Years ago, during the height of MLP and The Conversion Bureau, this group was under attack by people who hated this group and its members. I particularly saw bullies picking on Chatoyance, who was so incredibly kind in her speech. She wholeheartedly held the mantle of Love and Tolerance in the face of vicious adversity. At that time bronies were quick to yell out the motto of Love and Tolerance, but many were ignorantly hypocritical in asking for love and tolerance from others but judging and being selfish to the point of wounding those around them. I was angry to see people bullying someone who actually lived up to such a high personal standard, so I dived into the fray, meticulously arguing what was rational and thunderously pointing out what was irrational. I was made into an admin to handle the forum chaos.

Day after day for months, I saw people pretending to be attentive and interested in the stories and lore only to wedge their way into an argument which was ultimately revealed as an attack on the very idea of TCB itself. Every underhanded manipulative trick was tried. I was already familiar with such bullies, so I looked suspiciously upon every post for where it could go.

There was conflict in my purpose. To make the world a better place we should love and tolerate, but my desire to protect those I love turned into a form of attack which is not love, not tolerance, not making the world a better place. Slowly the guilt for my own hypocrisy grew.

The day the attacks were the worst, I jumped over to recent members, took a screencap of everyone who had joined that day, and banned them all. I tried to go through and unban anyone who had not made a bad post, but I learned that there was someone who hadn’t finished typing his first post ever only to discover that he was banned before he had done anything.

Every time I banned someone from TCB, I sent that person a PM explaining why he or she had been banned. This is because whether the wrong that was done was on purpose or an act of ignorance, people deserve to be told by someone why this has happened. Most of the time, there was no doubt in my mind that I was doing what was needed, but the part of me that wants to be pony was deeply hurt that I was hurting someone else.

A pony is kind, a pony is helpful, a pony is tender of heart, and for every ban that I delivered, I feared that I hurt the pony in those whom I had banned. The guilt of hurting others this way blurred my judgment and led to my removal as admin in 2017. Two years later, I still carry the burden of having acted unkindly. I have only recently come to a place where I can admit this guilt.

I cannot change the past, but what should I have done? I should have loved those who were hurt by the bullies. I should have used my words to repair in them the damage that was done and let them know that they were still valued. I should have tolerated ignorance and hatred from others and met these challenges and disappointments as someone hoping to change others through example and not by control.

The purpose of this post is to hopefully reach those whom I have hurt. If I have spoken unkindly to you, if I had banned you those years ago, I hope that you understand that it was not to rob you of your happiness. The pony in me loves the pony in you to the point that I still hurt for having hurt you, and I do not want you to continue suffering because of this; I want you to be happy.

"Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant." - Philosopher Karl Popper, 1945

There is no shame, nor harm, in banning those whose stated purpose is to harm, silence, and eliminate innocent others. You have nothing to be ashamed of, PeachClover. When a mother lion protects a cub it performs no evil. The evil is in the surreptitious attack, not in the defense from such attack. It is the most fundamental law of Nature - every living thing has the right to protect itself and those it cares about. If this is true even for a bacteria, it is surely also true for a person.

A ban is not a harm, it is showing an asshole the door and telling them they are not welcome. Because they are not owed entry.

6911992

6911871

well, I tend to think looking ONLY at past not very useful, some movement forward needed. I see Chatoyance accumulated big list of groups, and even bigger list of stories, but I have no steam for checking every one group, let alone story! May be you, Chatoaynce, still will be happy to show me some of those older places, and recall what was and still relevant in them?

PeachClover - may be we can find and say 'Sorry!' to some of those ponies, if you recognize them visually or by nickname....

6911871
The people who got ban wrongly had enough time to explain or defend themselves. Your intent wasn't evil. Move on - You're forgiven PeachClover.

Neat.

I think that every group (talking about groups in general, not only groups in the site) has rules, and when they have any sort of moderators, they typically also have their rules well explained and visible to all. With that said, I fell like the only moments a moderator should feel bad about banning someone would be when they did so for petty reasons, like personally disagreeing with the person or because they simply don't like that person.

Honestly, I feel that banning someone rightfully shouldn't be seen as 'hurting' that person, but the contrary. It's telling them that whatever they did is not acceptable and that they should change.

Then again, I doubt that most people that would attack someone like I've seen people attacking others (not their ideas or stories) actually cares about being banned.

In conclusion, feeling bad over that is the last thing a mod should do.

6911871

"At that time bronies were quick to yell out the motto of Love and Tolerance, but many were ignorantly hypocritical"

I don't think that's changed. Except, I wouldn't say "ignorantly hypocritical". That's being too generous.

6911992
Pretty much this. Banning is, at most, saying "Alright, spongebrain, you've been warned that your conduct was not acceptable and get you continued. Here's the door, don't come back."

Unless it was an unjustified ban. That's a different beast.

6911992
6912435
6912698

In conclusion, feeling bad over that is the last thing a mod should do.

The last thing, sure, but it is a feeling that I believe should be honored. Even if we have to do something hurtful, even when we know there is no other choice, we must give ourselves permission to feel for having done these things.

Intellectually, I know that I should not blame myself, and I do not blame myself for doing the job. I do not blame myself. I do not blame. It is not for my own sake that I have made this post, but I must acknowledge and honor these feelings because to not do so is to pretend that others do not feel, to not do so is to pretend that I do not feel, and those who pretend too long often forget that they are pretending. I believe no one can get through life without feeling some kind of emotion, but out of all of the emotions happiness and peace of mind come from having loved well. That is why we must give ourselves permission to feel.

Thank you. Each of your posts have helped me.

6912864
During one of the few brony meets I attended in the early days, someone brought a G3 pony book to the meet. The first person to take it into his hands looked at it then threw it down on the ground, because G3 was considered by some to be the worst of MLP, and it was popular to make fun of it, and he was probably wanting to make a show of entertaining others with this “comical” display of sharing the popular opinion.

I erupted into anger, bellowing at the top of my lungs that he was being disrespectful toward this other person’s property and I asked him (in yelling) how he would feel if he brought something to share to a group and someone threw it on the ground, regardless of the reason why he brought it. It was not being loving toward this other person because it was such a hateful display. It was not being tolerant of the opinion that other people, possibly in the room, liked and appreciated MLP G3.

I picked the book off of the ground, wiped it clean, and read it. A few moments later, I saw that it had an earlier version of one of the mane six. Pointing this out suddenly made the book very popular, and probably made the owner much happier that he had brought it.

Let’s examine this again: The guy who brought the book probably brought it because it was interesting to have any pony stuff (there wasn’t much at this time). Did he think that his property was going to be hated and destroyed? No, I don’t think so, but if no one had said anything – and likely he wouldn’t have because he wanted to please those around him with what he had brought - do you think he would have been happy to have brought it? No, they may have destroyed it in some wild display in a perverse attempt to say that they preferred G4 better. Would this have made him feel good for having brought it? No. Clearly he wanted to lift the spirits of those around him, not provoke them to acts of wrath. Does that mean that those who would have destroyed the book would have felt good about it? No. They would ultimately feel unsatisfied that the best of their energy was showing what they don’t like rather than sharing the feeling of loving what they do.

Most people fail to examine the whole of their own actions. Most of the time, people only examine their actions when someone they trust has voiced and explained why an action was not right. To say that another way, most people are habitually selfish in the idea that if they did not feel conflict in the moment they made a choice than that choice, regardless of what it was, must have been right.

I don’t think anyone in the pony community ever stood up and proclaimed to the rest of the world, “Here are YOUR responsibilities for being loving and tolerant”… Thinking about it now, I wish someone would have, and if you find someone willing to make that speech, or if someone actually did make it, then I for one would be very interested in hearing it.

6913057
What you are asking for is nothing less than what the parents of that guy who threw down the book should have done: teach the fundamentals of being civilized within society.

Sadly, too many children today have parents who fail to even try to teach basic civility. The result of that is trolls and bullies, asshats, jerks and dangerous assholes. It wasn't always like this, but it is now.

And the joke of it all is that the very fandom we are all engaged with right now is based on the notion of teaching all creatures basic respect and compassion - friendship - which few are even paying attention to. The lessons in the episodes of MLP are being ignored entirely. Most of the MLP fandom is here for the wacky hijinks, they do not care at all about the message or the content. Their grasp of the show they claim to like is shallow and empty, devoid of understanding. It is just a capitalist product, to be consumed, like candy.

We - you and I, and those few here of similar nature - expected too much of the Zeebs. We imagined that the average 'Brony' would learn anything from the show at all. That it would be more than just another dumb cartoon to make fun of for them. And we were very wrong. Alas.

And that, again, is why there is no shame in shutting them the hell up when they act badly. They cannot even understand a cartoon they claim to like. It isn't even worth considering such people. Frankly, fuck them.

If you grab a stranger's property - doesn't matter what it is - and then slam it on the floor and make fun of it, well, you are an asshole. You don't get any more say. You have just voided your 'Not a piece of shit' sticker. Fuck you, whoever you are, and why-ever you did it. There is no excuse valid for that kind of shit. None.

If a person cannot understand that property that belongs to other people belongs to other people, and that they don't have the right to fuck with it however they want, then such a person is shit. They are nobody. They are unworthy of being around other people. They do not play well with others. I don't think teaching is possible here. They need to be evicted from the event. Their mother failed society and all of Mankind.

Here is your speech:

6913057

To say that another way, most people are habitually selfish in the idea that if they did not feel conflict in the moment they made a choice than that choice, regardless of what it was, must have been right.

Very interesting observation. But what may lead to such underdevelopment, in your opinion?

6913095 (@Chatoyance)
Practice it every day.

well, obviously public behavior only can be fully practicized in public? Modulo computer simulations {my current pet idea}. Here is paradox: bad behaviour can't be corrected because each time such person show up s/he ruins whole chance of even having good upward trajectory ..... Yes, repeatable, intentional stomping on someone's feelings IS bad, but may be this addition can be useful for any group to look at, too:

Self-validating reduction has a dialectical opposite: we might call
it self-validating invitation, or maybe self-fulfilling inclusion. To trust
someone who is unsure of her own trustworthiness is a way to make her
feel more trustworthy, and hence makes it possible for her to become
more trustworthy. We have to offer trust: that is the “invitation.” We
invite others to deserve it. Parents’ love creates a kind of safety and
support that makes the blossoming of a child possible, just as the lack
of that love becomes its own self-fulfilling disaster. When adults fall in
love, each responds, in part, to a vision of the loved one’s possibili-
ties, possibilities that (perhaps) no one else could see who was not a
lover: and it also helps to bring those possibilities into actuality. That
is why what we do with love is to “fall” into it: it is an open-ended
and unpredictable cycle.

In just the same way, then, Nollman’s monkeys, tranquilized and
radio-tagged and reduced to shadowy movements on observers’ graphs
on the “objective” view, became companions and co-musicians when
Nollman invited them to join him playing the flute beneath their trees.
Nollman, though, had to go out on that limb first. Whole pods of gray
whales have learned from a single whale to like human petting: these
are the same whales formerly known as “devilfish,” after their habit of
attacking whaleboats. Offer hostility and create it in turn. Offer interac-
tion, and wild possibilities open up. To create such spaces, to conceive
ourselves not only as respectful co-inhabitants or good biotic citizens,
but as potential co-constitutors and co-creators of this world: that is the
real work in these times of uncertainty and origination.

from The Incompleat Eco-Philosopher Essays from the Edges of Environmental Ethics - Anthony Weston , p 61 ....

Note this part is not ONLY about human animals, but may be more importantly about others ...but applicable to humans as well (whole chapter named Self-Validating Reduction and offers wast amount of examples how it works in today's society.) Why non-humans? Because they not assholenized themselves into corner as completely as modern humans? (my take on this).

6913095
I have aroused bitterness in you and for that I am sorry.

The people I met that day were about 15. Yes, he should have learned those lessons when he was five, but he was clearly remorseful for his carelessness and probably never did such a thing again. The one who brought the book was more emotionally rewarded for his bringing the book than that setback hurt him, and even the one who threw it was interested in seeing it, which showed the first that he was not his enemy. I guess I failed to mention these details, but the reason I chose to explain this experience is because it was one of net gain.

As for parents, yes, most parents fail their children because they don’t know how to teach them. Some parents are asshats, bullies, and trolls and sometimes the target of their hate are their children. You said it didn’t used to be this way, but I don’t know about that. History hasn’t kept a clear record of parenting and what we do have doesn’t seem very nice. You and I are somewhat lucky in the fact that when our parents failed us there was a very clear moment when we knew and accepted that our parents didn’t... know what was best for us. There was no longer any confusion about trying to make our parents happy by trying to follow complicated and contradictory rules for how to live.

As for the speech... well, I really am interested in one that makes a real effort to teach what love and tolerance mean, why to act this way, and how to measure every action as such because I’m still looking for answers. I’m still looking for ways to make this easier for me. I completely agree with you about the practice though. Some people say practice makes perfect, but I think it should be said that practices makes where there is none.

... The one lesson that no one ever told me, the one that I am only now really coming to understand could be said like this: “Hey, there’s probably going to be something that happens today that makes you uncomfortable, scared, angry, or exhausts you greatly that will make you want to give up and run away. I don’t blame you for wanting to run away, but before you choose to run choose to do something good. It doesn’t have to be perfect, it doesn’t have to be your best, just good, ok?”

6913149
It is obvious who should write such a speech - you. You, of course you. You lack my flavor of anger and bitterness, you have kind words even for those that have caused you pain. At least oft times! If any person can do such a thing right, it is certainly you.

I can go on for hours intellectualizing about the construction and logic of my own ethical code. But I don't think that is what you are talking about. And, as shown, I can definitely author a snarky semi-comedic set of rules. No problem, but also not what you want.

You seem to want a kindly, almost motherly, secular set of compassion rules and civility instructions, and few people have the patience, and enough joy left, to actually do the job right. Including, I think, me.

You will probably only get your speech if you write it yourself, you are uniquely qualified. And brilliant.

.

I think we only can do any progress together, because ..see this very thread; one reply prompted others to clarify and add more points..

I tend to think whole thing somehow should run around idea of emulating in our software (=thinking) those positive balances you described for your ponies. Like, emulation of direct 'feeling what others feels' with some complex (but not overly-complex, to the point of becoming unusuable in real-life) system of thinking, self-observing, finding friends who can help you with your grow [1], preventing those 'positive feedback loops with VERY negative consequences' (as in 'arm/weapon race' in conflicts).

I tend to see this as sort of most accurate possible 'synchronization' between what you and other beings feels (and after what - expanding possibilities into future) - because if such synchronization fail to materialize to some great extent - we too easily can hurt others while feeling some kind of emotions what will urge us to repeat _wrong_ things!

I think some kind of naive 'behaviorism' playing role in all this disfunction: parents (and other relevant humans around) just punish end results of processes they can't or not want to see and understand. So, it all very symptomatic.

Illustration (see last panel):
http://freefall.purrsia.com/ff1300/fc01258.htm

Again, wiring is magic for clarifying some ideas, but we don't carry our speeches in our literal or electronics notebooks, usually, and whole flow of situation can be very surprizing. So, we can do our homework at home, but then some unusual situations definitely will await us around the corner ..

sort-of related link:
https://alliwantforchristmasisanewworld.wordpress.com/links/

[1] - http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20190520-how-your-friends-change-your-habits---for-better-and-worse

updated folder with bookz (they played some role in my quest about figuring out what is right in this world) - 50 Mb!
https://cloud.mail.ru/public/HJTS/SmmJx1pgK
{for example Orson Card's "Ender's Game" IMO shows quite clearly how we may end up doing something.. from unfriendly to catastrophic. Also, hint: when you presented with choice of "lesser evil" - try to find your way AROUND those who insist on such choice!}
Articles not included, but you can deduct them from author's rich bibliographies.

Problem with books - they can help but also can seriously mislead. I don't know how to build this compass, showing us where right things mostly live. Logic can be easily abused/used as weapon..Intuition prone to errors ...Humans can do symbolic violence (not in sense it was not serious - just what it done via symbols. yeah.)

6913139
Being human...
In all seriousness, I believe the answer is spiritual. I see some people who have had bad parents, peers, experiences, and environments yet who simply are kind and considerate. Then I look at people who have had caring parents, well mannered peers, not one truly painful memory in their lives, and live in sheer abundance who are absolute sacks of shit. It is said that each person grows through the stages of mental/emotional development starting from psychopath and working their way up. I have reason to believe that we stop at the point at which our spirits have developed - life after life, experiences add up, and we grow to the point that we believe is sustainable in this life which is the result of some combination of choice and concequence of the relationship between body and spirit. Most can see one step ahead of where they are, and that is our invitation to continue growing, but each can only take that step when it has been verified by experiences whether those experiences are found in this life or the next.

6913262
well, spiritual is loaded concept, different humans read / understand it differently ....

I never experienced anything usually described as 'spiritual'. May be all description I've read actually unapplicable to me. I have no conscious memory about 'previous' life. But I think yes, different paths may lead to comparable results, 'there is no one true way'..

..from great association machine aka 'Google'.
I was trying to find another blog I was reading about native Americans and _their_ view on science, I followed some link earlier this year but not saved it .. and found this:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/out-the-darkness/201903/original-influences

at the very end of essay

Steve Taylor, Ph.D., is senior lecturer in psychology at Leeds Beckett University. He is the author of several best-selling books, including The Leap and Spiritual Science.
In Print:

Spiritual Science: Why Science Needs Spirituality to Make Sense of the World

hm, said I ...may be it even include some definition of spirituality!

6913165
As I was going to bed (and my sleeping schedule seems quiet messed up lately), the thought of writing a guide to love and tolerance crossed my mind, but I would feel like such an impostor for it. I’ve only now come to a point where I can handle this much, and that is exactly how I think of it - “this much”. I’m scared of that next moment where I will feel like running away. I am not somebody who “has hir shit together”, so it is hard to imagine my words carrying weight when I need help to carry on.

You have clearly encountered so much more in life than I have and you have handled it kinder too. You choose on a daily basis to face more in life than I am willing to face in a month. Even your writing has aspects that I would find so difficult to write because I do not want to intimately face those things even in my mind, yet your stories and characters rise above the difficulties.

I have different triggers for my anger and bitterness, but I can’t deny that they are there. Let’s be honest – most of the time if either of us had succumb to bitterness, it was me, and you were there trying to remind me why I should at the very least come to understand the emotions and lives of those who had effected me.

I don’t know if I would have the strength to share it, but I think the attempt would help me in any case, so I shall at least try. Perhaps everyone would benefit from trying to put into words how love and tolerance should be lived. Still, I want you to know that I believe if you wrote it, your strength of heart would include consideration for things that I would not be able to approach.

I think this writer was quite seriously thinking about hierarchy, I can't comment on monetary aspects of his book but those rules feel ..interesting set of lines to start from?

http://www.thespiritof76.com/NEX_NEWS/Storage/TO76/RC_REHAB.HTM

Co-operation at work:

ACKNOWLEDGE THE "LOCAL" CONSTRAINTS: "We're being paid by AT&T to come up with a new marketing plan," etc. (Perhaps a model might be the brainstorming described by lib Columnist Dave Barry when he was working with Dennis Miller for Oscar awards)

Golden rules of co-operation:

1. No one may boss or make demands of others or assert authority -- or imply coercion in any way whatsoever. ALWAYS RULE COERCION, PARTICULARLY SUBLIMINAL COERCION, COMPLETELY OUT OF ANY PROCESS INTENDED TO BE CO-OPERATIVE: Be especially vigilant for any browbeating or subliminal intimidation tactics.

2. Establish POSITIVE, EXPLICIT context of co-operation (to overcome the subliminally coercive cultural context). "Are there any objections that we discuss xxx at this time?" May get "silly" objections -- use them to demonstrate that you're serious about not doing things the group doesn't really want done. Don't take short-cuts!

3. Always remember you're working for consensus not compromise.

4. Don't vote.

5. Everyone has the right to NOT be included. (Individually essential but also important to remember when in "process" of consensus building.) They may "step aside," or, believing that's not in the best interests, may block action.

5a. If action involving the group's assets is blocked by one or several who won't "step aside," the rest may form another group -- without those assets -- and proceed.

6. Everyone has the right to NOT do. If you choose to do without any agreement from others to help, you may stop at any time. (Individually essential but also important to remember when in "process" of consensus building.) Negotiating on basis of doing only if/when enough folks sign-on to project.

7. Don't "wait" -- get agreement on a time and keep your time agreements. Find other things to do if you find your fellow co-operators are not available.

8. Reestablish trust that "your word is your bond." Fulfill ALL comitments you make, no matter how small. Don't make comitments lightly -- REMEMBER, you're bucking the modern fad and have to keep them!

- It will take time to establish the trust that when you say "non-coercive co-operation" you really mean it.

-. Allow those dissenting to opt out

-. There's a difference in co-operating an enterprise in which people have a physical stake that they can't easily opt-out of (usually an established enterprise of some sort) and one in which only current time, etc. assets are temporarily involved.

-. TECHNIQUES: Questions more than answers.

- yes, i cut bit about women's place, because I think this line goes way to "constantly changing roles" as part of 'game'.

I think Chatoyance's own words from very this forum still sums it up in more in-universe (or in-fandom) terms:

https://www.fimfiction.net/group/22/the-conversion-bureau/thread/180396/some-questions-and-answers-about-ponification
------------

Perhaps the biggest change to the brain is the alteration from primate to pseudo-equine mentation. While Equestrians were vaguely based on early earth equines, they are not actually ponies, but are carefully designed, tool-using, technologically capable sapients. They do have some instincts related to their equine inspiration.

Equestrians are unable to kill or maim, torture or rape, slaughter or murder, commit atrocities or horrific acts. The reason this is impossible for them is because their brains have hypertrophied mirror neurons, limbic regions devoted to compassion and empathy, and a virtually infinite Dunbar's number.

Dunbar's Number refers to the maximum number of individuals a human can hold within their brain under the label of 'us' as opposed to 'them'. It is an average, some humans have higher or lower Dunbar numbers. The mechanism is a result of evolving as a hunter-gatherer ape; humans have spent the majority of their existence on earth living in tribal groups of about 100 to 150 members. During times of scarcity, pre-industrial humans have always raided other groups, slaughtering them for everything they possess. The drive is so strong that it occurs even in paradisaical environments devoid of scarcity (See: Polynesia and Hawaii).

To the Equestrian brain - Newfoal or native - this is literally unthinkable. War is unthinkable, incomprehensible. The drive to violence is eliminated entirely except in one circumstance: Equestrians are more than capable of self-defence. They are even capable of causing grievous bodily harm or accidental death when defending themselves or those they care about. But this response occurs only in desperation, and afterwards, Equestrians cannot help but feel sorry for their attackers, despite everything.

Essentially, in terms of personality change, Newfoals lose the hunter-gatherer instincts of the killer primate. The instincts that serve survival on a planet of scarcity, starvation, danger, and struggle are maladaptive within an extropic cosmos of plenty. In a universe where friendship is literally magic and powers life itself, evolved violence for survival is the opposite of useful.

Newfoals cannot help but care about others, even those they do not know. They cannot help but care about all beings. No Newfoal or Equestrian native would tolerate a world where any being starved, was homeless, or endured suffering. This change is highly unhuman.

However - beyond a vastly increased Dunbar's number, and hypertrophied compassion and empathy for all, no other aspect of personality is changed in any way.

Obviously, because we live in real world and not in one of those still-far alt.futures - we only can try to alter our brain by thinking and acting ..may be new good habits will also only die with us or even pass on to other generation! (thinking obviously changes _something_ in us, so self-observing is quite hard thing to do - observing/reflection is very process changing its own environment!)

Little addition from http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/colonysite.php

You, too, can help design a constitution for a space colony! Just remember two things: it has to be somewhere you'd be comfortable living the rest of your life as an ordinary citizen, and if you get it wrong, you can't walk away.

I think italized bit is quite important: design it for ordinary people, not elite ..... even if elite will emerge from normal differences in abilities (S-curve, if I remember correctly)

So, i was noticed about Claire Corlett's birthday (9 july). I found this work of her, from 2015 but it hopefully captures spirit of movement.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTROZYZ7-Jo