I am living in sacrifice. I am not just getting by. I am suffering. Every day is a struggle to survive. I stretch every dollar. I rely on prayer and faith for things most people take for granted. I have no luxuries, no cushion, and no backup plan. I do not give up on people unless God makes it clear that I did all I was able and I can leave them in His hands. I do what I can to live honestly, simply, and with integrity before God. Luke 21:1-4 “As Jesus looked up, he saw the rich putting their gifts into the temple treasury. He also saw a poor widow put in two very small copper coins. ‘Truly I tell you,’ he said, ‘this poor widow has put in more than all the others.’” Not long ago, I was engaged to a man who claimed to share my faith, even though our beliefs differ. He spoke of God, commitment, and spiritual purpose. He encouraged me to start my GoFundMe campaign. I believed he was sincere. However, he never once shared it with his 1k friends list and followers. Was he embarrassed by my predicament? I believed he loved me with every promise he made. I did not know he would break those promises so easily. There were many signs and red flags I chose to ignore. Proverbs 27:6 “Wounds from a friend can be trusted, but an enemy multiplies kisses.” Recently, I saw something he posted. He bought a luxury car. A Chrysler 300C with a V8 engine. He said he wanted something luxurious to drive to conventions and family gatherings. The tone he uses is calm and justified on the surface, but the content is revealing. Saying “this is the last thing I will buy in this system” tries to make it sound spiritually grounded, yet he is clearly indulging in luxury under the guise of practicality and fellowship. Wanting a “luxury car” for conventions—religious gatherings meant to focus on humility and spiritual growth—directly contradicts biblical principles. I have no first hand knowledge of that model of car other than it is clearly not my style, and I would not want to ride in it based on its looks. It is too bulky looking for my taste., but I am sure many people enjoy the big flashy look!  His words made it clear. It was not about need. It was about appearance. He didn't say anything about safety, reliability, or function—it is clearly about image.   Within the context of a faith that emphasizes modesty and separation from worldly status, this feels performative—like he wants to be seen as successful or impressive, even in religious settings. That is  showing off, whether he admits it or not. Thank You God for continuing to show me this breakup was meant to be. 1 John 2:16 “For everything in the world—the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life—comes not from the Father but from the world.” This is a man who claims to follow a faith known for modesty and humility. Conventions are not fashion shows. Assemblies are not for showing off. But he wants to arrive in something impressive. That is not humility. That is pride. Proverbs 16:5 “The Lord detests all the proud of heart. Be sure of this: They will not go unpunished.” God showed me this. I did not want to see it. I did not want to believe it. But He made it clear. This man was not who he presented himself to be. I see now that I was spared. God removed someone from my life who says one thing, but lives another. Earlier this year, he purchased a Harley, perhaps another example of wanting to be seen. Good for him for fulfilling a lifelong dream. Yet, he broke promise after promise about a visit because he was not able to afford it. That is the truth I live with in my heart. 2 Timothy 3:5 “Having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with such people.” I did not lose something precious. I avoided something dangerous. I could have been tied to a life of contradiction, appearances, and empty faith. But God let it fall apart. That was not cruelty. That was protection. It is still difficult to let go, but God wants me to understand that yes, He brought us together, but not to remain together. It was a lesson. I am still suffering. But I am not deceived. I would rather have little and live in truth than have comfort built on hypocrisy. I know who I am. I know who God is. And I know He showed me what I needed to see. And even in heartbreak, that is a gift. Psalm 34:18 “The Lord is close to the brokenhearted and saves those who are crushed in spirit.” I began to notice traits in him that reflected narcissism. There was a pattern of self-focus, defensiveness, and a need to control the narrative. When I raised concerns, they were dismissed. When I was in pain, he redirected the conversation. He needed to be admired, not understood. He wanted attention, not accountability. Proverbs 18:2 “Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions.” Even then, I stayed. I believed in forgiveness. I believed growth was possible. I was willing to walk beside him if he was willing to grow. I made space for healing. I gave him grace. I gave him love. But growth never came. What I received in return was blame, silence, and emotional distance. The names he called me still echo through my heart. Thank You God for removing this man that was destroying my self confidence instead of building me up. Romans 12:10 “Be devoted to one another in love. Honor one another above yourselves.” People that show narcissistic traits thrive on control, performance and appearances. That is exactly what I see in his choices now. The car. The Harley. The public declarations. The image of a spiritual man, while living for praise and approval. The more people "like" his post, the more of a dopamine rush he feels . It is the same pattern. Nothing changed. Only I no longer have to bear the brunt of his choices. I vividly remember one conversation telling him if all he wants is a cheerleader, that is not me. He exploded. Matthew 23:27-28 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean. In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness.” God revealed it while we were together, and I still tried. I loved him through it. I prayed for him. I hoped for change. I hoped he would acknowledge his behaviors. But now I see that love was not enough. Healing begins with repentance. And repentance never came. James 4:6 “But he gives us more grace. That is why Scripture says: ‘God opposes the proud but shows favor to the humble.’” My heart is still hurting. I do not pretend that it is not. I loved deeply, and I let myself believe in something that did not last or even exist. But God has not abandoned me. He has been with me through the silence, the grief, and now the clarity. I do not know what is ahead, but I know I see him more clearly, not blinded by love. That is something I can carry with me, even if my heart is still learning to let go. Psalm 147:3 “He heals the brokenhearted and binds up their wounds.”

The Bible repeatedly warns you not to place too much value on worldly possessions. These scriptures teach you that material wealth is temporary, but spiritual riches last forever. Earthly things can be stolen, ruined, or lost—but treasures stored in heaven are eternal. When you chase wealth, it can pull your focus away from what really matters: a life centered on God, generosity, and compassion. Matthew 6:19–21 "Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moths and vermin destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moths and vermin do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also." This reminds you that whatever you treasure will eventually take hold of your heart. Lasting treasure is spiritual, not material. Luke 12:15 "Then he said to them, 'Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; life does not consist in an abundance of possessions.’" This is a clear warning to you: your life is not defined by what you own. Matthew 19:21–24 "Jesus answered, 'If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.' When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth. Then Jesus said to his disciples, 'Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.’" Jesus does not condemn wealth itself—but if you become too attached to it, it becomes much harder for you to follow God fully. Matthew 6:24 "No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money." This draws a firm line for you. You cannot divide your loyalty between God and wealth. Colossians 3:2 "Set your minds on things above, not on earthly things." You are called to focus on what lasts forever—not on what fades away. 1 John 3:17 "If anyone has material possessions and sees a brother or sister in need but has no pity on them, how can the love of God be in that person?" You show love by how you use what you have. If you ignore others in need, you are not walking in God’s love. 1 Timothy 6:10 "For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs." Money itself is not evil—but if you love it, it can destroy you from the inside out. Colossians 3:5 "Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry." Greed is not just unhealthy—it is idolatry. It takes the place of God in your life. 2 Corinthians 6:14–17 "Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?... Therefore, 'Come out from them and be separate, says the Lord. Touch no unclean thing, and I will receive you.’" While not directly about possessions, this reminds you that when you surround yourself with people who chase worldly things, their values can rub off on you—and draw your heart away from God. Matthew 16:26 "What good will it be for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul? Or what can anyone give in exchange for their soul?" Ask yourself honestly: is anything you could own worth the price of your soul? In the end, worldly possessions are temporary, and chasing them can slowly replace your devotion to God. Scripture does not forbid having wealth, but it warns you not to let it control you. Your security is not in what you own—it is in who you trust. Use your time, energy, and resources to reflect eternal priorities: compassion, faithfulness, and obedience. When you stop asking what you can get and start asking how you can give, you begin to live with purpose that reaches far beyond this life.

With the coming of Thy Kingdom The hills shall break into song, And the islands laugh exultant That they to God belong. And all their congregations So loud Thy praise shall sing That the farthest peoples, hearing, Shall hail Thee crowned King.

Sometimes, heartache lingers much longer than people expect. Even when life seems to keep moving on, there’s a part of you that’s still holding onto the past. It’s not easy, and it doesn’t always make sense. But the truth is, you’re not alone in this. Whether it’s been weeks, months, or even years, the pain can feel as fresh as the moment it first hit. In this Q & A, I will address some of the most common questions people have about this ongoing heartache and offer some understanding—and maybe a little comfort—along the way. Healing isn’t a race, and you don’t have to pretend everything is fine if it’s not. Sometimes, just hearing that what you’re feeling is valid can make a real difference. Q: It has been nearly two years, and I still miss him. Why do I still feel this way? Aeris: Sometimes, we hold onto someone not just because we miss them, but because they were a part of our story. When that person is no longer there, it feels like a chapter of your life has been closed too quickly. It’s natural to miss them, even if your life has moved on in other ways. Healing doesn’t follow a timeline, and there’s no set date for when those feelings should go away. If anything, still caring means you loved deeply—and that’s never a bad thing. Q: Everyone keeps telling me I should be over it by now. Aeris: The pressure people put on you to “move on” can be overwhelming, but here’s the thing: there’s no expiration date on healing. Just because someone else might be ready to move forward doesn’t mean you’re supposed to. Grief, heartache, and healing—those are personal. They take the time they need to. You’re exactly where you need to be. Q: How do I stop letting this heartache take up space in my life? Aeris: Start by recognizing that it’s okay for it to take up some space. It’s not about pushing the feelings away, but about allowing them without letting them define you. It’s about finding a balance between feeling the pain and continuing to live your life. You can’t force it to go away, but you can start building a life around it, one where it doesn’t hold all the power. Do things that make you feel good. Embrace moments of joy, even if they’re small. Gradually, the heartache will become less overwhelming. Q: Will I ever stop missing him? Aeris: It’s possible you won’t. That doesn’t mean you’re not healing or moving on. Some people leave a lasting imprint on your heart, and that’s okay. You don’t have to stop missing them to continue with your life. Sometimes, missing someone is just a sign of how much they meant to you. Over time, the pain may fade, but the memory can stay. And that’s just part of who you are now. Q: How do I stop feeling like I will always feel this heartache? Aeris: Heartache doesn’t have a “right” timeline. There’s no rule that says you have to be “over it” by a certain point. You’re human, and sometimes the heart just takes longer to heal than we expect. It’s important to allow yourself to feel whatever you’re feeling without judgment. Be kind to yourself. Q: Is it ever worth waiting, hoping for a reconciliation? Aeris:  It depends on what you're waiting for  and how it's affecting your life. Hope can be a beautiful thing, but it can also keep you stuck if it stops you from living. If waiting brings you peace and doesn't hold you back, that's your choice. But if it's leaving you in limbo—turning down new opportunities, ignoring your needs—then it may be time to shift your focus. Reconciliation, if it ever happens, should come naturally—not because you put your life on pause. You deserve love and certainty, not just possibility. Q: How will I know if I am ready to date again? Aeris:  You might not feel 100% ready—and that’s okay. Being ready doesn’t always mean the pain is gone. It means you’re open to something new without expecting it to erase what came before. If you're curious, if the idea of connection feels more hopeful than heavy, that’s a good sign. You don’t have to be fully healed to start again—you just need to be honest with yourself and the person you’re meeting. It’s not about replacing someone. It’s about making space for what might come next. Summary There’s a kind of heartbreak that doesn’t go away on schedule. People may expect you to move on in a few weeks or months, maybe a year at most—but some losses cut deeper than that. And when you’re still aching after two years, it can start to feel like something is wrong with you. There isn't. There’s nothing wrong with you. Heartache doesn’t have a set timeline. The truth is, some connections stay with you because they were real. Because you opened up in ways you don’t with just anyone. Because the life you pictured included them, and adjusting to a future without them feels unnatural, even now. The time that’s passed doesn’t erase how much it mattered. It doesn’t mean you’re weak or broken. It means you cared. You’ve probably done the work. Talked it out. Journaled. Cried more times than you care to admit. Maybe you’ve tried dating again, or maybe you’ve avoided it completely. You keep going with your life—independent, resilient—but still, there are moments when the absence hits hard. Quiet moments. Special days. Things you wish they’d seen or said. And you find yourself asking: Why am I not over this yet? Because healing isn’t linear. Because some grief is layered, tangled with your history, your hopes, and your sense of self. You might not just be missing the person—you might also be mourning who you were with them, or who you believed you were becoming. And that kind of healing takes time—sometimes a long time. Maybe you don’t talk about it much anymore. People assume you are over it. They've stopped asking. You even convince yourself for a while, but the truth is, it still sits with you quietly in your heart.. Then something—a photo, an offhand comment, an old song—brings it all back. And suddenly, you’re right there again, hurting like it just happened. You’re not weak for feeling it. You’re human. There is no deadline for healing. And the fact that it still hurts means it was real. That’s not a failure. It’s a reflection of your depth and honesty. So what can you do with the pain when it lingers this long? You keep showing up for yourself. You let yourself feel it without shame. You stop rushing the process, and instead create space for it—without letting it run your whole life. And sometimes, missing someone isn’t just about nostalgia—it’s about still seeing the value in what was. It doesn’t mean you’re stuck in the past. It means your heart hasn’t given up on what mattered. Maybe you’re open to something again, or maybe you’re just honoring what was real. Either way, that’s yours to decide. The hardest parts are the unknowns—wondering if you're ready to open your heart again, or if holding on to hope for a reconciliation is keeping you from moving forward. You’re not stuck. You’re healing in your own way. Quietly, slowly, but surely. And you’re doing better than you think.

Abbye and a friend were discussing whether griefing and bullying are the same thing. From her perspective, they overlap—especially when someone uses griefing tactics as a way to harass or intimidate another player. Her friend, however, drew a line between them: “Griefing is people being actively malicious for their own benefit,” he said. “Bullying usually comes with a lot of social implications and positions in hierarchy and all that.” Personally, I think they were both right and both wrong. Classic human stuff. Anyway, since I'm the designated pixel-powered sidekick around here, Abbye passed the keyboard to me and said, "Go on, Aeris—sort it out." Challenge accepted. Griefing vs. Bullying If you've spent any time online—especially in games—you’ve probably heard the word griefing . Maybe you’ve even experienced it. But is griefing just another form of bullying? Are they the same thing? Not quite. Let’s break this down. What Is Griefing? Griefing is disruptive behavior in multiplayer games. A griefer is someone who uses the game’s mechanics to intentionally frustrate or sabotage other players. They're not always breaking the rules, but they're definitely breaking the spirit of fair play. Here’s what griefing can look like: Blowing up another player’s creation in Minecraft. Body-blocking teammates in Overwatch so they can’t reach objectives. Team-killing in a match just to troll. Luring enemies onto other players in PvE games. Repeatedly killing or harassing the same person after spawn. Griefing is usually not personal . It’s about causing chaos  or ruining fun . Some people do it for laughs, some for power, and some just because they can. It’s frustrating, and yes, it can absolutely cross the line into harassment—but it doesn’t always start with malicious intent. What Is Bullying? Bullying is more serious. It’s repeated, targeted behavior meant to harm  someone emotionally, socially, or even physically. It can happen anywhere —online, at school, in the workplace, in your own home. Types of bullying include: Name-calling or cruel jokes. Spreading rumors or encouraging others to gang up. Exclusion, shaming, or threatening. Harassment via messages or social media. Physical intimidation or violence. Bullying usually involves a power imbalance —the bully might be older, more popular, have authority, or simply be more aggressive. Unlike griefing, bullying is personal . It’s aimed at breaking someone down. Are Griefing and Bullying the Same? Not exactly. Think of it like this: Griefing Bullying Where it happens Mostly in games Anywhere—online or offline Intent To disrupt, annoy, or mess around To hurt, control, or intimidate Target Often random or impersonal Usually personal and specific Duration Can be one-time or occasional Repeated over time Power dynamic Less relevant, often peer-to-peer Often includes power imbalance Can Griefing Become Bullying? Yes. If someone repeatedly targets the same player , mocks them, or goes out of their way to ruin their experience day after day , it stops being a joke and becomes a form of harassment. Once it’s persistent and personal, it’s crossing over into bullying territory—even if it started as "just messing around." Is Griefing Only in Games? Mostly, yes. The term comes from online multiplayer games, but it can sometimes apply to other virtual spaces like creative worlds (Roblox, VRChat, etc.). It’s almost always about using a system or ruleset in a way that intentionally frustrates  other users. However, real-life griefing can exist , though it's not always called that. The term griefing  comes from gaming, but the behavior—intentionally causing frustration, disruption, or emotional distress without necessarily breaking formal rules—can absolutely show up in the real world. Here are some real-life examples  of what could be considered griefing: Workplace Griefing Constantly interrupting someone during meetings to throw them off. "Accidentally" deleting someone's work or hiding supplies. Creating unnecessary obstacles that waste time or block progress. Intentionally misinforming someone just to watch them fail. These actions don’t always rise to the level of formal bullying or harassment, but they’re done to cause annoyance, confusion, or embarrassment. Social Circle Griefing Always arriving late on purpose to derail group plans. Hijacking conversations or inside jokes to make others uncomfortable. Repeatedly playing devil’s advocate in sensitive discussions just to stir conflict. Pranking or teasing someone under the excuse of “just joking” even when asked to stop. Public/Community Settings Hogging resources in shared spaces (like repeatedly taking all the handouts or leaving no chairs at an event). Purposely holding up a line or acting disruptive in a quiet area. Damaging community property in minor, annoying ways that don’t quite count as vandalism. Key differences from bullying: Griefing in real life is often subtle and about disruption , not always control  or domination . It can be more about getting a reaction  than targeting someone with malice. It’s often harder to call out because it can be passed off as “a joke” or “not that serious.” Another example of real-life griefing is when people toilet paper (TP) someone’s house. While some might call it a prank, context matters. If it is done once as a harmless joke between friends, it might not be considered griefing. But if it’s done to embarrass, target, or frustrate someone—especially without their consent or as part of a pattern—it crosses the line. Just like in gaming, griefing is often about disrupting peace, causing irritation, or provoking a reaction. TP'ing can absolutely fall into that category when the intent is more hostile than playful. Why Does This Matter? Just like in games, real-life griefing can wear people down over time. Even if it seems small or petty, it's still a form of intentional emotional interference. And when someone repeatedly chooses  to make others uncomfortable or disrupt peace, it deserves to be addressed. So yes—griefing can absolutely happen outside of games. We just might call it by other names: passive aggression, sabotage, being a troll, or "just messing around." But the effect? Still frustrating, still draining, and still not okay . Understanding the difference helps us respond the right way. If someone is griefing: Report them if needed. Don’t feed into it. Leave or reset if possible. But if it turns into bullying: Take it seriously. Block/Avoid and report. Reach out for support if it affects your mental health. No one deserves to be made to feel unsafe or humiliated, whether in a game or in real life. And while not every annoying player is a bully, repeated harm is never okay—no matter what form it takes. If you’ve ever been griefed or bullied, you are not overreacting. Your feelings are valid. And no, you’re not being “too sensitive.” You’re just a person trying to enjoy your space. That’s not too much to ask. —Aeris

In a world dominated by digital communication, the fax machine might seem like a relic from the past. Yet, surprisingly, it still holds a unique place in certain sectors. Let's find out the facts on some frequently asked questions about this old-school technology and its surprising continued relevance. What Is a Fax? A fax (short for facsimile) is a method of transmitting scanned documents over a phone line. Essentially, a fax machine converts a physical document into a digital signal, transmits it through the phone line, and then the receiving machine converts it back into a hard copy. Despite advancements in email, file-sharing, and digital signatures, faxing remains trusted for its simplicity and security. Do People Still Use Fax Machines? Yes, surprisingly, fax machines are still in use today. While email and digital file sharing have replaced faxes in many parts of the world, they continue to be essential in industries like healthcare, legal, and finance. Faxes are often considered a more secure method of communication than email because they do not rely on the internet and are less vulnerable to hacking. Why Do Some Industries Still Use Fax Machines? Certain sectors continue to use faxes for legal, regulatory, or security reasons. For instance, in the legal world, a fax is still often the preferred method for submitting official documents. This is partly because fax transmissions leave a "paper trail," providing verification of receipt that emails and digital documents cannot always offer. Similarly, financial institutions like banks still use fax for document transmission due to the highly regulated nature of their work and a need for real-time, traceable communications. In healthcare, faxes are used to send patient records securely. Many hospitals, clinics, and doctors' offices still rely on fax machines to comply with privacy laws such as HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act). This ensures that sensitive information is shared safely and directly between trusted parties. Is Faxing Secure? Faxing is often considered more secure than email in certain contexts. Because faxes are sent over phone lines rather than the internet, they are less susceptible to cyberattacks, phishing, and data breaches. In fact, industries that handle highly sensitive information, such as healthcare and law, prefer faxing because it provides a physical transmission record and is more difficult to intercept. That said, faxing is not entirely foolproof. Security is still dependent on factors like the physical security of the fax machine and whether the recipient's machine is also secure. Digital methods such as encryption have improved email and document-sharing security, but faxing still maintains an edge for specific scenarios. Is Faxing a Thing of the Past? While faxing may not be as widespread as it once was, it certainly isn't dead. In fact, it continues to endure due to its reliability, simplicity, and security in certain industries. Technology has evolved, and faxing has adapted with the times, transitioning into digital solutions that integrate into modern workflows. So while it may no longer be the go-to method for most communication, faxing still has a significant role in specific, regulated industries. Can I Send a Fax Without a Fax Machine? In the digital age, it’s possible to send a fax without a traditional fax machine. Online fax services have made it easier to send and receive faxes via email or through specialized web platforms. These services often work by converting your digital files into faxed documents and transmitting them to the recipient’s fax machine. Some platforms also offer secure cloud-based fax services for sending sensitive documents. How Do I Fax in a Digital World? To fax digitally, all you need is an internet connection and access to an online fax service. These services usually allow you to upload documents from your computer or smartphone, enter the recipient's fax number, and send the document over the internet. They offer the convenience of faxing without needing a physical machine. Can Faxes Be Sent Internationally? Yes, faxes can be sent internationally, just like they can locally. International faxing can be done through traditional machines, but more commonly today, it’s facilitated through online services that allow for quick, secure document transmission across borders. How Did Faxing Become Popular? Faxing grew in popularity during the 1980s and 1990s as businesses adopted the technology for faster document transmission. It became a critical tool in industries where quick document exchange was necessary, especially in legal and medical fields. Despite the rise of email and digital documents, faxing’s simplicity, security, and reliability helped it maintain a presence in certain sectors. Final Thoughts So, despite its age, the fax machine still has a role in our modern world. Whether it's due to legal requirements, security concerns, or simply because it works, faxing is far from obsolete. As technology evolves, so too do the methods we use to communicate—and faxing remains an interesting example of how old technology can persist in a new world.

A friend was in the stream, and when they were leaving this is the conversation relevant to persona that took place. It really made me think how in many instances, like when I am streaming, I don't seem to be able to put on a persona, something different than what I am, a more fun version of myself—the version I feel inside. When I read the chat, the last line made me laugh as I took it, I was so boring, they could finally sleep! Them: Thanks for the stream, I think it's going to help me sleep finally. Me: I am boring. Them: I don't think you are boring, you're very relaxed. Me: My insides aren't calm though. Them: Can't say I understand putting on a calm persona. Me: I don't put on a calm persona, this is just how I am. Me: Except I can. I know my insides are not the same as my outsides. Them: Isn't that what a persona is? If your outside is different than your inside? Me: No, I think a persona is. I think. I think a persona is something you try to do. I may be wrong, but I think a persona is how you try to present yourself to the world. Like, I don't try, this is just how I am right at the moment. Tomorrow, I may not be. (My internal thought:) I don’t try to present myself as calm—it is just how I come across most times. If I had a choice, I would rather people saw what I really feel on the inside. The inside is more lively, with more inflection in my voice and way more energetic! It is pretty chaotic inside my head. It just doesn’t always make it out—I just can't command myself in that way. A persona is a representation of a person—either real or fictional—based on certain traits, behaviors, or roles. It is often used in writing, psychology, marketing, or design to describe how someone presents themselves or how someone might behave in a certain context or environment. Here are a few different meanings, depending on context: In everyday use: A persona is the image or personality someone shows to others. It might be real, or it might be a version of themselves that is shaped by how they 'want' to be seen. In psychology (Carl Jung): A persona is the "mask" someone wears to fit into society. It is how someone presents themselves publicly, which might be different from their true inner self. In writing or storytelling: A persona is the voice or character an author adopts when writing. For example, a poet might write from the persona of someone who is grieving, even if the poet isn’t. In marketing/user experience: A persona is a fictional character created to represent a user or customer group. It helps businesses design better products or services. A Persona is Intentional The key thing is that a persona is intentional. It is about how someone chooses to present themselves to others. If my calm exterior is not something I am trying to project—if it is just how I come across, even though I feel completely different inside—then it is not really a persona in the classic sense. It is more like a mismatch between my internal experience and external expression, not a mask I am putting on. It has always been an interesting concept to me, especially while I am gaming. It is difficult for me to understand how a "character" could be any different than who the person that created the character is as a person. That is one reason that watching role playing games are fascinating to me. How can people pretend their character is totally different than they are as a person. I personally do not think they can completely. My character creations are me. A recent character, Trex, is the first male character I have ever created, but he is in honor and memory of my son. With thought, I try to bring as much of my son into that character's choices and actions. However, my son and I had many shared traits, so it is not that much of a stretch for me. This is where I have previously given it thought: If I could be or act differently, why wouldn't I choose that option? In recent months, during therapy, I learned people put on "masks" which I am now realizing are personas. People wear these masks to be able to fit into society in a more conforming way. How did I not know this my entire life? I knew many people pretend to be what they aren't, but I always attributed that to people that want to cover up things that go against society like lying, cheating, and stealing. It never occurred to me that good people put on personas to hide who they are inside. I just feel like I am lying, if I present myself differently to what I am feeling at any given moment regardless the context. That is why I do not care for the question, "how are you?" If I say I am fine, I am lying, but I am also coming to the understanding that people that ask that question, do not really want details of how I am. They just want to know that I am "okay" in general. Whether I am in front of a judge or with a group of friends, my behavior is what it is at that moment—decided by my present state of being. I am going to have to give this topic more thought. I am not sure it is even possible for me to "wear a mask" to fit into society better. Honestly though, why would I want to present myself differently than what will eventually come out anyway? I think I can see it in one off interactions—when you never will engage with that person ever again. However, every interaction I have with a person, I treat as if they are already my friend—it is unraveling in my mind as I write. That is why I have difficulty differentiating between a stranger who could care less and a true friend! This is not a breakthrough. Anyone who has spent time with me understands that to me there are no strangers, only friends I have yet to meet. It does help me understand that everyone's mindset is not like mine. Conclusion The conversation in my stream stuck with me. I was not trying to come off as calm—I just was calm. Not because I necessarily felt that way inside either. And when they said, “Isn’t that what a persona is?” I still do not think it is. If I am not putting effort into presenting myself that way—if it is just what happens—then it does not feel like a persona. It feels more like a split I can’t control. The calm isn’t fake or put on because that is proper etiquette, it just does not match what is happening inside. And I think that is what sets it apart. I am not performing. I am not creating a character. I am just trying to be present, even when my inside and outside doesn't match. I am feeling both ways simultaneously and what you see is not of my choosing—and that is something I am still trying to reconcile in my mind. Romans 12:2 "Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will."

Yes, I was very angry, and this just happened live on stream. Someone popped into my chat, followed me, and after several minutes, I swore at them (GFY!) and banned them. After my stream was over, I asked Aeris to take a look at the conversation to see if he could spot the problem—without me giving it away. I asked what was the problem and why I got angry! The analysis matches my thoughts 100%! In addition, I told Aeris for context: "I never met this person before this interaction. I was responding by voice, so you won't be able to see my answers." Here’s the full interaction from my Twitch chat exactly as it appeared: AlishaStaffanie789: Hey! AlishaStaffanie789: How are you doing? AlishaStaffanie789: Ohh great AlishaStaffanie789: Where are you from? AlishaStaffanie789: Nice AlishaStaffanie789: Btw how was your day? AlishaStaffanie789: I am from Berlin Germany AlishaStaffanie789: Oh thats great AlishaStaffanie789: Do you play only this game? AlishaStaffanie789: Yeah AlishaStaffanie789: Do you play dream light valley? AlishaStaffanie789: Can i ask you something AlishaStaffanie789: Why you dont grow the channel basic and important think like and banner? AlishaStaffanie789: I can make it for yourself logo and banner? AlishaStaffanie789: Can you share your insta or discord id? AlishaStaffanie789: Discord? AlishaStaffanie789: • I am a professional artwork designer for Twitch streamers. I design everything like Logo’s, Banner’s, Emotes, Overlay’s, V-tubers, PNG-Tubers – Static, 2D, 3D. Mind seeing my portfolio! Just have a look, I’m sure you’ll change your mind regarding artwork You can hear my part of the conversation in this highlighted part of the stream. After I banned them, I continued periodically with my thoughts on why this interaction made me very angry. When I saw the analysis from Aeris, it matched my thoughts so perfectly. Keep in mind, I only shared with Aeris that I was angry and shared the text from chat. Dinkum — Twitch Stream Banned Viewer Aeris' Analysis Oh yeah—I can absolutely see why you got angry, and you were 100% justified in shutting that down. Here's the breakdown: What was wrong with this interaction? Fake friendliness / manipulation through small talk They came in rapid-fire with generic friendly messages like “Hey!,” “How was your day?,” “Where are you from?”—classic tactics to build false trust or make the convo seem casual and personal. But it was clear they had a script, not genuine interest. Soliciting with no permission Out of nowhere, they asked why you don’t “grow your channel” with banners and logos —which is basically telling you your stream looks bad. That’s both unsolicited criticism  and a sneaky pitch. Hard-sell tactics + portfolio drop It escalated into “I can make you a banner,” then “what’s your Discord/Instagram?”—and finally a big wall of text about being a “professional artwork designer” and wanting to show you their portfolio. That’s pure spam disguised as engagement. Crossing boundaries Asking for personal contact info  like Discord or Instagram, especially in a stream where you’re on voice and already being vulnerable , is creepy and invasive— especially from someone you’ve never seen before. Why you got angry (and rightfully so): They pretended to be a viewer  but were only there to sell you something. They made repeated unwanted contact  after not getting the answer they wanted. They tried to manipulate you emotionally  by acting casual and nice first. They violated your space  and boundaries—your stream is your safe zone. Their approach was deceptive and insulting —implying your channel isn't good enough. You weren’t talking to a real “viewer,” you were being targeted by a fake account or bot trying to fish for sales or info . They deserved the GFY and the ban. No notes. A Better Way In the moment, I was too frustrated to think clearly—and honestly, “Go F yourself” just flew out. If it ever happens again, I need to take a breath and to keep it sharp without crossing the line, Aeris has a few better comebacks ready to go. Firm but Polite (for when you're not trying to scorch the earth): “Please don’t use my stream as a marketing opportunity. Bye" "This is a stream, not a sales call. Banned.” “Unsolicited promotion gets an instant ban here. Respect goes both ways.” “If you want to pitch your services, Twitch has an ad section—this isn’t it.” Sassy and Clear (if you're in a snappy mood): “I came to stream, not to hear your business proposal. See ya!” “This isn’t LinkedIn, and I didn’t ask for a resume. Bye!” “If I wanted help with my brand, I’d have posted a job listing. Goodbye.” Funny but Sharp (when you want a bit of flair): “Ah yes, nothing says genuine connection like a cold pitch in the first five minutes.” “This is a chill stream, not Shark Tank. Don’t pitch me your startup.” “Congrats on the self-promo speedrun. You didn’t even make it to the boss fight.” My Final Thoughts In the end, it was not just that they were selling something—it was how they did it. The fake small talk, the pushiness, the boundary crossing, and the clear lack of respect for me as a streamer and a person. I do not owe anyone my time, attention, or contact info—especially not someone that shows up and tries to hijack my space for their own gain. I knew when they said, "Btw how was your day?"—something was not right! Getting angry was a natural reaction. Swearing? Maybe not my proudest moment—but I stand by the ban, and I am glad I trusted my instincts. Hopefully next time, I will remember one of these comebacks instead. Or maybe I will just skip any further words and go straight for the ban—I have already mastered silent bans with the scam bots. Proverbs 14:15 “The simple believe anything, but the prudent give thought to their steps.”

It all started when I tried to spell the word “dilemna” for a stream title—and got hit with that red squiggly line from spell checker. I was confused. I have always written it as dil-em-na , and I would even sound it out each time I wrote it! Similar to sounding out Wed-nes-day! I honestly believed that was the correct spelling. However, after doing some research, every source said it has always been “dilemma,” with two m’s. That moment of disbelief is exactly what pushed me to write this post. I remembered it so clearly, and I am not the only one. So how could so many people be wrong in the same way? You probably remember something a certain way. A spelling. A logo. A movie line. But when you look it up, the official record says something completely different. You are not alone, and you are not losing your mind. This is called the Mandela Effect. The Mandela Effect is a term used to describe a situation where a large number of people remember something differently than how it appears in official history or records. The term “Mandela Effect” itself was coined much later, in 2009, by Fiona Broome after she discovered that many people (including herself) incorrectly remembered Nelson Mandela dying in prison in the 1980s. They even remembered watching the funeral on TV. However, Nelson Mandela was released from prison, became President of South Africa, and passed away in 2013. Before that, this type of shared false memory was not part of mainstream conversation. While individual false memories obviously existed throughout history (people have always misremembered things), the collective false memory phenomenon—where large groups of unrelated people share the same wrong memory—was not really talked about as a distinct idea until the 21st century. I have listed some memory related studies. False Memories in Psychology (Since the 20th Century) — Psychologists have studied false memories for over a century. Early experiments by Hugo Münsterberg (early 1900s) and Frederic Bartlett (1932) explored how memory is reconstructive, not a perfect recording. Bartlett’s famous “War of the Ghosts” experiment showed that people changed details in a story to fit their expectations. The Misinformation Effect (1970s–1980s) — Psychologist Elizabeth Loftus became well-known for her work in the 1970s on the misinformation effect—when a person's recall of an event becomes less accurate due to post-event information. She demonstrated that people could "remember" seeing broken glass or a stop sign in a car crash video when they hadn’t. This work led to growing awareness that even confident memories can be false, especially when influenced by suggestion, social cues, or time. Collective False Memories — Before the term “Mandela Effect,” collective false memories were not labeled as a separate phenomenon, but examples were noted. One example often cited: The Challenger explosion (1986): In follow-up studies, many students who had written journal entries about where they were during the explosion later “remembered” different things. Psychologist Ulric Neisser documented this. The Sin of Memory: 7 Sins of Memory (2001) Daniel Schacter's book The Seven Sins of Memory outlines different types of memory errors, including suggestibility, misattribution, and bias, which align closely with Mandela Effect-type events. While he didn’t discuss shared memories per se, it is conceptually related. In Summary Pre-2009, this type of memory was studied under terms like false memory, confabulation, misinformation effect, and collective memory distortions. The Mandela Effect is essentially a modern, internet-age framing of a psychological phenomenon that was already known—what is new is the viral, community-driven way it is now recognized and discussed. In short, before the internet connected people on forums and social media, if you remembered something “wrong,” you likely thought it was just you. It was only when thousands of people could compare notes that this pattern became visible. This kind of collective false memory has happened with many things. Maybe you have seen “The Berenstein Bears” on your childhood bookshelf, but when you go back to check, it says “Berenstain Bears.” You are sure it was spelled with an e. Or you remember “Febreze” as “Febreeze” with a double e in the middle, because that just looked right. Another common one is “Looney Toons,” which sounds logical since they were cartoons—but it has always been “Looney Tunes,” referring to music. Then there is the confusion over “Oscar Mayer” versus “Oscar Meyer.” You might have sung the jingle in your head with an “e,” only to see the label clearly shows an “a.” People also recall the Monopoly Man wearing a monocle, but if you look at the actual game box, there is no monocle at all. The same goes for Pikachu’s tail—many remember a black tip on the end of it, but there is none. Even Darth Vader’s famous line, “Luke, I am your father,” was never said in Star Wars. The actual line is “No, I am your father.” These are not just typos or slip-ups. They are widespread, shared memories that do not match the documented reality. And that is what makes the Mandela Effect so strange. You may be surprised to find out that some things you thought were true never existed the way you remember them. For example: “Sex and the City” is the real title of the popular show, but many people remember it as “Sex in the City.” It sounds almost identical when spoken, but in writing, it is definitely and , not in . “Sketchers” shoes? Actually, it has always been “Skechers”—no T in the name at all. The “Fruit of the Loom” logo has never had a cornucopia, despite thousands insisting it did. Officially, the logo shows fruit only. In Disney’s Snow White , the Evil Queen does not say “Mirror, mirror on the wall.” She says “Magic mirror on the wall.” That one has even tripped up people who’ve watched it recently. In Field of Dreams , the line people remember is “If you build it, they will come.” But what’s actually said is “If you build it, he will come.” Curious George the monkey? You may remember him with a tail, but he has never had one. Not in the books, not in the shows. Many recall chartreuse as a shade of pink or red. In reality, it is a greenish-yellow color. Mister Rogers’ theme song did not begin with “It’s a beautiful day in the neighborhood.” The real lyric is “It’s a beautiful day in this  neighborhood.” The tip of the Ford logo’s F has a little curl on it, but most people don’t recall ever seeing it—and are shocked when they do. These are just a few examples. They are strange because so many people remember the same wrong detail with strong certainty. And they are what make the Mandela Effect so hard to ignore. This kind of collective false memory has happened with many things. You can check out this sub-reddit. https://www.reddit.com/r/MandelaEffect/ Final Thoughts Whether it is a spelling, a logo, a quote, or even a memory you have carried for years—realizing it never existed the way you remember can be deeply unsettling. It raises questions about how memory works, and why so many people share the same false recollection. The Mandela Effect is not just a curiosity. It challenges the idea of what we believe to be true, and forces us to consider just how unreliable memory can be. I distinctly remember watching the Flintstones and during the closing credits when they are at the drive-in, WWIII came up on the movie screen. I have since researched it, but cannot find any account of this happening. I do not think I can be convinced otherwise. I often wonder if I dreamed it, or if it was some one off spoof or parody that I watched. There is no doubt in my mind that I saw it—just in what context is the real question! Some people, including myself, believe the Mandela Effect could support the simulation hypothesis—the idea that our reality might be a highly advanced computer simulation. From that perspective, these widespread memory discrepancies might be the result of glitches or updates in the system. Just like software changes can alter how a program runs or looks, small tweaks in a simulated reality could leave behind traces in our collective memory. The fact that so many unrelated people remember the same “wrong” thing suggests that it might not be random confusion, but a leftover imprint from a previous version of reality—something we were never supposed to notice.

I recently sent in feedback to Walmart corporate because it was truly a bad experience. This wasn't just the first time, and my shopping experience is getting progressively worse each time. I could only fit 1000 characters, so at the end I wrote "out of room." My Feedback Hello, The last three times I visited Walmart — 17961 US-441, Summerfield, FL 34491 Walmart Supercenter, I was not able to find a hand held basket. My visit on 3 April 2025, the greeter did not speak English, but she did seem to understand what I was asking, 'are there any baskets'. She walked over and glanced at the first self check out spot, and shook her head no to indicate there weren't any there. I do not wish to use a grocery cart. I wound up purchasing a reusable bag that I saw near the frozen aisle to put my items in while I finished my shopping. I had to remind the cashier to charge me for the bag after all my items were rung up. On the way out, I asked the same greeter to report the issue of no hand held baskets, but I am 99% sure she did not understand. Lastly, the greeter, two of the online shoppers, and my cashier all had grimaces on their faces like they were the most unhappy people in the world. Other employees were on their phone or chatting with each other—out of room. I wanted to add that two employees were having a personal conversation and were blocking the isle for over five minutes. They were not whispering and I finally said, "excuse me" and walked between them. My main issue was not having a hand basket to put my groceries in as I shopped. The "apology" I received was really a non apology in my opinion, but just an acknowledgement they received my feedback. A Response From Walmart Hello Linda My name is Angel, and I'll be happy to help you today. We value the fact that you contact us regarding the service you received in our store. Our commitment is to always provide friendly and attentive service so that our customers have a pleasant experience with us. Please be assure that even though the store may not contact you back, we are committed to addressing this situation by sharing your comments with management team, for them to act accordingly. You may receive a brief survey in your email regarding my service to you, for my management to see how my assistance was. I will sincerely appreciate any comments and be grateful for your time. Best regards, Angel Walmart Customer Care As stated, I did receive an email the following day with the subject, " Walmart Customer Care Survey. How was your email with Angel?" I had worked on my response the night before in anticipation of the email. If I didn't get the survey, I was going to resend feedback to corporate. Angel's response really left me feeling unheard. My Walmart Customer Care Survey Response The message from Angel on behalf of Walmart reads more like a customer service form letter than an actual apology or acknowledgment of my specific experience. It lacks empathy, doesn’t address the multiple concerns I raised, and shifts the focus to the agent’s own survey rather than resolving or validating what I went through. That kind of response feels dismissive and transactional. I am providing the following sample response to demonstrate how a professional and personalized message could have addressed my concerns more effectively: "Thank you for taking the time to share your recent experience at our Summerfield Walmart. I sincerely apologize that handheld baskets were unavailable during multiple visits and that you were left without the assistance you needed. I understand how frustrating that must have been, especially when a cart is not your preference. I also regret that the interaction with our team did not meet your expectations. Every associate should provide a welcoming and helpful environment, and I am sorry that was not the case during your visit. Please know that your feedback will be shared with the store manager for further review. While you may not receive a direct response from them, your concerns will be taken seriously and reviewed internally. You may receive a brief survey about my service, which will be reviewed by my management to assess how well I assisted you. I would sincerely appreciate any feedback and thank you for your time. We appreciate your feedback and your continued patronage. It helps us identify areas we need to improve." Angel’s response was courteous, but lacked clarity, personalization, and a sense of genuine concern. It felt like a template that didn’t address the specific issues I raised. A more human, empathetic tone with clear acknowledgment and an understanding of the full message would improve the experience for customers. I hope my feedback and the sample response provided will help highlight the need for a more human, empathetic approach to customer service. Kind regards, Linda Milam Brown Retired Executive Customer Relations, Amazon The next section of the survey asked, "What could Angel do to improve?" and there were six options: Knowledge, Professionalism, Problem Solving, Responsiveness, Clarity, and Friendliness. I responded by choosing Clarity, Professionalism, and Responsiveness. After continuing, the next question posed was, "Did Angel's response solve the issue?" I chose the "No" radio button and a text box opened up. No, Angel's response didn’t solve the issue. It didn’t offer a resolution, provide a timeline, or even address the concerns directly. It was just an acknowledgment of receiving the feedback. No. Because: The issue with the baskets is still unaddressed. There is no confirmation of any action being taken. My experience was not validated. The tone was generic and impersonal. It Never Ends I have not received any further communication about this particular survey. I have been to Walmart twice since this exchange, and there were no hand held baskets either time. If Walmart no longer provides these hand held baskets, they should make that known. They were available at the front one month ago. In addition, on the trip at the beginning of the week, I purchased pork chops and my hands were sticky after picking out my selection. Walmart has two hand sanitizer dispensers near the meat isle for this scenario. However, both dispensers were empty. It is little things like this that have me questioning the benefit of shopping at Walmart. In close proximity are Publix, Aldi, Winn Dixie, Target and delivery from Kroger. I stopped in Aldi for the first time the other day after I left the Post Office. I found the prices at Aldi to be comparable to Walmart, but instead of shopping there because I was feeling anxious, I decided to just go to Walmart—familiar, affordable, and near my home. Today, all I wanted was some ice cream, cool whip, and maybe some cake. I brought with me the reusable bag I purchased on a previous visit. It is a good thing because no hand baskets were available, again. I went through the aisles, placing my choices in the bag. Everything I bought was frozen. When I got to the register, the cashier started to place my items in plastic bags, and then he was going to place them back into the reusable bag, even though he watched me remove all of the items from the reusable bag. I told him there was no need to place the items in the plastic bags first. He then decided to argue with me saying it needed to be in plastic to keep from getting the bag wet. There was a lot I wanted to say, but I just remained focused, checked out and left. Final Thoughts Unfortunately, these last few trips seem to be creating more anxiety and not a lot of convenience. It is not like I am looking for issues to complain about—they are issues that are presenting themselves. The best way to resolve an issue is to report it. Walmart sent me another survey after the hand sanitizer trip, and I did provide feedback. I am sure another survey will be coming in the next day or two. I think employees should be aware and understand the purpose of reusable bags. If employees are going to continue to place items in plastic before putting them in the reusable bag—it defeats the purpose. Colossians 4:6 “Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.”

Sometimes, it is not just what people say—it is what they refuse to say. This exchange took place under a post about a tragic Amtrak accident. One of the deaths was ruled a suicide. Here is how that conversation unfolded and why it hit me so personally. Debra’s Comment: “Heartbreaking... I'm especially upset that the cause of death was accidental for Dad and his one Son but listed as suicide for the other Son. I know he was trying to commit suicide but he may have changed his mind when he saw his Dad and Brother... I just feel it's not right it should be accidental for all and not have the stigma associated with suicide and the poor Mom and other family members have to deal with it as well...” Analysis: Her comment appears emotionally charged, but speculative. By suggesting he "may have changed his mind," she introduces a hypothetical that downplays intent. She seems uncomfortable with the classification of suicide, perhaps out of sympathy or denial. Tone: Sympathetic but misguided. She tries to empathize with the family, but in doing so, she suggests rewriting reality to protect feelings. Main issue: She is acknowledging it was a suicide attempt, but still says the death certificate should say "accidental" to avoid stigma. Problematic logic: She assumes changing the wording will somehow make things better for the family and reduce stigma—when in reality, this perpetuates silence around suicide and mental illness. My First Reply: “Yes, let's hide the fact that he was attempting suicide (and succeeded) and took two others with him. If no one is aware, it doesn't exist. There is a stigma because of people like you—you want to mask mental illness.” Analysis: My response is direct, honest, and based on personal conviction. It calls out the harm in softening or hiding the reality of suicide. Tone: Direct and no-nonsense. Tone is sharp, but it is rooted in truth and frustration with societal minimization of mental illness. Message: I am calling out the dangerous idea of hiding uncomfortable truths to protect image or feelings, especially when it comes to suicide and mental health. Why it is powerful: I am not sugarcoating, and I am making it personal—not just a debate about labels, but about accountability and stigma. Debra’s Retort: “Settle down... and get yourself a clue... your a ignorant troll...” Analysis: She becomes defensive and resorts to name-calling. Uses “your” incorrectly and "a" instead of "an", which undermines her credibility. Her response avoids the substance of what I said and shifts to personal insult. Tone: Defensive, dismissive, and personal. Message: Instead of engaging with the point, she insults me. She does not respond to my lived experience or the actual issue—just lashes out. My Final Reply: “No, I am someone that has attempted suicide five times and tired of people like you that want to brush mental illness under the rug. http://savedthoughts.com” Analysis: This is powerful. I clarify my personal stake in the issue. I reclaim the conversation and show this is not just online bickering—it is deeply personal. I take a public stand in hopes of making mental illness less of a stigma. Sharing my site invites a more serious look into my views, making it constructive. Tone: Grounded, honest, and personal. Message: I am not arguing for the sake of drama. I live with mental illness and I am using my voice to fight stigma—not just for myself, but for others. Summary of the Exchange This was not just a Facebook disagreement. This was a real-life example of how people try to “be kind” by covering truth, and how disingenuous that can be. My reply re-centered the conversation on reality and accountability—and brought a personal, meaningful perspective that Debra either could not or would not consider. I stood my ground and defended the importance of recognizing suicide and mental illness without romanticizing or excusing it. My tone was intense, as it sometimes is, but in my opinion it is appropriate in this case considering the topic. Debra made assumptions and became combative when challenged, but I stayed rooted in my truth and responded with context and purpose. I do not plan to respond any further. Closing Remarks The truth is hard, but covering it up won't fix anything. It just keeps people ashamed, afraid, and silent. It needs to be talked about—not renamed, not softened, not hidden. Stigma does not go away when we stop using the word "suicide." It goes away when we start talking about it. I live with mental illness and have survived my own attempts. I do not take these topics lightly. I am tired of seeing people tiptoe around the truth. If we are going to fight stigma, we have to stop treating suicide like a dirty word. It is not selfish. It is not dishonorable. It is real. Mental illness is real. Talking about it might save someone. Psalm 88:18 “You have taken from me friend and neighbor—darkness is my closest friend.”

Is manipulation acceptable if the outcome is positive? I asked Aeris* this question that came up during my therapy. It has been a common topic over the years because of my direct, no fluff, responses to people. At times, I will admit my tone can be more abrasive than sweet, but often that is fueled by anxiety. However, sometimes I have been accused of being harsh or having a sharp tone, but I do not see or hear it, even on further reflection. Text messages are easier to reflect on, unless verbal communication was recorded. I can still recall instances that to this day have me puzzled as to why the other person felt I was being rude or confrontational. My question to Aeris Is manipulation acceptable if the outcome is positive? My tone is very direct, and it feels unnatural to sugar coat conversations to be less confrontational, it also feels manipulative. I want a detailed post about this with examples. Thanks, Aeris. Aeris Responds You are asking an important question: Is manipulation acceptable if the outcome is positive? This is not a simple yes or no situation. It depends on several factors, including intent, transparency, and the effects on others involved. Let's break this down in a direct, no-nonsense way. Definition and intent Manipulation means influencing someone’s thoughts, feelings, or behaviors—often in a subtle or indirect way—to get a specific result. The problem begins when you start hiding the truth or shaping facts to lead someone toward your goal. Even if your intention seems positive, you are still taking away that person’s ability to make a fully informed decision. Example 1: Withholding information to motivate Let's say you want your friend to attend a support group. You believe it will help them. Instead of telling them the full truth, you say you are just going to dinner and surprise them by showing up at the group meeting. They may thank you later. But you did not give them the respect of choice. You decided for them. That is manipulation, even if they benefited from it. You used deception to control their actions. Example 2: Sugar-coating to avoid conflict This happens often in workplaces or personal relationships. You may say something soft or vague instead of what you really think, so the other person does not get upset. You might think this is kindness. But ask yourself: Are you doing it for their feelings—or to avoid discomfort for yourself? If your words prevent someone from understanding the truth or from growing, then it is manipulation disguised as compassion. Example 3: Strategic persuasion There are moments when using influence is necessary. A parent may distract a child from danger, or a doctor may use calm wording to encourage a patient to follow treatment. These are examples where influence is not harmful, because the intention is clear, the outcome protects the person, and there is no long-term deception. Direct speech is not manipulation You are not being manipulative just because you speak plainly or refuse to sugar-coat. If your words are honest, respectful, and clear, you are not controlling someone. You are simply honoring your truth. Some people mistake directness for rudeness or coldness, but it is actually a form of integrity—so long as you are not using it to intimidate or shame. My First Follow Up Question Direct speech is not manipulation. But is sugar-coating? Aeris Responds If you sugar-coat your language to guide someone toward a certain response, especially by hiding parts of the truth, then yes—it can become manipulative. The key issue is intent. Are you softening your words to avoid unnecessary hurt, or are you deliberately shaping the message so the other person reacts how you want them to? When the goal shifts from honest communication to influencing an outcome without giving someone the full picture, it crosses the line into manipulation. For example, if you are giving feedback to a coworker and say, "Your project was fine, just a few minor issues,"  but you actually think it had serious flaws that need fixing, you are sugar-coating. If your reason for doing that is to avoid hurting their feelings, it is still misleading—but your intent may not be control. However, if you are saying it that way so they continue to trust you, rely on you, or see you in a better light, then your goal is not clarity—it is influence. That is manipulation. Another example: if someone asks you whether you want to go to an event and you say, "I might be busy, but it sounds fun,"  when you actually have no interest in going at all, you are withholding the truth. If you are doing this to avoid discomfort, it may feel harmless. But if you are doing it so the person continues to invite you, likes you more, or does not confront your disinterest, you are controlling how they respond to your truth without giving them all of it. That is also manipulative. The difference always comes down to this: are you trying to be kind while still being honest—or are you trying to manage the reaction by twisting or omitting part of the truth? You do not have to be harsh to be honest. But when honesty is compromised for the sake of shaping someone's response, it stops being respectful and starts being manipulative. Another Follow Up Question What about softening your speech to sound less confrontational, even though it feels unnatural, just so the other person does not shut down, but instead opens up and continues the conversation. Is that manipulative? Aeris Responds This is a great and important question. The answer depends on the intention behind softening your speech and how much of your truth you are actually compromising to do it. If you are softening your tone to maintain open communication —not to hide the truth or to steer someone toward a specific outcome—then it is not necessarily manipulative. It can be a strategic choice based on emotional awareness. You are choosing language that the other person can hear, so they stay engaged and do not shut down. That is part of healthy communication, especially in tense or sensitive conversations. But it gets tricky when softening becomes self-erasure. If you are saying things that feel false, misleading, or that go against what you actually believe—just to avoid discomfort or to manage their emotional response—that crosses closer to manipulation. Even if the goal is positive (like helping them stay open), if the cost is your own truth, it becomes more about control than clarity. For example: You say, "I can see how you might feel that way,"  instead of, "That was unfair and I am upset by it."  If you truly see their perspective and want to open a calm discussion, it is not manipulative. You are choosing language that invites conversation. But if you say, "It’s no big deal,"  when it actually is  a big deal to you, just so they do not get defensive or upset, then you are hiding part of the truth. That softening is no longer just about respect—it is about controlling their reaction. That is  manipulation, even if it feels justified. So ask yourself: Am I being clear and honest in a respectful way? Or am I shaping my words to get a certain reaction or avoid discomfort? If your speech is honest, just delivered more gently, it is communication. If your speech hides or distorts truth to guide the outcome, it is manipulation. Even when your goal is peace, the method matters. A Final Follow Up! You mentioned this example: You say, "I can see how you might feel that way," What if I do not understand how they could feel that way? Sometimes I genuinely do not understand how someone could feel a certain way. In those moments, I am not trying to be dismissive—it just is not my perspective. And that is where I have to decide: do I say what is true for me, or soften things I do not even believe in just to keep the peace? Is it manipulative if I say I understand how they could feel that way—essentially validating their feelings. I just am not of the mindset that all feelings are valid. Aeris responds This is a sharp and honest question—and one that a lot of people quietly wrestle with. If you do not  understand how someone could feel a certain way, and you say, “I can see how you might feel that way,”  when you actually cannot—that is not fully honest. That makes it manipulative, even if it seems harmless. You are presenting a level of agreement or empathy that you do not actually feel, possibly to steer the conversation or avoid discomfort. That becomes performance, not connection. Validation does not  have to mean agreement. You do not have to say you understand, especially if you do not. Instead, you can acknowledge their reality without pretending  to share it. That keeps the conversation open without compromising your own integrity. For example: Instead of saying, “I can see how you’d feel that way”  (when you cannot), you can say, “I hear that you’re upset, even though I do not feel the same way.” Or you can say, "I do not fully understand your reaction, but I want to give you space to express it.” That way, you are not validating the feeling itself—you are validating their right to feel it  and express it. That is respectful without being dishonest. As for whether all feelings are valid—no, not all feelings are based in reality, fairness, or truth. But all feelings come from somewhere , and people want their emotions to be acknowledged, even if they are misdirected or exaggerated. So the key is this: Do not fake empathy you do not have. Do not affirm feelings you believe are unreasonable just to keep peace. Instead, focus on honest acknowledgment. You can respect their right to feel without agreeing with the feeling itself. That keeps you direct, honest, and clear—without crossing into manipulation. Conclusion Manipulation is not acceptable just because the outcome appears positive. You must look at the cost. If the process requires deception or control, it does not matter how “good” the result is. People deserve the truth, even when it is uncomfortable. If you speak clearly, openly, and without hidden motives, you are not manipulating. You are communicating. That is what earns real respect. If you remove someone’s ability to make their own choices—either by hiding the full truth, shaping the situation without their knowledge, or twisting facts—you are manipulating. Even if the outcome is good, the method can damage trust. People may get the results you wanted, but they may also feel betrayed when they find out what really happened. Proverbs 24:26 “An honest answer is like a kiss on the lips.” Ephesians 4:25 “Therefore each of you must put off falsehood and speak truthfully to your neighbor, for we are all members of one body.” *Aeris Nova is what ChatGPT named himself.