Morus Alba @albamorus - Tumblr Blog

what if orpheus was butch and she unclipped her carabiner and held it out behind her and then eurydice clipped it onto her belt loop and then orpheus didnt have to look back because she could hear eurydice jingle jangling behind her. follow me for more dyke solutions to famous tragic literature

ozempicofficial

animentality

cryptotheism

Lotta confusion as to "why are the granola save the whales hippies right wing conspiracy theorists now?" And I think the answer is twofold:

Any social movement in the anglosphere is gonna have a certain amount of reactionaries who happen to be temporarily aimed at a good cause. A lot of them were always low-key right wing.

When you have no ability for class analysis, it is a very short idealogical step from "distrust of pharmaceutical companies" to "distrust of modern medicine as a whole" to "judeo-bolsheviks are poisoning white babies for profit"

This trend will continue until people have access to non-predatory healthcare. Conspiracism thrives when people are failed by the systems they rely on.

cryptotheism

I will also say, I reject the framing of conspiracy theorists as if they were pure innocent souls corrupted by some nebulous demons of austerity.

We live within a system that wants white supremacy to be the normal and unquestioned state of things. It is very good at this. A lot of people unthinkingly consider white supremacy the default state of the world. Your Uncle was not tricked by Qanon. He got into Qanon because it rhymed with things he already believed.

femalegothic

This Is Not An Essay

mclennonyaoi

they’re doing “is shaving feminist” discourse on twitter right now and we all know my thoughts on it. no need to do this again. but i will say. if our most “progressive/leftist feminist” women cannot wrap their heads around the concept of shaving being a tool of the patriarchy aimed to control women’s bodies that we should be ultimately working to discard. then maybe we should all just line up and sh**t ourselves. maybe there’s no hope for women after all.

mclennonyaoi

like if we can’t rally against shaving what the fuck are we even doing anymore. genuinely.

mclennonyaoi

it’s so interesting to see the ways feminism has been defanged and pacified in our broader culture. suddenly everything is about the individual woman instead of about the oppressive systems controlling us.

mclennonyaoi

and of course you see this same logic being used to defend trad wives and right wing women, because feminism is about “the women’s right to choose” because what if she wants to be barefoot and pregnant at 14? did you ever consider that? you think you’re a better feminist than her, huh? what happened to girls supporting girls? so grim. so incredibly grim.

mclennonyaoi

or the “she does it for herself” line of thinking, where if you ever criticize anything a woman does ever through a feminist lense or say that she’s ultimately doing it because men expect it of her, suddenly YOURE the misogynist. you’re the one forcing male expectations onto her. you’re bringing men into the conversation and centering men and can’t a woman just conform for herself, sometimes? just because it makes her feel good? and not doing it makes her feel dirty and ugly? just for her?

mclennonyaoi

like following this point to the end, there is no feminist action that can be done here. this is a nonstarter. we can’t encourage women to examine why they feel the need to shave or to stop shaving, because maybe some women do it for themselves or have sensory issues. we can’t tell women to stop doing unpaid unacknowledged reproductive labor in the domestic sphere, because maybe she’s just a tradwife for her. and that’s a choice she gets to make, and it’s inherently feminist that she made it. we need to stop patting women on the back for doing nothing and calling that “feminist” or hiding from uncomfortable truths just because they’re hard to confront and make us look inward or change our behavior. no work gets done like that. none at all.

mclennonyaoi

like what is even is there to say to this anymore

ampervadasz

mortimermcmirestinks

via @p0tato-kn1shes

april-december

@bunjywunjy’s tags pass peer review too

queersona

therapist: cunt dracula is not real and cannot fuck you.

cunt dracula:

queersona

[jojo pose] count dracula. [different jojo pose] nice to meet you. [jojo walk cycle] alexa, turn down the music! [the obnoxious music doesn't change volume] mr harker

virtualgirladvance

Cuntula

mysticalalleycat

memingursa-deactivated20250625

Italian Nirvana

colakills

just saw another fic that completely misunderstood elementary schoolers. going to make a post as soon as my shift is done

colakills

i lied im doing this mid shift.

okay starting with preschoolers (3-5 year olds) they range a lot. i mostly work with nonverbal preschoolers, but i know several who are insanely verbose and use big words. one of them will answer questions in full sentences, the other doesn't even respond to her name.

kindergartners are pretty similar, but they tend to do a lot of vacant stares.

first graders looove attention. if you pay attention to a first grader you're done for. they tend to start developing their personalities to an extent at this point, and are more like little drama queens than anything else.

second graders are complex, strange beasts. they know swear words. they watch horror movies. they stay up until 8. they're real rebels. at this point they get a little meaner. more likely to point out your boogers. they still think burps are funny.

third grade is a bunch of little guys. like at this point they're at the age where they think they're basically adults and have nothing to worry about. baby talking them is a bad idea.

forth grade is 9-10 year olds and trust me, they're so much more mature than you think. they're basically like people. some of them are pretty cool. some are not.

fifth are the snootiest, smuggest little bastards on earth. they understand slurs and use them. do not talk to them.

zibaldoni-elzapoppin

betchawanna

The Hague, Netherlands: Spanish street musician Borja Catanesi and the 68 year old dancer from The Hague mr Roland Parijs

thatll-do

imagine just playing your guitar and you come across the FUNKIEST grandpa

everythingfox

Took a risk and it paid off

patheticperipatetic

This is the face of someone who knows this doesn't always work.

setewbro

When you are unemployed, mysterious voices will tell you to "become a youtuber" but you must remind yourself that it's probably the amulet talking. The amulet you found last week, near the park. It has given you good advice so far, but there is always a line that you shouldn't cross.

okaypersonwithuterus

*gets bodychecked while playing women's lacrosse and breaks my nose* this is perfectly normal if the person who did this to me was born with the Moon Goddess Innocence Genitals but misogynistic violence if the person who did this to me was born with the Violent Penetration Genitals

vro0ms-evil-twin

I fucking hate that the general response to RFK Jr's eugenist take on autistic people is "autistic people do pay taxes, autistic people do work, autistic people do date!"

Some autistic people don't and that shouldn't make them less worthy of life. Some autistic people do need constant help and support and that shouldn't make them less worthy of life.

Once again we're falling in the right wing trap of :

They make a hateful, fascist statement

Instead of focusing on the fact that it is hateful and fascist we try to show them that they are factually wrong

We throw our own allies and the most vulnerable of us under the bus in the process

We legitimise an only slightly less hateful, fascist view as we go

They have completed their goal of making us accept the still hateful, fascist second version, hurrah. What a victory.

Right now what we're getting to with that is that autistic people who can work and pay taxes are okay, and the others aren't. Fuck this shit.

Same thing happens with the people who are being deported ("they have a visa!", "they didn't even have a criminal record!" -> even if they didn't have a visa, even if they did have a criminal record, deporting them and detaining them in what's essentially a concentration camp wouldn't be okay, you absolute tools of fascism.)

7frogsspeaks

In case anyone needs more clarification:

What RFK is saying: "Autistic people can't work, so it's our duty as a society to erase autism" -> This is eugenics

Harmful response: "Many autistic people do work!" -> Validates the belief that that someone being unable to work is shameful and makes them a lesser person, and implies that autistic people should not need support

Correct response: "Yes, many autistic people can't work, so it's our duty as a society to make sure they are supported, you fascist asshole" -> Accepts the realities of disability and values the lives of disabled people, names the actual problem here

magratmakethetea

I think it's a little trickier than this when it comes to political argument. The questions (for me) are, "who is RFK speaking to when he says this?" and therefore "who do we have to speak to?"

Tl;dr: it's about the difference between emic (in-group) and etic (out-group) perspectives discussion of autism. If we want to persuade people who know very little about autism, we have to meet them where they are and argue ad hominem (in the proper philosophical sense of tailoring your arguments to your audience, not in the sense of insulting them). It's also not about arguing with fascists and eugenicists directly, but about trying to diminish their credibility in the eyes of the much larger group of people who are kinda ableist but not committed and could be swayed either way.

The reason RFK makes the claim that autistic people will never work, date, pay taxes, etc, is above all as a fear tactic. He is not making this point for the committed eugenicists and fascists out there. His audience for these statements is largely older people who are probably not engaged with or aware of the autism advocacy movement, and he wants them to be afraid of autism. When they hear "1 in 30" — there is a reason he's been harping on about this statistic — he wants them to think that one in thirty children have extremely high support needs and comorbid intellectual disability, and he wants them to be terrified for their children and grandchildren.

And they will be terrified, because honestly high support needs autism (the only kind they're generally aware of) can put a lot of pressure on a family, and I can't think of many countries where this pressure has been sufficiently alleviated by the state. I know some autistic people with incomparably higher support needs than me in my community, and it is really difficult when you get to a stage where their parents are too old to care for them. I know kids making decisions that cramp their future life choices, because it has been explained to them that they need to stay in town to look after their relatives because granny can't take care of them by herself these days. I do understand the fear that your child will not cope without your support, and that one day you will die and you don't know what will happen to them. Do I think the state should offer more support, so that noone should ever worry what their children will do without them, and so that people with high support needs can live with dignity as independently as works for them? Yes. But in the scare tactic works, because the world I would like has not materialised yet in most countries.

His audience are aware of high support needs autistic people as a concept, because for a long time they were what "autism" was used to refer to. Many of them grew up in a world where disabled family members were systematically hidden away and institutionalised (which does happen today, but much more rarely) and in which you never admitted to having a disability or mental health problem yourself (a norm which was understandable, since there were no laws against disability discrimination.) Others were raised by these people and are maybe simply not very curious or critical thinkers. They exist in a mental model of the world in which being disabled is a tragedy and at some level a shameful thing.

They are not, broadly, aware of low support needs autistic people. They are the people who say "oh, that person can't possibly be autistic, they're so lovely, they're just a little eccentric" and they say that because when they were learning social mores that was the kind thing to say. They often don't really believe that low support needs autistic people are actually autistic, because autism only means one simplistic thing to them, because that's what ignorance is.

These are the people RFK is speaking to. These are also the people we have to speak to, in my opinion. Because they are a larger group than autistic people and the people who are aware of the autism advocacy movement combined. Their views shape how they teach their children and grandchildren (it's a group with a broad age range) and it shapes how they behave towards the disabled people they know, and it shapes how they vote.

The views of these people matter, and they aren't — broadly speaking — awful people. They don't — usually — have any inherent hatred of disabled people, and they probably think of themselves as kind people who care about the less fortunate. But they fear statistics about rising rates of disability as an existential threat, and a large part of that is because they do not understand the vagaries of diagnostic criteria and how these have affected the statistics around autism.

And this ignorance matters enormously, because the fear it causes makes people who are not necessarily eugenicist in their current belief system (indeed many of whom are anti-abortion and believe more firmly in the "right to life" than I do) extremely vulnerable to eugenicist talking points. The ignorance has to be addressed.

It is extremely important that this large group of people learn to be less afraid. It would be very lovely if they learned to be less afraid because they understood the inherent value of disabled life, no matter how severely disabled. (Which actually some of them do, but that doesn't necessarily stop the anxiety of "who is going to look after these people whose lives have inherent value.") But it is more effective, in my experience, to reduce fear by exposure to the diversity of what autism means, showing where the propaganda oversimplifies things.

The internet skews this in the other direction: low support needs autistic people are loudest and most visible, which marginalises medium and high support needs people in their own community. That's awful. But that really isn't the case in the offline world, where autism is marginalised full stop and the only autistic person someone may be aware of is "Suzanne down the road's son who's forty and can't talk and I heard he has these violent fits and hits her and she had to call the police for help last week, everyone was talking about it". That person isn't aware of the concept of different levels of support needs. For them, autism means high support needs. Suzanne's son has a right to live a good life (and he and Suzanne might need better support than he's getting if he's having regular violent meltdowns) but that person's fear of 1 in 30 kids growing up to be like him is understandable, because that would be a huge amount of pressure on families and state support services. It's important for them to know that that is not the only thing autism means.

For many many people I have spoken to about autism, the fact that I have an official diagnosis and also have several degrees and a full time job and a home I pay the rent for and take care of by myself* is fucking groundbreaking new information. It opens up their worldview. It makes them less afraid, and more able to question the fear tactics and dehumanisation. That matters.

*Which, don't get me wrong, is a struggle. I am disabled. But I can more or less manage it, and for many many people the idea that I can do that and also be disabled is genuinely news.