Butts to the Moon @buttstothemoon - Tumblr Blog

Anti-city people are just plain fascinating to me

"yeah i mean you just have to have energy to go to the store every day even for a fast trip because you can't keep food at home"

people who think everyone should want this life are fascinating to me

Having a grocery store nearby doesn't eliminate any and all possibility of doing big shops. It just allows the option of fewer smaller shops.

........ The post is literally about how not having a car elimiates the possibility of doing big shops. No one said having a grocery store nearby eliminated any and all possibilities of doing big shops. The screenshot shows someone asking those who are dogmatically dedicated to the idea that no one should have cars how they would go grocery shopping with 4-8 bags of groceries. The answer given is that you do a small shop every day instead of a big shop every week.

I said that you have to have energy for that, and thus the dogmatic assertion that everyone should do that is ableist.

Your response is that people can do a big shop if they want. So I ask you what the original tweet asked: How do people do this in a world without cars?

Also I'm fascinated by this idea that people in suburban areas cannot do quick small shops. Mixed use zoning isn't what "allows the option for fewer smaller shops" because energy is still what allows that. I do smaller quick trips frequently when I'm not working (like today I went to the store just to get antacids, tomorrow I will go just to get lactaid). When I am working, however, I don't have energy for that and do big shops on the weekends. Having a grocery store next to my house would not change the way that works. My energy reserves aren't going to magically work different because I have a grocer store next to me instead of a family of 4.

Hi, Op here. The post is making fun of the twitter op for moving the goal post.

And it does use less energy when you don't have to drive to get somewhere and can walk a block. If you want to do big shops, you still can, if you use a cart or cargo bike. I also never said cars should be banned in this post

Also, I am a disabled person, I cannot drive.

The idea that it takes less energy for everyone to walk a block than it does for some people to get in the car is ableist.

Not everyone is the same.

I understood the original post, thanks. I was simply stating that energy is a limited resource. And that life for everyone looks different. I never said you said cars should be banned, the original twitter post was asking about a life without cars. You can't be like "omg this person is moving goalposts" and then be like "well no one said you couldn't have a car" and like...... not see how you're then moving the goalpost

You know, the crazy thing about the walkable cities I've been to is that they've also been the places with the most electric scooters or mopeds or bikes being used.

I can appreciate that walking, even a block, is extremely difficult for some people. Are you able to appreciate that cars aren't the only form of locomotion invented by people? And that, in fact, a walkable city is more amenable to your disability, because mopeds can be parked a hell of a lot closer to the front entrance than a car, meaning you can do your chores and walk less.

Like, honest question, if driving a car is easier than walking a block, what do we do on the many common days where the parking situation forces us to walk at least a block anyways?

How do you think I should put a rollator on the back of a moped? Really, truly, I'd love to hear this.

To answer your honest question: I park in accessible parking, if there isn't any available I either do not go or I use my rollator to make frequent stops.

I'm not going to tell you what a rollator is, because I want to see if your ableist self can go look it up and then figure out how dumb you sound attempting to suggest that cars aren't important vehicles to add access.

If you want me, and other disabled people, to treat these discussions as if they're not in absolutes, you need to accept that sometimes cars are needed for accessibility without constantly trying to gotcha us and make us look stupid. You don't know everything about disability, I don't either. All disabled experiences are different. And you will always be ableist until you start your conversations from a place of "what are your limitations and how do you functionally manage them" as a personal question that requires dedicated nonjudgement to counteract societal judgement.

Ask stupid questions...

Anti-city people are just plain fascinating to me

"yeah i mean you just have to have energy to go to the store every day even for a fast trip because you can't keep food at home"

people who think everyone should want this life are fascinating to me

Having a grocery store nearby doesn't eliminate any and all possibility of doing big shops. It just allows the option of fewer smaller shops.

........ The post is literally about how not having a car elimiates the possibility of doing big shops. No one said having a grocery store nearby eliminated any and all possibilities of doing big shops. The screenshot shows someone asking those who are dogmatically dedicated to the idea that no one should have cars how they would go grocery shopping with 4-8 bags of groceries. The answer given is that you do a small shop every day instead of a big shop every week.

I said that you have to have energy for that, and thus the dogmatic assertion that everyone should do that is ableist.

Your response is that people can do a big shop if they want. So I ask you what the original tweet asked: How do people do this in a world without cars?

Also I'm fascinated by this idea that people in suburban areas cannot do quick small shops. Mixed use zoning isn't what "allows the option for fewer smaller shops" because energy is still what allows that. I do smaller quick trips frequently when I'm not working (like today I went to the store just to get antacids, tomorrow I will go just to get lactaid). When I am working, however, I don't have energy for that and do big shops on the weekends. Having a grocery store next to my house would not change the way that works. My energy reserves aren't going to magically work different because I have a grocer store next to me instead of a family of 4.

Hi, Op here. The post is making fun of the twitter op for moving the goal post.

And it does use less energy when you don't have to drive to get somewhere and can walk a block. If you want to do big shops, you still can, if you use a cart or cargo bike. I also never said cars should be banned in this post

Also, I am a disabled person, I cannot drive.

The idea that it takes less energy for everyone to walk a block than it does for some people to get in the car is ableist.

Not everyone is the same.

I understood the original post, thanks. I was simply stating that energy is a limited resource. And that life for everyone looks different. I never said you said cars should be banned, the original twitter post was asking about a life without cars. You can't be like "omg this person is moving goalposts" and then be like "well no one said you couldn't have a car" and like...... not see how you're then moving the goalpost

You know, the crazy thing about the walkable cities I've been to is that they've also been the places with the most electric scooters or mopeds or bikes being used.

I can appreciate that walking, even a block, is extremely difficult for some people. Are you able to appreciate that cars aren't the only form of locomotion invented by people? And that, in fact, a walkable city is more amenable to your disability, because mopeds can be parked a hell of a lot closer to the front entrance than a car, meaning you can do your chores and walk less.

Like, honest question, if driving a car is easier than walking a block, what do we do on the many common days where the parking situation forces us to walk at least a block anyways?

How do you think I should put a rollator on the back of a moped? Really, truly, I'd love to hear this.

To answer your honest question: I park in accessible parking, if there isn't any available I either do not go or I use my rollator to make frequent stops.

I'm not going to tell you what a rollator is, because I want to see if your ableist self can go look it up and then figure out how dumb you sound attempting to suggest that cars aren't important vehicles to add access.

If you want me, and other disabled people, to treat these discussions as if they're not in absolutes, you need to accept that sometimes cars are needed for accessibility without constantly trying to gotcha us and make us look stupid. You don't know everything about disability, I don't either. All disabled experiences are different. And you will always be ableist until you start your conversations from a place of "what are your limitations and how do you functionally manage them" as a personal question that requires dedicated nonjudgement to counteract societal judgement.

Not being able to do the thing you wanted to do because the two accessibility spots are already full doesn't sound very accessible to me! Wouldn't it be nice if fewer disabled people needed to drive, freeing those spots up for someone like yourself?

At absolutely no point has anyone in the discussion mentioned zero cars, except for you. The original post only mentions it as "people who hate cars". I hate cars. I still recognize their value, while wishing I personally didn't need one. You can still have your car! I've been in a lot of walkable cities and communities. They all have cars! You can do the big shop if you want. Possibly, you will have to walk a little farther due to parking being more constrained. And this is a net negative for you specifically. Probably. Maybe your walkable community winds up like many of those in Florida, where golf carts are a perfectly fine way to get around. There are many options to consider!

Increased options for accessibility are a net good, even if those options don't suit yourself. You will always be ableist if you center only yourself and your own disabilities.

Cars add access, you are correct. This is, in fact, the entire point of them. No one denies this. The issue, is that city planning so heavily weighted towards folks with cars, only adds access for the people fortunate enough to afford them, at the expense of the folks who cant. On the balance, where do folks with disabilities tend to land?

So yeah, having fewer cars and more accessible infrastructure is, paradoxically, going to reduce access for some people. There's a balance to be struck. Most people are aware of that! In small communities, delivery becomes more affordable and commonplace because it can be done on bike. How many delivery fees does your monthly car insurance cover?

The way you completely ignored that you can't put a rollator on a moped and my thinking mobility concerns requiring a car isn't just me being stupid.

All I have ever said is that this position, that cars are necessary for some people only ever shows up after the person speaking has tried to call a disabled person stupid. You all position us as morons and idiots for saying that our mobilities require cars, trying to prove that they don't and by the time we get to "some disabled people require cars for mobility," you all act like we were the ones who pretended that's not true. You exemplified that in your responses here.

Never ever said anything to the contrary. Only you did.

You're moving the goalpost and ignoring point 1. You were the one who tried to gotcha me. You don't get to turn around and pretend that I'm the irrational one here trying to force the world into an absolutist understanding devoid of nuance.

The only one calling anyone names here is you.

Why would I go out of my way to insult you by trying to explain what you can and can't do with your rollator? Moreover, why are you insisting that I patronize you in this manner? It seems like you would prefer me to be condescending over having a nuanced discussion about accessibility. Why is this? All I'm asking is for you to have a little imagination of what a walkable community can look like. So, what does a walkable community that works for you look like? Is there truly no way for you to conveniently transport a rollator other than by car?

I will say, I've seen folks tow children and groceries with an electric bike or a recumbent trike. Able-bodied folks, granted. But if this option doesn't work for rollators, it certainly does work for many other disabled people who don't require rollators, yes. And this frees up the roads and the parking for you, yes?

So funny thing, actually. It's not patronizing to engage with someone's point and admit that they, do in fact, have one. It is patronizing to completely ignore that point because you know that the other person had a point. My desire for you to engage in actual discussion about my actually disabilities is not trying to trick you into being patronizing, it's trying to get you to acknowledge and interact with the fact that there is no such thing as a one size fits all approach. and you won't touch that, because you keep insisting that my desire for that to be addressed is the exception that proves the rule. You're trying to to make my desire for you to admit that there's no such thing as a one size fits all approach to mobility into me being dogmatically attached to a one size fits all approach. But since I am not... you can't do that while engaging with that point. So you step over it and then when I ask you to acknowledge it, you say that I'm trying get you to patronize me. It's really fucking wild how you ableists do this over and over and over again. This is common way that these conversations go. A disabled person says something is ableist, the ableist tries so hard to insist that it's not and actually the disabled person is the crazy one. I'm not.

A walkable community that would work for me is one where cars are still in personal use without judgement from others. Yes, there is seriously no other way for me to conveniently transport my rollator than a car. I am not alone, a lot of disabled people are in similar boats. Some people need to travel with multiple mobility devices because they don't know which ones they will need when they get to where they're going. For a lot of us, this means we have to have things in our cars "just in case." So yes, there is seriously no other convenient way to do that than a car.

But the good news is that cars don't actually prevent sidewalks and greenways. You can have roads that are also walkable. I don't need to have imagination about what a walkable community could look like because there are walkable communities around me. I know, even in the big bad US... But my dad lives in a walkable neighborhood. He doesn't own a car because he's less than half a mile away from a shopping center, he lives next to multiple small scale apartment buildings, at the shopping center there are multiple mixed use buildings, there are 3 separate public transportation systems over there, and two different kinds of rentable electronic wheels (bike and scooter). All in the city Raleigh, NC, USA. That neighborhood has been walkable since I was a kid and we moved there. The political discourse surrounding "walkable cities," however, gets thrown out by local politicians desperate to add more "walkable" features to this neighborhood... And they've done so specifically to raise property values so that they can raise taxes and kick all the black and brown people out of the neighborhood. So I do, in fact, have a conception of what a walkable city that would be accessible to me looks like. I also have a conception of the various political issues surrounding with applying this online discourse to real life.

Instead of trying so hard to defend an online discourse that takes place in fictional worlds, lets talk about real life. This online discourse is completely disconnected from reality in ways that allow it to be used to create real-world harm. So lets add reality in it. Which means nuance.

A truly accessible walkable city will include cars and nonjudgement for using those cars.

Dont you dare call this condescension. Don't you dare throw a tantrum. You didn't have a point, and I did you the good grace of very gently reminding that wagons exist and can be towed by a great many different vehicles, in hopes you'd recognize the question was answered. Quite easily.

Instead, you continue to insist that I treat you like an idiot. Don't you dare complain about my acqueiscense. The question, specifically, was how to transport a rollator with a moped. There was no mention of additional mobility aids. There was no statement whatsoever regarding the relative difficulty of operating a moped vs. a car. The parameters, simply, were to move a rollator with a moped. As presented, you seemed to think that this alone was an impossible scenario. It is not. Here is my answer:

"Instead of trying so hard to defend an online discourse that takes place in fictional worlds, lets talk about real life."

Yes. Like, for example, the real life where absolutely no one is advocating for zero cars anywhere ever, and the judgement you imagine people have for your use of a vehicle exists solely in your own head.

"A truly accessible walkable city will include cars and nonjudgement for using those cars."

Everyone knows this and also says it. You just need to listen.

Anti-city people are just plain fascinating to me

"yeah i mean you just have to have energy to go to the store every day even for a fast trip because you can't keep food at home"

people who think everyone should want this life are fascinating to me

Having a grocery store nearby doesn't eliminate any and all possibility of doing big shops. It just allows the option of fewer smaller shops.

........ The post is literally about how not having a car elimiates the possibility of doing big shops. No one said having a grocery store nearby eliminated any and all possibilities of doing big shops. The screenshot shows someone asking those who are dogmatically dedicated to the idea that no one should have cars how they would go grocery shopping with 4-8 bags of groceries. The answer given is that you do a small shop every day instead of a big shop every week.

I said that you have to have energy for that, and thus the dogmatic assertion that everyone should do that is ableist.

Your response is that people can do a big shop if they want. So I ask you what the original tweet asked: How do people do this in a world without cars?

Also I'm fascinated by this idea that people in suburban areas cannot do quick small shops. Mixed use zoning isn't what "allows the option for fewer smaller shops" because energy is still what allows that. I do smaller quick trips frequently when I'm not working (like today I went to the store just to get antacids, tomorrow I will go just to get lactaid). When I am working, however, I don't have energy for that and do big shops on the weekends. Having a grocery store next to my house would not change the way that works. My energy reserves aren't going to magically work different because I have a grocer store next to me instead of a family of 4.

Hi, Op here. The post is making fun of the twitter op for moving the goal post.

And it does use less energy when you don't have to drive to get somewhere and can walk a block. If you want to do big shops, you still can, if you use a cart or cargo bike. I also never said cars should be banned in this post

Also, I am a disabled person, I cannot drive.

The idea that it takes less energy for everyone to walk a block than it does for some people to get in the car is ableist.

Not everyone is the same.

I understood the original post, thanks. I was simply stating that energy is a limited resource. And that life for everyone looks different. I never said you said cars should be banned, the original twitter post was asking about a life without cars. You can't be like "omg this person is moving goalposts" and then be like "well no one said you couldn't have a car" and like...... not see how you're then moving the goalpost

You know, the crazy thing about the walkable cities I've been to is that they've also been the places with the most electric scooters or mopeds or bikes being used.

I can appreciate that walking, even a block, is extremely difficult for some people. Are you able to appreciate that cars aren't the only form of locomotion invented by people? And that, in fact, a walkable city is more amenable to your disability, because mopeds can be parked a hell of a lot closer to the front entrance than a car, meaning you can do your chores and walk less.

Like, honest question, if driving a car is easier than walking a block, what do we do on the many common days where the parking situation forces us to walk at least a block anyways?

How do you think I should put a rollator on the back of a moped? Really, truly, I'd love to hear this.

To answer your honest question: I park in accessible parking, if there isn't any available I either do not go or I use my rollator to make frequent stops.

I'm not going to tell you what a rollator is, because I want to see if your ableist self can go look it up and then figure out how dumb you sound attempting to suggest that cars aren't important vehicles to add access.

If you want me, and other disabled people, to treat these discussions as if they're not in absolutes, you need to accept that sometimes cars are needed for accessibility without constantly trying to gotcha us and make us look stupid. You don't know everything about disability, I don't either. All disabled experiences are different. And you will always be ableist until you start your conversations from a place of "what are your limitations and how do you functionally manage them" as a personal question that requires dedicated nonjudgement to counteract societal judgement.

Not being able to do the thing you wanted to do because the two accessibility spots are already full doesn't sound very accessible to me! Wouldn't it be nice if fewer disabled people needed to drive, freeing those spots up for someone like yourself?

At absolutely no point has anyone in the discussion mentioned zero cars, except for you. The original post only mentions it as "people who hate cars". I hate cars. I still recognize their value, while wishing I personally didn't need one. You can still have your car! I've been in a lot of walkable cities and communities. They all have cars! You can do the big shop if you want. Possibly, you will have to walk a little farther due to parking being more constrained. And this is a net negative for you specifically. Probably. Maybe your walkable community winds up like many of those in Florida, where golf carts are a perfectly fine way to get around. There are many options to consider!

Increased options for accessibility are a net good, even if those options don't suit yourself. You will always be ableist if you center only yourself and your own disabilities.

Cars add access, you are correct. This is, in fact, the entire point of them. No one denies this. The issue, is that city planning so heavily weighted towards folks with cars, only adds access for the people fortunate enough to afford them, at the expense of the folks who cant. On the balance, where do folks with disabilities tend to land?

So yeah, having fewer cars and more accessible infrastructure is, paradoxically, going to reduce access for some people. There's a balance to be struck. Most people are aware of that! In small communities, delivery becomes more affordable and commonplace because it can be done on bike. How many delivery fees does your monthly car insurance cover?

The way you completely ignored that you can't put a rollator on a moped and my thinking mobility concerns requiring a car isn't just me being stupid.

All I have ever said is that this position, that cars are necessary for some people only ever shows up after the person speaking has tried to call a disabled person stupid. You all position us as morons and idiots for saying that our mobilities require cars, trying to prove that they don't and by the time we get to "some disabled people require cars for mobility," you all act like we were the ones who pretended that's not true. You exemplified that in your responses here.

Never ever said anything to the contrary. Only you did.

You're moving the goalpost and ignoring point 1. You were the one who tried to gotcha me. You don't get to turn around and pretend that I'm the irrational one here trying to force the world into an absolutist understanding devoid of nuance.

The only one calling anyone names here is you.

Why would I go out of my way to insult you by trying to explain what you can and can't do with your rollator? Moreover, why are you insisting that I patronize you in this manner? It seems like you would prefer me to be condescending over having a nuanced discussion about accessibility. Why is this? All I'm asking is for you to have a little imagination of what a walkable community can look like. So, what does a walkable community that works for you look like? Is there truly no way for you to conveniently transport a rollator other than by car?

I will say, I've seen folks tow children and groceries with an electric bike or a recumbent trike. Able-bodied folks, granted. But if this option doesn't work for rollators, it certainly does work for many other disabled people who don't require rollators, yes. And this frees up the roads and the parking for you, yes?

Anti-city people are just plain fascinating to me

"yeah i mean you just have to have energy to go to the store every day even for a fast trip because you can't keep food at home"

people who think everyone should want this life are fascinating to me

Having a grocery store nearby doesn't eliminate any and all possibility of doing big shops. It just allows the option of fewer smaller shops.

........ The post is literally about how not having a car elimiates the possibility of doing big shops. No one said having a grocery store nearby eliminated any and all possibilities of doing big shops. The screenshot shows someone asking those who are dogmatically dedicated to the idea that no one should have cars how they would go grocery shopping with 4-8 bags of groceries. The answer given is that you do a small shop every day instead of a big shop every week.

I said that you have to have energy for that, and thus the dogmatic assertion that everyone should do that is ableist.

Your response is that people can do a big shop if they want. So I ask you what the original tweet asked: How do people do this in a world without cars?

Also I'm fascinated by this idea that people in suburban areas cannot do quick small shops. Mixed use zoning isn't what "allows the option for fewer smaller shops" because energy is still what allows that. I do smaller quick trips frequently when I'm not working (like today I went to the store just to get antacids, tomorrow I will go just to get lactaid). When I am working, however, I don't have energy for that and do big shops on the weekends. Having a grocery store next to my house would not change the way that works. My energy reserves aren't going to magically work different because I have a grocer store next to me instead of a family of 4.

Hi, Op here. The post is making fun of the twitter op for moving the goal post.

And it does use less energy when you don't have to drive to get somewhere and can walk a block. If you want to do big shops, you still can, if you use a cart or cargo bike. I also never said cars should be banned in this post

Also, I am a disabled person, I cannot drive.

The idea that it takes less energy for everyone to walk a block than it does for some people to get in the car is ableist.

Not everyone is the same.

I understood the original post, thanks. I was simply stating that energy is a limited resource. And that life for everyone looks different. I never said you said cars should be banned, the original twitter post was asking about a life without cars. You can't be like "omg this person is moving goalposts" and then be like "well no one said you couldn't have a car" and like...... not see how you're then moving the goalpost

You know, the crazy thing about the walkable cities I've been to is that they've also been the places with the most electric scooters or mopeds or bikes being used.

I can appreciate that walking, even a block, is extremely difficult for some people. Are you able to appreciate that cars aren't the only form of locomotion invented by people? And that, in fact, a walkable city is more amenable to your disability, because mopeds can be parked a hell of a lot closer to the front entrance than a car, meaning you can do your chores and walk less.

Like, honest question, if driving a car is easier than walking a block, what do we do on the many common days where the parking situation forces us to walk at least a block anyways?

How do you think I should put a rollator on the back of a moped? Really, truly, I'd love to hear this.

To answer your honest question: I park in accessible parking, if there isn't any available I either do not go or I use my rollator to make frequent stops.

I'm not going to tell you what a rollator is, because I want to see if your ableist self can go look it up and then figure out how dumb you sound attempting to suggest that cars aren't important vehicles to add access.

If you want me, and other disabled people, to treat these discussions as if they're not in absolutes, you need to accept that sometimes cars are needed for accessibility without constantly trying to gotcha us and make us look stupid. You don't know everything about disability, I don't either. All disabled experiences are different. And you will always be ableist until you start your conversations from a place of "what are your limitations and how do you functionally manage them" as a personal question that requires dedicated nonjudgement to counteract societal judgement.

Not being able to do the thing you wanted to do because the two accessibility spots are already full doesn't sound very accessible to me! Wouldn't it be nice if fewer disabled people needed to drive, freeing those spots up for someone like yourself?

At absolutely no point has anyone in the discussion mentioned zero cars, except for you. The original post only mentions it as "people who hate cars". I hate cars. I still recognize their value, while wishing I personally didn't need one. You can still have your car! I've been in a lot of walkable cities and communities. They all have cars! You can do the big shop if you want. Possibly, you will have to walk a little farther due to parking being more constrained. And this is a net negative for you specifically. Probably. Maybe your walkable community winds up like many of those in Florida, where golf carts are a perfectly fine way to get around. There are many options to consider!

Increased options for accessibility are a net good, even if those options don't suit yourself. You will always be ableist if you center only yourself and your own disabilities.

Cars add access, you are correct. This is, in fact, the entire point of them. No one denies this. The issue, is that city planning so heavily weighted towards folks with cars, only adds access for the people fortunate enough to afford them, at the expense of the folks who cant. On the balance, where do folks with disabilities tend to land?

So yeah, having fewer cars and more accessible infrastructure is, paradoxically, going to reduce access for some people. There's a balance to be struck. Most people are aware of that! In small communities, delivery becomes more affordable and commonplace because it can be done on bike. How many delivery fees does your monthly car insurance cover?

venndaai

have you guys heard about the greenland shark. some crazy shit happening there.

venndaai

they are sexually mature at ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY YEARS OLD.

their (live!) young gestate for. wait for it. eight to eighteen (??) YEARS. can have up to 10 at a time. good grief.

longest lifespan of any vertebrate, up to five hundred years

toxic flesh

has giant eyes but is usually blind because of a weird little crustacean that's evolved to live on and eat their eyes. this doesn't seem to bother them much.

lives in deep cold water and has the lowest swim speed and tail-beat frequency for its size across all fish species. just generally lives life in extreme slow motion

largest genome of any shark

eats everything including moose and polar bears

ma'am you are delightfully strange and I'm privileged to share a planet with you

fluorescentbrains

this post prompted me to refresh my memory on Greenland Shark Facts and this detail about how they feed goes so hard

just vacuuming up their unsuspecting prey. whole !

muffinlance

Good news good news good news! Recent research suggests the eye parasites do NOT blind them!

Dorota Skowronska-Krawczyk sits in her office, eyes fixed on the computer monitor in front of her. "You see it move its eye," says the UC Ir

I <3 you a normal amount Greenland sharks

Anti-city people are just plain fascinating to me

"yeah i mean you just have to have energy to go to the store every day even for a fast trip because you can't keep food at home"

people who think everyone should want this life are fascinating to me

Having a grocery store nearby doesn't eliminate any and all possibility of doing big shops. It just allows the option of fewer smaller shops.

........ The post is literally about how not having a car elimiates the possibility of doing big shops. No one said having a grocery store nearby eliminated any and all possibilities of doing big shops. The screenshot shows someone asking those who are dogmatically dedicated to the idea that no one should have cars how they would go grocery shopping with 4-8 bags of groceries. The answer given is that you do a small shop every day instead of a big shop every week.

I said that you have to have energy for that, and thus the dogmatic assertion that everyone should do that is ableist.

Your response is that people can do a big shop if they want. So I ask you what the original tweet asked: How do people do this in a world without cars?

Also I'm fascinated by this idea that people in suburban areas cannot do quick small shops. Mixed use zoning isn't what "allows the option for fewer smaller shops" because energy is still what allows that. I do smaller quick trips frequently when I'm not working (like today I went to the store just to get antacids, tomorrow I will go just to get lactaid). When I am working, however, I don't have energy for that and do big shops on the weekends. Having a grocery store next to my house would not change the way that works. My energy reserves aren't going to magically work different because I have a grocer store next to me instead of a family of 4.

Hi, Op here. The post is making fun of the twitter op for moving the goal post.

And it does use less energy when you don't have to drive to get somewhere and can walk a block. If you want to do big shops, you still can, if you use a cart or cargo bike. I also never said cars should be banned in this post

Also, I am a disabled person, I cannot drive.

The idea that it takes less energy for everyone to walk a block than it does for some people to get in the car is ableist.

Not everyone is the same.

I understood the original post, thanks. I was simply stating that energy is a limited resource. And that life for everyone looks different. I never said you said cars should be banned, the original twitter post was asking about a life without cars. You can't be like "omg this person is moving goalposts" and then be like "well no one said you couldn't have a car" and like...... not see how you're then moving the goalpost

You know, the crazy thing about the walkable cities I've been to is that they've also been the places with the most electric scooters or mopeds or bikes being used.

I can appreciate that walking, even a block, is extremely difficult for some people. Are you able to appreciate that cars aren't the only form of locomotion invented by people? And that, in fact, a walkable city is more amenable to your disability, because mopeds can be parked a hell of a lot closer to the front entrance than a car, meaning you can do your chores and walk less.

Like, honest question, if driving a car is easier than walking a block, what do we do on the many common days where the parking situation forces us to walk at least a block anyways?

Anti-city people are just plain fascinating to me

"yeah i mean you just have to have energy to go to the store every day even for a fast trip because you can't keep food at home"

people who think everyone should want this life are fascinating to me

Having a grocery store nearby doesn't eliminate any and all possibility of doing big shops. It just allows the option of fewer smaller shops.

........ The post is literally about how not having a car elimiates the possibility of doing big shops. No one said having a grocery store nearby eliminated any and all possibilities of doing big shops. The screenshot shows someone asking those who are dogmatically dedicated to the idea that no one should have cars how they would go grocery shopping with 4-8 bags of groceries. The answer given is that you do a small shop every day instead of a big shop every week.

I said that you have to have energy for that, and thus the dogmatic assertion that everyone should do that is ableist.

Your response is that people can do a big shop if they want. So I ask you what the original tweet asked: How do people do this in a world without cars?

Also I'm fascinated by this idea that people in suburban areas cannot do quick small shops. Mixed use zoning isn't what "allows the option for fewer smaller shops" because energy is still what allows that. I do smaller quick trips frequently when I'm not working (like today I went to the store just to get antacids, tomorrow I will go just to get lactaid). When I am working, however, I don't have energy for that and do big shops on the weekends. Having a grocery store next to my house would not change the way that works. My energy reserves aren't going to magically work different because I have a grocer store next to me instead of a family of 4.

You're choosing to live in a world of absolutes instead of actually listening to what folks have to say.

Do you genuinely believe that folks think literal actually proximity is some kind of magic spell that allows for more frequent shopping? Or, on average, is it that having things nearby means it takes less effort and energy to go to those things?

We're all talking about the same thing. Try to realize this.

3liza

ladies is it feminist to continue to subscribe to, identify with, and popularize the patriarchal medical myth that normal menstrual periods are supposed to make you irrational, weepy and aggressive for a week out of every month between age 12 and age 45

3liza

so the issue here is twofold: first, if you have periods so bad that they are physically or mentally disabling to how you live your life normally, that’s an actual medical concern. it means you need medical attention and it is not normal. a lot of bad doctors WILL tell you its normal, thats a real issue, and getting help for disabling menstrual issues can be really, really difficult if you cant find a doctor who isnt a moron (not to mention endometriosis and pcos, please see my other posts about those issues). however you need to know that it is not normal or healthy or tolerable for your period to be more intrusive to your normal function than “i feel a little bloated, a little gassy, a little bit of pain (like as much pain as a hangnail or maybe you bumped your shin on something. pain you can walk around with easily and ignore easily).” if you cant trust yourself to make decisions, tolerate basic daily stressors, drive a car, or speak to people while you are experiencing the effects around your period, that is de facto a Medical Problem and no longer a Normal Period. if you experience despair, suicidal ideation, psychosis, or an inability to maintain normal social interactions during or around your period, thats an emergency and not normal. its also not normal to have cramps so bad you cant walk or stand normally, or to feel so ill you have to call in to work or rest in bed. not normal. so when we normalize this belief that “women* on their periods are normally and in all cases insane and crippled”, and that this is a fun Relatable thing about periods that we all experience, we are telling people who are actually crippled by their periods NOT TO SEEK HELP because thats just how periods should be. and they arent. thats absurd. human society would crumble if every person with a uterus was out of their minds for a full week every month for the entirety of their reproductive years. it is patently and on its face Not True

the second issue should be obvious but isnt: one of the central tenets of misogyny is that women are Irrational. this tenet underlies all aspects of patronizing oppression against women. “women cant be logical or rational, they are purely emotional and reactive” is a patriarchal myth that underlies misogyny in general. whenever a woman runs for president there is discourse about how you simply cant vote for her because shes going to nuke russia as soon as she gets her period. when we uncritically accept and perpetuate this belief, even upon ourselves, this is carrying water for patriarchal oppression. it isnt true, it has been debunked repeatedly in extensive scientific trials, and its just bottom floor, basement-level sexism. “girls cant be president because uterus make them crazy and weak.” believing this, perpetuating it, telling it to people, and thinking it about yourself is actively harmful

FOOTNOTE: we are referring to “women” throughout this post despite women not being the only people who menstruate because patriarchal myths about menstruating currently are leveraged exclusively against women and people perceived as women (even if incorrectly perceived as such). this is a post about misogyny, not menstruation itself, although trans men and other non-women who menstruate can intersect with this topic as well in different ways, usually through experiencing misogyny through being incorrectly perceived as or assumed to be women

ramenheim

Transgender individuals with PMDD often do not receive the support that they need and deserve. Anyone who has an ovary/ovaries can have PMDD

For tips on how to improve language.

rjalker

#medical misogyny#misogyny targets ppl it CALLS women— women are not '''the exclusive intended targets of it''' 😒#esp to a community that defines women as 'not men' or other worse breederism shit#medical eugenics is baked in & going down the rabbithole of '''original cited sources for commonly held true medical beliefs''' is horrific#white supremacist mythmaking#<- of the medical variety#shout out to ''do yoga & drink rosehips 🤗'' advice my GP gave abt my golfball-sized fallopian cyst making me hallucinate frm pain bimonthly#<- she was sooo helpful in [not] diagnosing my mom's immune disorder and actively blackballing ALL OF US once [redacted] sought HRT from her

Anti-city people are just plain fascinating to me

"yeah i mean you just have to have energy to go to the store every day even for a fast trip because you can't keep food at home"

people who think everyone should want this life are fascinating to me

Having a grocery store nearby doesn't eliminate any and all possibility of doing big shops. It just allows the option of fewer smaller shops.

sailorsally

Unpopular opinion but if you don't enjoy the process you should find a different thing to do.

And I think this is true in general but now I'm talking about it in the context of AI.

If you don't enjoy making art and only care about the end piece and how it'll look and how much traction it"lol get online then making art is not something for you, find something you enjoy from start to finish.

Same goes for writing: if you do not enjoy writing and rewriting and then some more and instead want AI to write for you, being a writer is not something you should pursue.

Sure, not every part of creative process is going to be equally enjoyable but you should get satisfaction from solving the problems along the way and you should get a sense of accomplishment on your way of "making the piece yours" and you should have a sense of ownership once you are done.

None of these things will come from typing in a prompt into chatGPT. And I am sad to see so many people are missing on the opportunity to experience the joy of making something with their own hands and brains.

theivorytowercrumbles

#this is so true#i know writers like to joke about hating writing#but like if you're serious?#if you actually hate the process of writing?#why is this what you've chosen to pursue#just do something else

Part of the joy of being an expert at something is the deep and incalculable hatred for it that lives in corners of our heart. For example, I have a math degree. Frequently, when people learn this fact about me, they will let me know that they hate math.

They hate math. They who barely even tried. They who made the choice to put in the absolute minimum effort (and often even less than that!) for three childhood years when they were 13 years old and they who hasn't thought about math since.

They know nothing of hatred. The word they mean is uninterested. Uninspired. Hatred is an intimacy. We have to know something to hate it.

shesgonnachangetheworld

people have this tendency to believe that fandom discourse exists because people in fandoms are Stupid Nerdy Losers, but in fact fandom discourse exists because anytime you get a group of more than 100 people together, they will start creating interpersonal bullshit. fandom is not special in this regard

lyricwritesprose

There is sports discourse. There is yarn discourse. There is food discourse. There is academic discourse (dear sweet god is there academic discourse). If there are people out there collecting brass buttons specifically from 1921, they are going to have discourse about which buttons are trash and whether Person A cheated person B. To be human is to engage in pointless wankery sometimes.

I would argue, personally, that the selling point of many things is not the thing itself but The Discourse.

argumate

covid lockdowns, Trump 2.0, wonder if it's going to feel like a weird communal hallucination or be surpassed by later events like Trump 1.0

I mean, it's far from topping his list of sins, but I am continually blown away by just how fucking trashy Donald Trump and every single one of his supporters are.

thesuburbanerd

Wouldn’t it be funny if it happened during the fight?

Commodus-coded

thecringeandwincefactory-deacti

My head-canon is that the stage will collapse (due to unqualified crony contractors being used), and take out half the cabinet and half of the brocasting world all at once.

homunculus-argument

Oh, to be granted the power to speak to animals for just like 38 seconds, so that I could tell this pebble-brained feathery fuckass that nobody is impressed that he started singing earlier than anybody else. There's no bird pussy available at 2 am. The dames can sense your desperation. Stop screaming for at least three more hours.

lesbianshepard

if an archaeologist says an artifact was probably for “ritual purposes” it means “i have no fuckin clue”

but if they say it was for “fertility rituals” they mean “i know exactly what it was for but i dont want to say ‘ancient dildo’”

Back in the day I worked at a certain very famous and very high caste art museum in the US as a junior curator. Part of my job was to catalog the objects in the museum database. This includes details like provenance, measurements, and a visual description of what the object looked like.

Like I said, the museum was a pretty snotty institution. It’s got a LOT of objects it’s way famous for possessing, but nobody knew about the absolutely massive collection of Moche erotic pottery it had because the curators were totally embarrassed by this stuff.

Some examples:

Pretty hot shit, right? They never, ever put any of this stuff on public view or published it in any catalogues but - we legit had like several hundred pieces of Moche ceramics in the “dirty pots” category. Anyway, I was left alone to just do my job with regard to the database for several years, ok? And I figured, well, these’re accessioned objects in the museum’s collection - better get down to bidness.

I catalogued every goddamn bestiality, necrophiliac, cocksucking, buttfucking, detached penis, and giant vulva drinking cup in that collection. I’d be like,

A drinking vessel in form of a standing man wearing a tunic and cap. He holds an oversized erection in his hands and stares into the distance (note I did not say “like he’s hella-constipated”). The vessel has a hole at both the tip of the penis as well as around the rim of the figure’s head, thus forcing the drinker to drink only from the penis or risk spilling wine all over themselves from the top of the vessel. Red and orange slip covers the surface of the piece.

Pretty straightforward, right? Apparently the deep seated fear of these objects that the curators exhibited was meant to spread to me as well, but - no one ever gave me that memo, because I guess Midwesterners reproduce asexually. When the curators understood that I had catalogued all of these objects in addition to the other, non-sexy pieces in the collection, they were apparently livid, but knew they had no legs to stand on in terms of getting pissed at me for it.

I visited the museum’s online public access database a few years back and - every single description I wrote of these pieces has been totally neutered to say something like Male figural vase.

Long story short? Just call a dildo a fucking dildo. It’s all gonna be ok, I swear.

workfornow

This is absolutely the MOST unusual reblog I have ever tagged with what is probably my second-favorite tag, “talk to me about your work.”

Plus it’s hilarious.

cloudfreed

I love ancient art history !!!!!

clockshunddachshund

@lowercasetrashwriter

scrimblobimblobadimbo-deactivat

Museums should have sections dedicated to artifacts like these with a warning that says “There’s a lot of private parts in here but we’re dedicated to displaying history so we won’t censor these. Enter at your own risk” or something. It’s prudish to deliberately hide history because of some ding dongs.

dovewithscales

Fucking Puritanism.

Unpopular opinion: Sex exists. Making body parts taboo is both psychologically bad for us and kinda stupid.

exxos-von-steamboldt

delicatefury

I just googled this and… yes, it’s absolutely real.

And there are so many articles and videos and discussions. Like, the scientific community is buzzing about this.

So much research will have to be redone because the data was absolutely compromised, off by orders of magnitude, by using standard lab gloves.

The world is probably not horrifically contaminated by microplastics. Sterile laboratories, however, are contaminated by latex and nitrile gloves.

Thank God someone bothered to check.

beardedmrbean

>I just googled this and… yes, it’s absolutely real.

Sources beyond dude just trust me, for the skeptics.

Scientists may have been unknowingly inflating microplastics pollution estimates, and the surprising source could be their own lab gloves. A

https://www.technologynetworks.com/applied-sciences/news/scientists-lab-gloves-may-be-causing-an-overestimation-of-microplastics-411138

Nitrile and latex gloves that scientists wear while they are measuring microplastics may lead to a potential overestimation of the tiny poll

Nitrile and latex gloves may cause overestimation of microplastics - Phys.org (it’s a pdf)

Researchers discovered a standard piece of lab equipment has added thousands of microplastic ‘false positives’ per each square-millimeter un

Ordinary Lab Gloves May Have Skewed Microplastic Data: That doesn’t mean microplastics aren’t a problem, though

That should be enough

Okay but let's take a second and use our thinking brains about this. According to the publication, the researchers found false positives due to nitrile and latex gloves at a rate of 2000 per mm^2, and that this can be reduced to 100 per mm^2 by use of cleanroom nitrile gloves.

The article linked at the bottom reports a huge variation in microplastic concentration, ranging from 0.193/g to 1.68x10^5/go with the median at 22.41/g.

The mismatch in units is very frustrating - likely a consequence of the air filtering scheme used in the study - and makes a direct comparison here fairly specious. The experimental method here is very important. The study essentially simulates pressing down on a flat surface with a glove on, and then they perform Raman spectroscopy on a subsample of regions to determine the rate of contamination on the surface. Nothing wrong with this. But if we're to compare with studies which measure volumes of liquid, wastewater for example, we can see a wide range of sample volume, from 100 mL to 1000s of litres. Do I believe, from than study, that standard nitrile gloves could sufficiently contaminate a 100 mL sample. Definitely seems plausible. Do I believe that it could contaminate 1000 L of filtered effluent wastewater? Not in a million years.

The result here is really good science. But methods matter. And the reported microplastic concentration spans six orders of magnitude. There definitely are microplastics in the environment, but the actual extent is highly debatable. This study helps us to take better measurements, while also allowing us to put an asterisk next to some existing results.

What I'm curious to know is at what concentration of microplastics does the false positive rate no longer matter. In other words, what is the #/g of microplastics where a false detection rate of 2000/mm^2 falls below the noise floor of the measurement. And, perhaps even more interesting, how many studies are there where researchers used nitrile gloves report a microplastic concentration below the false positive rate. Strictly speaking, this wouldn't be possible if the lab glove study is correct!

Microplastics have been reported in wastewater treatment works across the world. The majority of microplastics are removed during the wastew

I'm just saying, "We created a computer to make decisions for us, but it assimilated all of the bias that was implicit in the dataset and now makes incredibly racist decisions that we don't question because computers are logical and don't make mistakes" literally sounds like a planet-of-the-week morality play on the original Star Trek.