God Bless Charlie Kirk. cc: PBD Podcast

The SCIF

507,018 просмотров • 1 год назад

She did not lose the battle... she became a legend. A cinematic duel where every strike matters, ending in a breathtaking butterfly transformation Created using GPT Image 2 for consistent character design and Seedance 2.0 for cinematic motion, all brought together on Renoise Canvas What would you choose—Water or Butterflies? Prompt: WHEN SHE BECOMES THE BUTTERFLIES 30 Seconds • 16:9 ENVIRONMENT LOCK Open grassy hilltop at golden hour transitioning into deep indigo twilight. Rolling yellow-green grass, strong wind, no buildings or other characters. PART 1 — THE CONFRONTATION (0:00–0:15) P01 Both warriors stand fifteen meters apart. Low-angle 85mm. She adopts a genuine combat stance while he raises his water sword. Butterflies and water slowly gather. P02 He lunges first with a horizontal slash. She sidesteps, parries, immediately counters with a fast slash. Sparks, water and butterflies explode at blade contact. P03 She launches an aggressive three-hit sword combination. He blocks while retreating before creating a towering water column. She vaults over it using the momentum. P04 Mid-air duel. Five rapid sword clashes. Butterflies and water collide with every strike. She flips away after kicking off his blade. P05 She lands into a low slide, attacks his legs, transitions into upward and reverse slashes. He blocks with a curved wall of rushing water. P06 Both charge directly toward each other. She thrusts forward while he delivers an overhead strike. Their weapons lock inches from the camera. Freeze on her blazing green eyes and glowing lightsaber tip. PART 2 — THE CLIMAX (0:15–0:30) IMPORTANT: Begin from the exact frozen last frame of Part 1 with identical camera, pose, lighting, expressions and sword positions before motion resumes. P07 Their blades collide violently. Close-quarters sword lock. She twists free and launches a rapid counterattack while water and butterflies burst across the frame. P08 Fast sword exchange. She unleashes a relentless five-hit combination. He blocks and counters using rotating water currents. Every strike has realistic weight and purpose. P09 She performs her strongest attack, creating an enormous storm of iridescent butterflies that completely engulfs the battlefield. He disappears inside the butterfly cloud. P10 Bird's-eye view. Butterfly vortex surrounds her. He calmly finds an opening and lands one perfectly timed thrust through the vortex. Silence. She smiles peacefully. P11 The wound glows. Her body gently dissolves from the feet upward into thousands of real iridescent butterflies. Her lightsaber transforms into butterflies. Her smiling face disappears last as soft laughter echoes across the hill. P12 The Water Duelist stands alone beneath the indigo sky. His sword lowers. One butterfly lands on his fingertip. He smiles gently. The camera cranes upward as thousands of butterflies drift into the sky. Fade to black. #RenoiseChallenge

Shami

323,518 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

Carney punishes Albertans again with failed trade negotiations Alberta celebrated its 121st birthday as a province on September 1, after it was created by splitting a proposed mega-province, which would have been known as Buffalo, into what we now know as Alberta and Saskatchewan. Sheila Gunn Reid joined Ezra Levant on Tuesday's episode of The Ezra Levant Show for an in-depth conversation on all things Alberta to mark the occasion. The conversation started with the good news first. Alberta was projected to run a $9 billion deficit this year, but instead, the province pulled an $11 billion turnaround and posted a $2 billion surplus — its sixth consecutive budget surplus. The provice allso created 91,000 jobs last year, more than half of the roughly 180,000 jobs created across the entire country. "Things are good here in Alberta," Sheila said. "But they're good here in spite of the federal government and not in any way because of Confederation." Ezra then shifted to a New York Times report, saying he had to learn from an American news outlet, rather than a Canadian one, about Mark Carney's apparent offer to revive the Keystone XL pipeline as part of trade negotiations with the U.S. — only to then walk away from a deal at the last moment. Premier Danielle Smith, speaking at a press conference that Rebel News reporter Angelica Toy attended, said she had explicitly told the prime minister he had her full support to pledge additional barrels — another million or two million barrels a day — as a way of bridging the divide and closing the deal. Carney, it would seem, did not take her up on the offer. "Just walked away from $30 billion a year," Ezra said, "and I think it's because Brookfield doesn't have a share in it and the Liberal government doesn't have a cut of it. So they can't really praise themselves like they do when they give away every dollar in public investments." Sheila said the pipeline is a shared interest, "something that Alberta wants, but it's also something the Americans want." "It was an easy win in these negotiations and Carney took it off the table. Danielle Smith has explicitly said, 'You will not use Canadian energy as a bargaining chip. We don't want it. We're not going to hurt people on both sides of the border by doing this.' And yet Mark Carney, as an affront to the Western premiers, decided to use it as a bargaining chip anyway. It's such disrespect to us," she said. The failure to complete Keystone XL is one of many, as Ezra detailed, pointing to projects like the Trans Mountain, Northern Gateway and Energy East proposals. Each was privately funded, but each was killed before being completed, with the Liberals ultimately nationalizing the Trans Mountain pipeline for a cost of $35 billion. "The Liberals destroyed a hundred billion dollars of oil pipeline wealth and a quarter of a trillion dollars of oil wealth," Ezra said. "And Venezuela's going to fill up those U.S. refineries," he added, following a major announcement from the two countries this week. Carney, Sheila said, "used the oil patch as a weapon." In the end, "the only people who were punished were Albertans. So maybe Carney doesn't think of it as a failure." Alberta "could be like Dubai" if the province wanted to be, Sheila said, "but we're shackled to this anchor called Confederation." FULL REPORT by Sheila Gunn Reid:

Rebel News

21,639 просмотров • 22 дней назад

🚨 EXPLOSIVE: American Trans Woman MELTS DOWN on George Galloway in SHANGHAI for Saying He’s “Socially Conservative Yet Economically Radical” Like the CCP — His Ice-Cold, Uninterrupted Response Exposes the West’s Collapsing Overton Window! 🔥 This just happened in Shanghai, China. George Galloway — former British MP, seven-time Parliamentarian, and leader of the Workers’ Party — was speaking at a night school. He described his politics as socially conservative but economically radical, explicitly comparing aspects of his values to those of the CCP. An American trans woman in the audience erupted, interrupting loudly, accusing him of pushing the Overton Window “over the edge,” labeling his comments transphobic, and claiming they feed into harm and violence against trans people in the West. The exchange turned heated as she kept interrupting and raising her voice. I caught the powerful conclusion: Galloway’s calm, uninterrupted rebuttal below. This is the clash of civilizations in real time 🇺🇸🇬🇧 vs 🇨🇳🇰🇵 🇺🇸🇬🇧🇦🇺🇩🇪🇫🇷: In the West, merely stating that sex is biological and immutable — or that one can be left-wing on economics while rejecting gender ideology — is now treated as literal violence by activists. The Overton Window has shifted so extremely that basic reality is “hate.” 🇨🇳: Meanwhile, in China (and most of the non-Western world), these positions are mainstream common sense. China’s approach to gender/sex: • Legal sex changes require documented gender-affirming surgery + strict medical/psychological criteria (typically age 20+, years of documented dysphoria, psychiatric evaluation, often unmarried status). Self-ID does not exist. • No puberty blockers or medical transitions for minors. • Schools and media do not affirm gender identity as separate from biological sex. • Activism and Pride events that disrupt social harmony and cultural norms face censorship and crackdowns. Galloway’s “socially conservative” stance on sex and gender aligns far more with Chinese policy and global majority views than with Western progressive orthodoxy. Billions of people on Earth still operate on the understanding that men cannot become women. The accusation that stating biological facts “feeds violence” is the ultimate projection. In reality, the West’s rapid shift — self-ID policies, males in female sports/prisons/spaces, medicalization of confused youth — has created its own documented harms (sports fairness losses, safety incidents in prisons, Cass Review-style evidence on youth interventions leading to restrictions in multiple countries). This moment in Shanghai is bigger than one heated exchange. It shows: 1. Western gender ideology is not universal — it’s a cultural export that looks increasingly alien abroad. 2. The Overton Window in the West has been dragged so far left that even a lifelong socialist like Galloway gets called “extreme” for holding views shared by most humans historically and globally. 3. As multipolar powers like China rise, the West’s ability to enforce its cultural dogmas shrinks. Galloway’s synthesis (radical economics + cultural realism) may be the future of effective left politics. The interrupter brought Western activism tactics to China… and discovered the rest of the world doesn’t play by those rules. Video of Galloway’s response below 👇 What do YOU think? Was this “transphobia” or just a Western activist encountering reality outside the bubble? RT if the world needs to see this clash. Constructive feedback is welcomed! 🙏 #GeorgeGalloway #Shanghai #OvertonWindow #China #TransDebate #FreeSpeech #WorkersParty

𝐒𝐇𝐎𝐖𝐓𝐘𝐌𝐄 🇨🇳🇺🇸⚜️

37,212 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

🔥#VEVE "Where's Rhys?", "Why Are The Ecomi YouTube Videos Deleted?", and "What's Happening With OMI & OUP?" are 3 major concerns from the community, so we asked David Yu ⭕️ exactly that. 💎A couple takeaways: 👩‍💻 In the past when the team was smaller, Rhys as the community manager focusing on OMI might have been the go-to person for the token & OUP, however, now that they have a team dedicated to OMI & OUP, the implementations and communications will be handled in a more structured manner. Long story short, Rhys's still with the company, but keep in mind he's not the sole person for OMI. Ecomi/Veve will let us know if there's a new community manager. 🎛️ As all teams in VeVe/ECOMI grow (current in the phase of growing 70 to 300 employees, we should appreciate this fact because other NFT platforms are shutting down while VeVe's growing strong), everyone's tied to KPIs and deliverables in a corporate way & anyone can be replaced to make sure the company always have talent and capability to get things done. 🍎 Besides regulatory issues, the company has to respect Apple's restriction on in-app crypto transaction and hence they can't circumvent that and risk being delisted from the App Store. Therefore OMI transactions on the VeVe mobile app (and again, this is just OMI transactions in the mobile app) will have to wait. 🌎 My understanding is: because of that, the team that work on OMI & its utilities will focus more on a/ Non-transactional features for mobile app, for now, because of Apple's policy. I assume this might be staking and points, etc. The web app will obviously get more implementations due to more freedom. I hope Apple green lights crypto soon because that would certainly help. b/ Utilities for OMI in VeVeVerse. c/ Incorporating OUP to complement MCP to create an integrated loyalty program. My take: I really appreciate David's sharing these important notes on OMI and OUP and how the teams are growing, but we need to get more OMI updates more often. Example: VeVe ships new in-app updates, big or small, every 2 weeks, meanwhile we haven't heard anything from the Ecomi side for months. Also, as VeVe gets a dedicated blog site, Ecomi loses content (the YouTube videos). I'd be happy with just something on a monthly basis. We have seen a significant change in VeVe updates after Mitch and Nestor started, they also communicate frequently with the community, we need the new Mitch(s) and Nestor(s) on the OMI side, shipping utilities and talking about them. It was good to know there is a team working on utilities instead of just one or 2 people and a plan, and challenges including regulations and Apple's restriction on crypto transaction, but many of the VeVe fam (myself included) learned about OMI first and used that as a gateway for VeVe, so having some utilities for OMI would certainly help bringing awareness to VeVe and the whole ecosystem. What do you think, guys?

WillGoesMeta ⭕️

12,545 просмотров • 3 лет назад

I wanted to explain to the broader transgender community what happened that ultimately made me leave the "true trans" HBS social circle. Some people have expressed interest in hearing this story, and I do think it's worth discussing because of the social and group psychology dynamics that were at play. That said, this will be as far as I go in publicly discussing the situation. Where to start? The reality is that this eventually became a situation where it was Brianna Wu, Marzi, Allysa, and Willow versus myself. The events leading up to the actual breaking point are important. After Willow broke up with me, she told me that I was not the ideal version of a transsexual. In particular, she told me that, using the antiquated HBS scale, I wasn't a Transsexual VI, but more like a IV or V. The reasoning largely came down to the fact that I had different opinions from the rest of the group on issues such as stealth. The rest of the group found my views offensive. This opened the door to what I came to understand as legitimacy testing. This isn't unique to trans spaces either. It involved the systematic questioning of virtually every aspect of my life: my transition, my dysphoria, how I grew up, my experiences, and what I value today. To give you an idea of how extreme it became, Marzi seriously asked me whether I had only pursued SRS to satisfy a sexual fetish. This was after learning that I had been capable of having sex prior to transition. Apparently, that fact alone was enough to cast suspicion on my entire transition history. This legitimacy testing continued for roughly two and a half weeks. Every day. For most of the day. It became increasingly distressing and isolating. And remember, at this point, I was emotionally dependent on these people. The day everything finally came to a head started with a discussion about transgender women in sports. Brianna entered the group chat and asked if any of us would be willing to debate Blaire White on the issue. People immediately began sharing their positions. As the only former NCAA athlete in the group, I chimed in and stated that I supported transgender women participating in women's sports and that it was not an issue I was willing to move on. That triggered a cascade of responses. I was repeatedly told that the issue was insignificant, that it only affected a tiny number of people, and that sports were ultimately just a hobby. I pushed back. I tried explaining that NCAA athletes are not hobbyists. Their sport is often their entire life. They spend years training, watching film, practicing, traveling, competing, and structuring their entire identity around performance. I also tried explaining that sports had been the medium through which I survived to adulthood. School was not safe for me. Home was not safe for me. The track was. Track and field was the one place in my life where I felt safe, valued, and understood. My relationship with sports was deeply personal. Yet every time I tried explaining this, I was met with the same response: "It's just a hobby." They genuinely did not seem to understand. Eventually, I decided to show them a video of Yaroslava Mahuchikh breaking the women's high jump world record. I wanted them to see what elite competition actually looks like. I wanted them to understand the pressure, the emotion, the adrenaline, and what it means to dedicate your life to something. High jump was my best event. I explained how, at the end of a meet, all eyes are on you. Entire stadiums can clap rhythmically to help carry you over the bar. The pressure is immense. And honestly? I lived for that feeling. So I showed them the video. They dismissed it entirely. Then Brianna commented that when she was in high school, she was simply focused on fitting in and being one of the girls. Immediately afterward, Marzi told me that being a competitive athlete was "male-coded." That was my wake-up call. In that moment, I suddenly snapped out of everything. I realized what had been happening to me psychologically. I realized this was no longer a discussion. This was an attempt to socially discipline me into conformity. It was another attempt to reshape my views and my identity to fit within the group's expectations. For the first time, they had collided with something I was unwilling to surrender. An immovable force had met an immovable object. Sports were not just a hobby to me. Track and field helped me survive. It shaped my values. It shaped my sense of pride in myself. It shaped who I became as a person. Those experiences and values were not something I was willing to compromise on. The "male-coded" comment affected me more deeply than I can adequately explain. By that point, I had become so emotionally dependent on these people that comments like that carried the implicit message that I did not belong. That I was an outsider. That I was somehow less of a woman. The experience left me feeling suicidal. I drove to my local riverfront park to ground myself and reflect on how I had ended up in that position. The following day, I removed myself from the group entirely and publicly called out what had happened. Willow attempted to reframe my lived experiences in private messages. Brianna attempted to downplay the situation and position herself as a motherly or managerial figure trying to bring everyone back together. I wanted no part of it. The weeks of legitimacy testing, the constant questioning of my transition, the attacks on a core part of my identity, and the repeated implication that I was somehow a man ultimately took a tremendous toll on me. Unfortunately, my therapist and psychiatrist believe it contributed to what has become a trauma response. Today, I struggle at times with tunnel vision, sensory overload, shaking, racing thoughts, a racing heart, and panic attacks. I'm working closely with my care team to recover and return to equilibrium. I share this story because I think it highlights how powerful social and group dynamics can be. No one sat me down and brainwashed me. What happened was far more subtle. When your entire social world becomes concentrated in one place, the pressure to conform can become overwhelming. It can make you doubt your own judgment. It can make you question your own experiences. And if left unchecked, it can leave very real psychological scars. This will be the last time I discuss the inner workings of that group publicly. I will simply note that many neutral observers witnessed these events unfold in real time and have since independently acknowledged that they occurred. Also, please, for the sake of my health, please don't try to liken my experiences to leopards. I'm aware of what it looks like, but that's not helpful to me at this moment. So, I beg you, please reserve that kind of talk. Bonus: The video that I attempted to show them. Please watch it. It gives me tears of joy for the athlete in question. It's something we all live for to experience. And she did it at the highest level.

Jenna Taylor ♀️

30,472 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

I’ll donate $1US for each 10 replies/likes/retweets of this post (up to $750) + $1 for every $1 you donate for Wild Hornet attack drones for Ukraine (up to another $750) by August 10, 12 pm (EST) The Wild Hornets team seeks $30,000 to buy 50 large-size 10-inch drones (carrying 3 kg of armour-busting explosives) by mid next week Donate via PayPal to this email address: [email protected] High-performing Wild Hornets are the only drone chosen for fundraising support by well-known Ukrainian military journalist and anti-corruption activist Yuri Butusov and his Цензор.НЕТ ✍️ news site Wild Hornets 🐝 drones are custom-made by Ukrainian volunteers, solely funded by donations and preferred by many crack Ukrainian units over commonly used drones, such as the Mavic 3. They: 💥 carry up to 6x more explosives, including anti-tank munitions 💥 fly 3x faster 💥 cost 1/8th of the price 💥 are more resistant to enemy electronic warfare and signal location 💥 can serve in kamikaze, munition-dropping and recon functions (Mavics can only drop hand grenades and do recon) 💥 are highly customizable to each unit’s different needs (unlike Mavics, which come preassembled) 💥 are made out of readily obtained spare parts, and as a result aren't as vulnerable to border holdups or China's moves to stop sales to Ukraine Send me a screenshot of your donation by direct message or in the replies to qualify for my matching donation And please 🙏 boost this post! (A reply is apparently the most effective way, according to Twitter algorithms) "Drones are the game changer of this war, they are the determining factor for victory": Ukrainian veteran and volunteer Maria Berlinska "Whoever has more drones wins" Fundraising in July raised $54,000 (including over $10,000 from you nice folks!) for 120 Wild Hornets for some of Ukraine’s most elite and famed units in the counteroffensive, including: 🇺🇦 special forces and HUR military intelligence operators 🇺🇦 3rd, 5th and Separate Presidential Bridages 🇺🇦 International Legion 🇺🇦 120th Recon Battalion's famed Asgard unit In the video: Asgard, working with the 3rd, 24th and 28th Brigades, used Wild Hornets (costing $400 each and bought partly with your donations) Friday on the Bakhmut axis to demilitarize: 🔥 T-90 tank (worth $4-$7 million) 🔥 T-72 ($1-$2 million) 🔥 howitzer 🔥 Ural truck Read more about Wild Hornets and Цензор.НЕТ ✍️'s fundraisers for them in my Kyiv Post story: 🎥 Here's the Separate Presidential Brigade using Wild Hornets (your donations at work again) to knock out two T-72s Sunday on the south (Tavriya) front: I'll post a screenshot of my donation after August 10, 12 pm -- or sooner if we get to $1,500 before! Your donations for drones are vital to free Ukraine and save its soldiers' lives. Most drones at the front come from donations (including from the troops themselves) and volunteer procurement, innovation and homespun production in living rooms, basements and offices Ukraine has limited (albeit growing) capacity to mass produce drones, while its Western alllies have yet to build much production of their own and have been painfully slow to act on the fact that drones have become central to war since the invasion of Ukraine Ukrainian kamikaze drones are responsible for 40% of Russian losses during the counteroffensive: Without recon drones to find and target the enemy, Ukraine would need up to four times more artillery munitions and 60% more guns, as Seth Cropsey, former US Navy deputy undersecretary, wrote Sunday in the Wall Street Journal #Ukraine #UkraineCounteroffensive #Bakhmut #UkraineRussianWar #UkraineWillWin #Russia #Zaporizhzhia

🇺🇦Ukraine Resists ruzzian Genocide... Yeah Again

55,269 просмотров • 3 лет назад

Today, I'm doing something different. If you want the short version, watch the video below. Nearly five years ago, J.K. Rowling wrote an infamous tweet. It began: "Dress however you please. Call yourself whatever you like." She continued: "Sleep with any consenting adult who’ll have you. Live your best life in peace and security. But force women out of their jobs for stating that sex is real?" It took off like wildfire. At the time, Rowling's words suggested that pushback against transgender people/policies was not rooted in presentation, or even one's individual conceptualization of their identity. Her issue lie with the intersection of personal identity and policy, and was further inflamed by the cancel culture that engrossed social justice political dissenters. Perhaps she had a point. I didn't entirely know what to make of it. In some respects, I still don't. But her words made me think. After a few years, an unanswered question lingered in my mind. Is what Rowling describes a solution to growing gender identity dissent? Is there a lifestyle that a transgender individual could embody that would be 'acceptable' to these dissenters, or is their dissent just a veil for true contempt and disdain for those who cross gender boundaries? I projected that question upon myself. Was there a version of myself that—by accepting certain concessions—might pass muster and find acceptance amid dissenters? Was some give-and-take by transgender people all that was needed to de-escalate our growing dissent and toxic discourse? Many progressives, including many transgender people, told me the answer was an unequivocal 'No'. I was told that gender criticals/anti-woke/conservatives/[insert favourite polarizing label here] just hate transgender people and were wholly disingenuous in their concerns. I was told that their 'concerns' were mere dog whistles used to prop up their hate for the gender diverse. I wasn't convinced... in part because I appreciated some of their concerns. I knew I needed to learn more. So, I did the only thing I knew how to do. I followed my curiosity and spent the last two years amid the individuals who were purportedly out for my blood. I connected deeply within gender critical circles, listening, learning, and trying to make sense of the intersection of gender criticality, transgender experiences, and liberalism. I sought out solutions that might temper our ever-growing toxic discourse. I learned a lot and I had the most inspiring conversations of my life. And I made some of the most genuine friendships of my lifetime. As it turns out, it's very humanizing to know someone who thinks differently than you. Thousands of people shared with me the impact I imparted to them, as I was often the first transgender person they had ever known and befriended. These friendships were humanizing for me as well, bringing a new perspective to social conservative worldviews that I hadn't previously appreciated. For those who truly held no disdain towards transgender people, I embodied precisely what they had been preaching. In tune with Rowling's call, I called myself Julia and dressed from the women's side of Target, but I held no expectations of language, pronouns, or any form of affirmation. I steered clear of any space that might even plausibly be considered a women 's segregated space, be it a washroom, a changeroom, an association or a sports league. I embodied the model transgender person that many gender criticals profess is the solution to our unrest surrounding gender identity. I've been told thousands of times that if other transgender people were like me, then all of our issues would go away. And that is where things got interesting... because for quite a few years, gender-critical communities have been forming amid common concerns of various transgender accommodations and policies. For people in these communities who held no contempt toward a trans identity, I was a key ally. To them, I was living evidence that the balance they wished to achieve in transgender policy surrounding medical transition or education or compelled speech or spaces could be embodied by a transgender person. But I unwittingly became a wedge in gender-critical communities. As it turned out, there are plenty of gender-critical individuals whose convictions go far beyond mere policy concerns. These people hold tremendous contempt and disdain for transgender people. I faced bigotry and hatred firsthand. Until a transgender person comes into the gender critical community, those who saw might see me as an ally and those enraged by my existence were often indistinguishable, even to those within various communities. But the moment I would arrive on the scene, waves would form and the motivational divide would become evident. There's something rather unsettling about watching factions form and friendships fall apart merely because you entered a conversation. I cannot overstate the love and acceptance I found amid gender-critical individuals. Many amid these circles are just tired of being labelled anti-trans ad nauseam merely for expressing policy concerns. But I also cannot overstate how surreal it is to face individuals—in many cases with international attention upon them—reign down on you directly and personally in the most dehumanizing ways I've ever encountered. On more than a few occasions I experienced the machination of anti-trans pushback in full force. There were days I received dozens of tweets that launched personal attacks against my appearance or derided my likeness in grotesque manners. There were also days when I received thousands. Death theats, stalkers, invasions on my family's personal privacy. I encountered it all. On a few occasions I also experienced the machination of trans-activist pushback. I came to realize something: on the extremity of this polarizing issue, both sides can behave just as poorly. It was enlightening to watch the extent to which people would mischaracterize me, selectively crafting what I would write to frame me in the worst possible light imaginable. It was even more enlightening to watch opposing sides do this simultaneously—each fixated on casting me as a demon of the enemy they had come to fixate upon. I suppose that's what extremism does. To the vocal extreme of the transgender activist camp, I was a gender critical: a grifter uncancelling gender criticals by lending transgender credibility. To the vocal extreme of the gender critical camp, I was no different than any other transgender activist. Regardless of my position on social transition in school, compelled speech or space usage, nothing could undo that I unapologetically defy sex-role norms which—for many—was always the underlying issue. I observed that both 'sides' cast me as their 'other', while neither side embraced a member. I suspect that's in part because the 'side' I align with are the views that resonate with mostly everyone who isn't in the trenches of these politics. The side my views represent aligned most closely with the 90% of our population who are not beholden to either extreme on gender politics. My major takeaway from my past two years: that the vast majority of people want a world where transgender people can exist and thrive, where language isn't compelled but people are kind to one another, and where the intersections of gender norms and physical reality are thoughtfully balanced. They want an education system that recognizes the role of the parent as an ideological steward but also holds good safeguards both to intervene in truly abusive situations and provides adequate psychological support for any child experiencing psychological distress. That sounds hard, and it's near impossible when your sounding board is the groupthink at either extreme. I feel incredibly fortunate to have been afforded the opportunity to hold so many powerful friendships amid the liberal-loving middle that espouses the center-end of both factions. So what am I doing now? I am doing a new video series—possibly my last. In Gender for the Rest of Us, I'll be laying out what I've learned over the past two years about the solutions that bring us to a place of de-escalated discourse on gender. I'll attempt to be moderate through and through, though I should clarify that I don't mean 'Twitter moderate' or 'gender critical moderate' or 'trans activist moderate'. I mean regular, run-of-the-mill, moderate that resonates with those who truly want to balance transgender rights with those of everyone else. What I'll be putting forward in this series is my best attempt at finding solutions—real solutions—that maintain all tenets of liberalism: equality, individual liberty, individual rights, pluralism, toleration, autonomy, bodily integrity and consent. If you find yourself on either extreme of this divide, you probably won't like much of what I have to say. That's probably for the best because solutions don't like on the extremes. In a nutshell: This series is the essay I've promised to more than a few politicians outlining how we might de-escalate gender matters. Sorry it's taken so long. Politics are exhausting. Thank you to everyone (on both sides of this complex conversation) who has engaged with me in thoughtful conversation over the past months and years. I've learned a lot and grown tremendously from the challenges people have put in front of me. Please keep the messages coming—I want to keep learning and growing! All the best, Julia

Julia Malott

13,277 просмотров • 2 лет назад

A wild bobcat. Cold, open water. A body that was never built for this. This is an animal that can kill a deer. The water was about to beat it anyway. Watch the video first. Then read on. What happens in the final seconds is the reason I can't stop thinking about it. . Some clips you watch. Some clips you feel in your chest for an hour afterward. This is the second kind, and I want to explain exactly why, because once you understand what you are actually looking at, you will never watch it the same way again. This is a long one. Every section ends with something that makes the next one worth it. Stay with me. . 01 // THE COLDEST MATH IN THE WILD Let's start with something nobody tells you about water. Water is a thief. It pulls heat out of a living body up to 25 times faster than air at the same temperature. Not a little faster. Twenty-five times. It is the reason a cold day is uncomfortable and a cold swim is an emergency. Now put that math on an animal wearing a fur coat. Fur works because of what is trapped inside it: air. Thousands of tiny pockets of warm air held against the skin. The air is the insulation. The hair is just the scaffolding that holds it in place. Soak that coat and the air is gone. What was a winter jacket becomes a wet towel wrapped around the body. It is heavy. It drags. It bleeds heat at the exact moment the animal can least afford to lose it. And swimming is not free. A cat does not swim the way an otter swims. Otters are engineered for it: dense waterproof fur, webbed feet, a body shaped like a torpedo. A bobcat is engineered for something completely different. Every stroke burns fuel it does not have, while every second in the water drains the fuel it already has. That is the trap. Heat goes out. Energy goes out. Nothing comes in. In humans, the first minute in cold water triggers what physiologists call the cold shock response: a gasp reflex, a spike in heart rate, panicked breathing. Then comes the slow part, where muscles and nerves cool down and stop doing what you tell them. Animals do not get an exemption from physics. Bodies are bodies. Survival experts who study cold water use a simple frame for humans, the 1-10-1 rule. One minute to get your breathing under control after the initial shock. Ten minutes of meaningful muscle function before your limbs start refusing orders. About an hour before hypothermia becomes the real threat to life. Now shrink the body. A smaller body has more surface area for its mass, which means it sheds heat faster. Those human numbers are a generous best case. For a 20-pound animal, the clock runs quicker. So when you see a wild animal in water it did not choose, you are not looking at a swimmer. You are looking at a countdown. Here is the part that should bother you: the animal does not know it is a countdown. It only knows that it has to keep moving, and that stopping is not an option, and that there is nothing solid anywhere. Hold that thought. Because the next thing I am going to tell you is why this particular animal is the last one you would expect to be in that position. . 02 // THE "BIG HOUSE CAT" LIE Somewhere along the way, someone decided a bobcat is basically a large housecat with attitude. Somebody was wrong. Let's do the numbers. A typical house cat weighs 8 to 10 pounds. Most adult bobcats land somewhere between 15 and 30 pounds, with big males pushing past that. That is two to three times the mass, and none of it is soft. It is wire and spring: long hind legs built to launch, shoulders built to hold, claws that retract and reset like a trap. By widely cited estimates, a bobcat can cover roughly 10 feet in a single leap. That is not a pounce. That is a projectile. It hunts the way the best hunters do: by being patient past the point where patience seems reasonable. It picks a spot. It goes still. It waits, sometimes for a very long time, until the world arranges itself into a single clean opportunity. Then it ends the situation in a second. Rabbits and hares are the staple. Mice, voles, squirrels, birds. But here is the detail that changes how people talk about them: bobcats have been documented taking down deer, animals much larger than themselves, particularly in harsh winters when deer are weakened. Think about what that means. This is a creature that routinely wins fights against animals that outweigh it. It has ear tufts that scientists still argue about. It has a ruff of fur around the face like a lion in miniature. It has a stubby tail, four to seven inches long, that gave the animal its name. It has a spotted coat that is essentially camouflage for dappled light, and, useful fact, the spot pattern is different from one animal to the next, which is how researchers identify individuals on trail cameras. And it has a voice. Purrs, hisses, growls, and a night scream that has been mistaken for a human in distress by people who did not know what they were hearing. So this is who we are talking about. Not a pet. Not a pushover. One of the most efficient small predators on the continent. Which is what makes the situation in this video so strange. Because everything I just told you about strength, speed and pride goes quiet when the ground disappears. . 03 // THE ANIMAL YOU HAVE PROBABLY WALKED PAST Here is a fact that should feel a little unsettling. Bobcats are one of the most widespread wild cats in North America. Their range stretches across the lower 48 states, into southern Canada, and down into Mexico. Forests, swamps, deserts, mountains, the ragged edges of suburbs. They are adaptable in a way that very few predators are. And yet most people, including people who have lived their entire lives near them, have never seen one. That is not an accident. Bobcats are solitary, shy, and mostly active around dawn and dusk. They live in the margins. They move through your world at times you are not looking, and they have made avoiding you into an art form. A bobcat's entire survival strategy is to see you first and never be seen. Which means any video of one, let alone a close, unhurried, unguarded look at one, is rare. Wildlife photographers wait years for angles like this. Researchers set up cameras and come back to empty memory cards. Now think about what it takes for a wild bobcat and a human being to end up in the same small space, with the animal not running. The animal has to be in a situation where running is no longer possible. That should give you chills. Because it is not a heartwarming meeting. It is what happens when a very proud animal has run out of options. And what happens next is the part that does not add up, which is exactly where the next section starts. . 04 // THE PART THAT DOES NOT ADD UP Predators do not do calm. A wild animal's nervous system is a hair trigger. When something big and unfamiliar closes in, the body floods with adrenaline and cortisol, and the decision tree is short: fight, flee, or freeze. Every instinct it has been born with says a large, upright, two-legged creature is the most dangerous thing in the environment. So when a wild animal is calm around humans, there are only a few explanations, and none of them is "it decided to trust us." Sometimes the animal is habituated, meaning it has lived near people so long it has stopped treating them as a threat. Sometimes the animal is so depleted, cold, hurt or exhausted that its body has quietly shut down the option to fight. Biologists have a name for one version of this: tonic immobility, a kind of involuntary freeze in which an animal goes still and unresponsive when escape seems impossible. And sometimes it is a mix of all of it, in ways science is still working out. Here is the line I want you to remember, because it will save you from a lot of bad internet takes: Do not confuse calm with consent. Stillness is not friendship. A quiet animal is not a tame animal. And some of the most dramatic moments in wildlife rescue come not from the fight, but from the moment the body stops fighting and everyone has to figure out what that actually means. There is even a documented condition, capture myopathy, in which the sheer stress of being restrained can damage a wild animal's muscles and organs badly enough to kill it, sometimes hours or days after the event, with no visible wound at all. Handling stress is a real cause of death in wildlife work. That is why professionals move slowly, keep things dark and quiet, and treat every second of contact like it costs something. Which means that in a situation like this, the difference between a good outcome and a tragic one can be invisible to the naked eye. That is what makes the footage so tense to watch if you know what to look for. And I am going to tell you exactly what to look for. But not yet. First I need you to understand how unlikely it was that anyone was there at all. . 05 // NATURE HAS NO AUDIENCE Almost everything that happens in the wild happens unwatched. Think about that for a second. Billions of small emergencies, every single day. Animals slipping, trapped, lost, starving, stranded. A fawn separated from its mother. A bird with a broken wing. A predator that misjudged a jump by an inch. Almost none of it is ever witnessed by anyone. No camera. No rescuer. No witness. It simply happens, and then it stops, and the world continues as if nothing occurred. For a rescue to happen, a chain of things has to line up. Somebody has to be in the right place. Somebody has to be looking in the right direction. Somebody has to notice a small, wet, dark shape in a huge moving surface, and understand what it is. Somebody has to decide to act rather than say "huh" and keep going. And somebody has to actually know how to help without making it worse. Break any single link and the story ends before it starts. Every viral rescue video you have ever seen is a chain like that, where all the links happened to hold. I think that is why these clips hit differently than almost anything else online. They are not just proof that an animal survived. They are proof that the chain can hold. That in a world that mostly does not look, sometimes someone does. The cold math says this animal had little time. The odds say nobody should have been there. And yet. I keep circling that "and yet." . QUICK PAUSE Before we go deeper, a small experiment. Without scrolling back up, answer this in your head: how long was the animal in that water before anyone noticed? Got a number? Now hold it loosely. The truth about time in a moment like this is that it never feels like what it is. Seconds stretch. Minutes vanish. Nobody in a crisis has an accurate clock. Keep your number. We will come back to it. . 06 // WHY YOUR BRAIN CANNOT SCROLL PAST THIS Let's zoom out, because this is the part that fascinates me professionally. In 2012, two Wharton researchers, Jonah Berger and Katherine Milkman, studied thousands of New York Times articles to figure out what makes online content spread. Their finding was not what most people expected. Positivity helped, but what mattered even more was how much physical arousal a piece of content produced. Awe, anger and anxiety, all high-arousal emotions, made people share. Sadness, which is low-arousal, made people stop. Now look at a clip like this through that lens. It has anxiety: will the animal make it? It has awe: this is a wild predator, close enough to see the texture of its fur. It has relief, and something bigger than relief. Psychologist Jonathan Haidt has a word for that bigger thing: elevation. It is the warm, expanding feeling you get when you witness someone behaving with unexpected goodness. It is the emotion that makes people want to be better, to call their mother, to do something kind. It is exactly the kind of emotion that makes people hit share before they have even finished watching. And then there is the mechanism behind the hook itself. In 1994, the behavioral economist George Loewenstein described what he called the information gap theory of curiosity: curiosity is the discomfort of noticing a gap between what you know and what you want to know. The bigger the gap, and the closer you feel to closing it, the harder it is to look away. That is what I did in the first three lines of this post. I gave you a wild animal, a disaster, and an unanswered question. Your brain has been carrying that open loop ever since. You cannot un-notice it. You can only close it. That is not a trick. It is how attention has worked since the first campfire story. The only difference now is that the campfire fits in your pocket and never goes out. There is one more thing, and it may be the most important one. Animals do not perform. They cannot posture for a camera, hide their fear behind a joke, or spin the story afterward. Their reactions are uncut. In an internet made mostly of people curating themselves, a wild animal reacting honestly to a moment is about as authentic as content gets. And in a feed that is ninety percent outrage, ten percent ads, and the occasional argument about sandwiches, a clip that is about competence and kindness feels like finding cold water in a desert. So no, it is not weird that you cannot look away. It would be weirder if you could. . 07 // 15 BOBCAT FACTS THAT CHANGE HOW YOU SEE THE CLIP You now know what the water does and what the animal is. Here is the rest of the file, fast. 1. The scientific name is Lynx rufus. "Rufus" means reddish. The animal has been carrying a color-coded label for centuries. 2. It is the most common wild cat in North America, which makes how rarely people see one even more remarkable. 3. Bobcats are ambush hunters, not chasers. They win by patience, not by endurance. Long chases are not their thing, and long swims are definitely not their thing. 4. Yes, bobcats can swim, and they do it when they have to: crossing rivers, fleeing danger, following prey. But it is a tool of last resort, not a hobby. 5. Kittens are born in spring, usually in litters of two to four, and the mother raises them alone. Dad is not part of the picture. 6. A kitten's eyes open at around a week and a half old. It will stay with its mother for most of its first year before heading off to find a territory of its own. 7. Young bobcats leaving home can travel dozens of miles looking for a place to settle. That means young animals are the ones most likely to end up somewhere unfamiliar, in situations nothing in their short lives prepared them for. 8. Bobcats mark territory with scent, scrapes and scratched trees. Their world is written in a language we mostly cannot read. 9. When they cannot finish a meal, they often cover the leftovers with leaves, snow or debris and come back for it later. Forward planning, from a cat. 10. They climb trees and use them for escape and lookout. If a bobcat ever wanted to get out of a situation, vertical was its first idea. 11. Their ear tufts are still debated. Camouflage? Hearing? Communication? Nobody has a definitive answer, and I love that. 12. Bobcat and Canada lynx are cousins, not twins. Lynx have longer ear tufts, bigger paws for snow, and a fully black-tipped tail. A bobcat's tail is black only on top of the tip, like someone dipped a paintbrush and stopped halfway. 13. Coat color changes by region. Desert animals run pale and sandy. Northern animals run darker and grayer. Same species, different wardrobe. 14. A bobcat is not closely related to a cougar. It belongs to the Lynx genus. The cougar belongs to another. When people call it a "baby mountain lion," a biologist somewhere loses a year of their life. 15. In the wild, life is often short and hard. Many bobcats do not make it to ten years old. In captivity, they can live far longer. Which tells you what the wild costs, every single day, on top of everything else. Fifteen facts. One conclusion. Every one of these facts describes an animal built to survive. Which is exactly why watching one in trouble is so hard to forget. . 08 // SIX MYTHS ABOUT WILD CATS AND WATER Since we are here, let's clear up some things. MYTH 1: All cats hate water. FALSE. Tigers swim. Jaguars swim. Fishing cats literally dive for a living. The idea that cats are universally water-averse comes from house cats, and even that is a generalization. Plenty of wild cats are comfortable in water. It is not fear of water. It is that most cats do not choose it unless there is a reason. MYTH 2: If an animal can swim, it is safe in water. FALSE. Being able to swim and being able to survive in water are two different skills. Temperature, distance, current, exhaustion and time all matter. A strong swimmer can lose to cold long before it loses to drowning. MYTH 3: A tough predator does not need help. FALSE. Toughness is not immunity. Predators die of exposure, injury and exhaustion all the time. Being at the top of a food chain does not mean being at the top of every situation. MYTH 4: A calm wild animal is a friendly wild animal. FALSE. We covered this. Calm can mean cold, tired, hurt or in shock. It does not mean safe to touch. MYTH 5: Wild cats attack people constantly. FALSE. It is the opposite. Bobcats avoid people so well that many humans go a lifetime without seeing one. Encounters that end badly are extremely rare, and most involve an animal that is sick, cornered or handled. MYTH 6: Rescue is easy. FALSE. Rescue is the visible five percent. Underneath it are timing, knowledge, restraint, risk and an enormous amount of luck. Six myths. Not one of them survives contact with the footage. . 09 // THE SECOND HALF OF EVERY RESCUE Here is something the clips never show you. Getting the animal out is the first half of the story. The second half is quieter, slower, and matters just as much. When a wild animal ends up in professional hands, the priorities are almost the opposite of what your instincts tell you. Warmth, calm, darkness and silence come first. Then a medical check for injuries, dehydration and hypothermia. Then, if all goes well, recovery in a space where the animal sees as little of humans as possible. Yes, as little as possible. Good rehabilitators deliberately avoid cuddling, talking to, or bonding with wild patients, because an animal that gets comfortable around people is an animal that struggles to survive once it goes back out there. The goal is never a rescued pet. The goal is a released predator. And when it is possible, animals are often returned to the area where they were found, because that is the territory they know: the routes, the hiding places, the food, the neighbors. So the real happy ending of a wildlife rescue is not a hug. It is a door opening, and an animal walking through it without looking back. Hold on to that image. It will matter in a minute. . 10 // PLEASE DO NOT TRY THIS I am going to be blunt, because the comment section will not be. Every time a clip like this goes viral, thousands of people write some version of "I would have grabbed it too" or "I want to keep it." Please do not. A wild bobcat is not a pet. It is a wild predator with claws, teeth, and a nervous system built to treat contact as an attack. Even a small, exhausted, seemingly docile animal can injure a person badly in a fraction of a second. Bites and scratches from wildlife can carry infection. Rabies in bobcats is uncommon, but it is real, and that is not a gamble you take on a hunch. And as we covered, the danger runs both ways. The stress of being handled can hurt or kill a wild animal even when nobody meant it any harm. In many places it is also illegal to keep or transport wild animals without permits, which means the well-intentioned rescuer can end up in a legal mess and the animal can end up worse off. So what should you do if you ever find a wild animal in trouble? Keep your distance. Keep noise and movement low. Do not try to pick it up, feed it, or warm it up yourself. Call your local wildlife agency, animal control, or a licensed wildlife rehabilitator, and follow their instructions. They do this for a living. They know what the animal needs, and what it does not. Love wildlife the right way: at a distance, with respect, and through the phone number of someone qualified. The best rescue stories are the ones where the animal gets to go back to being wild. Which brings me to the ending. . 11 // HOW TO WATCH THIS VIDEO Here is my one request. Do not watch it on autopilot. Before you press play, decide what you think is going to happen. Make a prediction, honestly. Then watch, and see how wrong you were. Keep your eyes on the animal, not on the people. Watch the eyes. Watch the ears. Watch the moment the animal has to decide what it wants to do. Wildlife tells you everything if you know where to look, and it does not lie. Pay attention to the way the whole tone of the clip shifts as it goes on. The first seconds and the last seconds feel like two entirely different films. And carry these five questions with you while it plays: Why is a predator this strong not fighting? What does an animal like this actually feel in a moment like that? How many other animals never get this chance? What would you have done in that spot, honestly? And what is the very last thing the bobcat does? Only one of those has an answer you can see with your own eyes. And remember the door I mentioned, the one that opens and the animal that does not look back? Keep that picture in your head while you watch. See how close reality gets to it. And stay to the last frame. There is a reason I told you the ending matters. A second watch will show you things the first one hides. . 12 // THE THREE RULES EVERY WILDLIFE PROFESSIONAL LIVES BY If you spent a week with people who do this work for a living, you would hear the same three ideas over and over. Rule one: the animal comes before the story. Good professionals never put a camera ahead of the patient. The best footage in the world is worthless if it costs the animal something. Rule two: distance is a form of kindness. The closer you get, the more stress you add. The most respectful thing you can do for a wild animal is usually to do less, from farther away, and let it be what it is. Rule three: success means the animal does not need you anymore. Not gratitude. Not a bond. Not a photo with a cute caption. Success is independence. Notice how that flips the usual story. In most human stories, success is being needed. In wildlife, success is being forgotten. . 13 // IF YOU ONLY REMEMBER FIVE LINES Screenshot this if you want to. I would. 1. Water steals heat 25 times faster than air, and a wet coat stops working. 2. A bobcat is an ambush predator with the strength of an animal twice its size, and none of that helps when the ground disappears. 3. Do not confuse calm with consent. 4. Almost everything in nature happens unwatched. That is why the times someone looks matter so much. 5. The best ending to a wild rescue is an animal that walks away on its own. . 14 // THE REAL REASON I POSTED THIS We spend a lot of time online being told the world is getting worse. Sometimes it is. But there is another truth underneath, one that rarely trends: in a random moment, on an ordinary day, with no cameras and no audience and nothing to gain, someone looked, someone cared, and something wild got another chance. Remember the number you guessed earlier, the seconds or minutes in that water? It turns out it does not matter. What matters is that somebody noticed at all. That is the whole post. Not a miracle. Not a spectacle. Just a small, stubborn piece of evidence that the chain can hold. If it moved you even a little, that is not weakness. That is the part of you that still works. If this landed for you, here is what to do: Reply with one word for how you felt watching it. Just one. I read them. Repost it for the person in your life who says they do not care about animals. Watch what happens to their face. Bookmark this thread-that-is-not-a-thread for the next time your feed makes you tired of everything. And follow me if you want more clips that make you feel something real, plus the stories behind them, without the fluff. One last thing. You made it to the bottom of a very long post. That means something. It means you are the kind of person who stays for the ending. Now go back to the video, press play, and stay for the last frame. P.S. If you scrolled straight to the bottom to see how this ends: the video is attached to this post. The ending is in the video. Nothing I write can replace it, and I would not want it to. P.P.S. Drop your prediction in the replies before you press play: what does the bobcat do in the very last seconds? Then come back after and tell me how wrong, or how right, you were. I will pin my favorite.

Earth Unveiled

58,188 просмотров • 6 дней назад