I will be retiring this blog and posting all content on my main blog, https://www.tumblr.com/blog/theclasscalico. However, this blog will be kept up for archival purposes.
ojovivo

⁂

No title available
we're not kids anymore.

★

oozey mess

Andulka

titsay

ellievsbear

Janaina Medeiros
art blog(derogatory)
YOU ARE THE REASON
I'd rather be in outer space 🛸
will byers stan first human second
taylor price
🪼
todays bird

PR's Tumblrdome
Cosmic Funnies
d e v o n
seen from Georgia
seen from Malaysia

seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Jamaica

seen from Singapore
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Brazil

seen from Malaysia
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Spain
@calicopolitics
I will be retiring this blog and posting all content on my main blog, https://www.tumblr.com/blog/theclasscalico. However, this blog will be kept up for archival purposes.
I'm wishing Germany the best of luck during this coming election. I'm worried for you all.
I strongly recommend that you vote if you are able to. Not voting gives your least favourite politician a higher chance of success.
__
Ich wünsche Deutschland viel Glück bei den kommenden Wahlen. Ich mache mir Sorgen um euch alle.
Ich empfehle Ihnen dringend, zu wählen, wenn Sie dazu in der Lage sind. Wenn Sie nicht wählen, hat der am wenigsten beliebte Politiker eine höhere Chance auf Erfolg.
Hey
Hey Americans.
The federal government is about to get useless for at least a bit. This is a GREAT time to get involved in state level environmental orgs. That's where you're gonna be able to do the most for the next few years. Even a bit of casual volunteering can make a big difference.
I've done this off and on for years and when we go local we WIN. And friends winning feels good. This is how a lot of progressive agendas have won in this country. The whole US isn't out of this. People ARE still fighting climate change all around you.
You could be one of those people, in community with other people who are doing something.
doom and gloom "oooh everything is pointless oooh I'm so deep and edgy because I love trying to be the death of hope" people will just get blocked. I'm not talking to your crab-bucket ass.
I like this post because it makes getting involved seem positive and fun. So many of these are like 'you MUST do the hard work of stewarding your local government! I don't care if you don't like it!' And I think that's just as demoralizing as saying you can't do anything.
I think you WILL like it. If you don't, you don't have to be married to it. You can check out several places and see what sticks. Make an event out of it! Bring cookies! If we work together, we win! We have so much to look forward to!
Earlier this year (in September) I started volunteering with a group that removes invasive plants from various greenspaces around my neighborhood and then plants natives in their place! I meet up with some folks every Tuesday, rain or shine (and boy there has been at least one very notable "rain" where I came home and had to change my damn underwear, I got so soaked) for two and a half hours, get muddy, sore, and exhausted, and it feels INCREDIBLE. No matter how much work there still is to do when I'm done, I can look at the progress I've made and that's something to be proud of.
Sometimes I end up doing urban archeology and dig out the remains of an entire brick wall attempting to make a hole for a single plant:
It's a small thing, but I'm making real, meaningful change for the environment in my community every Tuesday that I volunteer. Can I remove every single himalayan blackberry from my city single-handedly? No, but together with other people, I can make small spaces healthier and more resilient, and we can keep expanding our worksites.
We're gonna get there.
Researchers found that small patches of wildflowers can foster the same biodiversity as entire meadows.
A caveat to this study: the researchers were primarily looking at insect pollinator biodiversity. Planting a few native wildflowers in your garden will not suddenly cause unusual megafauna from the surrounding hinterlands to crowd onto your porch.
That being said, this study backs up Douglas Tallamy's optimistic vision of Homegrown National Park, which calls for people in communities of all sizes to dedicate some of their yard (or porch or balcony) to native plants. This creates a patchwork of microhabitats that can support more mobile insect life and other small beings, which is particularly crucial in areas where habitat fragmentation is severe. This patchwork can create migration corridors, at least for smaller, very mobile species, between larger areas of habitat that were previously cut off from each other.
It may not seem like much to have a few pots of native flowers on your tiny little balcony compared to someone who can rewild acres of land, but it makes more of a difference than you may realize. You may just be creating a place where a pollinating insect flying by can get some nectar, or lay her eggs. Moreover, by planting native species you're showing your neighbors these plants can be just as beautiful as non-native ornamentals, and they may follow suit.
In a time when habitat loss is the single biggest cause of species endangerment and extinction, every bit of native habitat restored makes a difference.
I couldn't have said it better myself.
So I realize that a lot of people might take this response in bad faith, and while I don't have a catch-all answer to the problem. I do want to state a few things I've seen and that I fear we in the left are chronically bad about. I genuinely hope that people won't view this as some ignorant idiot running their mouth; and rather as someone who's looking to help, because what I'm going to ask of you sounds a little accusatory.
A big thing is that you have to stop with the generalization. I've heard people say "but they do it" and "but it IS most of them" and such. I get it, I get it but you can't say "Cis, Straight, White Men are bad" and then expect the good Cis, Straight, White Men to still stand up for you. I've always been told "but the good ones won't care!" Yes, they will.
I was once told by a Rightwinger on a forum that "the Left are a powerful force in converting people to be conservative." When I asked him about what he meant exactly; he explained (with the use of far too many slurs and insults I'll be omitting) that essentially when otherwise Left-Leaning individuals see the way Leftists talk about them or people like them, it's very easy for Rightwingers to sweep in and basically say "we're not going to judge you like that." Of course they hide the fact they will judge you in other ways, but for that moment; they are a beacon of shelter from the otherwise very loud mob of Leftists who would deem you literally the most inherently bad person for being... a cis man.
Am I saying you have to go out there and start forgiving every bigot, humoring every fuckboy; stop holding sexists accountable for their bullshit? Absolutely not. In fact, what I'm asking you to do is stop firing a shotgun at a target that can only be hit properly with a sniper rifle. I'm asking you to stop giving the bad actors a scapegoat. I'm asking you to be specific.
If you take a young man, who doesn't have any concept of things like gender identity, the patriarchy, homophobia, etc. You take that young man and you look him in the eyes and you tell him:
"Men are a disgusting and violent gender, men do not deserve respect. The only good man is a fictional man. All men deserve to be treated poorly, women shouldn't have to put up with men. Cis men are the worst. Straight Cis Men should go to hell."
He's going to become a conservative rightwinger, because at least they won't hate him for being a man. They'll just hate him for being the wrong kind of man. It's easier for that man to seek acceptance through forcing others to be below him, than for him to accept that he is inherently a problem. If you instead literally word it as:
"Sexists and bigots, who would view women as nothing more than objects are disgusting. Anyone who would look down on, and see someone as lesser because of their race, gender identity, or sexuality does not deserve respect."
Well now he's not a target. Because he doesn't see women that way, he doesn't have racist thoughts; he's not currently a bad person and you're not talking about him. Now I know that a lot of people say "but I'm NOT talking about people like that!" I know that, you know that; you know who doesn't know that? The young man who's reading your posts, the young man who hears you at the store, the young man who read your forum response 3 months ago. What they see, plain as day is "men are a problem" and they're going to seek shelter from that.
Unfortunately for everyone involved; the shelter they end up finding so many times is conservative rightwingers. There are tons of people you can hear talk about this on youtube and forums, people who got indoctrinated because they would rather be praised for being a man than hated for it.
Now you might not talk this way, a lot of people don't; but a lot of other people DO. I see a lot of "the only good man is a trans man" or "the only good man is a fictional man" type posts, and even if you want to say it's just a meme or it's all a joke. You need to understand that when you speak generally, a man, especially a young man is going to see that and react to it. It's going to shape their idea of how the Left, who you represent to them whether you want to or not; see them.
If a young man who currently is unaligned on either side of the political spectrum sees a bunch of gay and trans people shitting on men for simply "being men" and not for the patriarchy, not for the sexism, not for male privilege and all that. Not actually educating anyone, not speaking out about the injustice; not discussing toxic masculinity or anything that may even shine a light on the issues people face. Just saying "men suck" and leaving it at that. Only to then see a bunch of Rightwingers saying all those gays and trans people are stupid and they are bad people and they hate men for no reason. That young man is going to make a no-effort decision in that moment to side with the people who do not openly hate him.
It's genuinely that easy for someone to become indoctrinated. Once they're in, they're rewarded for thinking less, promoting the ideals that promise them a higher spot on the social ladder; and generally following the mentality that Leftists are bad, and Rightwingers are good. They keep digging themselves into that hole trying to find a place they belong, somewhere they won't be hated; somewhere they don't need to feel guilty and wrong for just being who they are. Until they learn that the Right also thinks they're bad and wrong, they're a "beta" because they haven't fucked someone yet, they're a "soyboy" if they're not benching 200 pounds, making six figures, and banging a new girl each week. So now the urge for acceptance has shifted. Being a man means nothing if you're not "the right kind of man" if you're not an alpha, if you're not a sigma male then you're not good enough.
Go figure now they start viewing women as objects. That's not a woman, that's a ticket to not being a beta virgin anymore. She can be bought, she can be manipulated because he's an "alpha" he has money, he has control; he's a man. He's been taught all of this, he's been taught that "bitches don't matter." He's been told that working out and having money can get him any woman he wants. He's been taught women are dumb, that they're materialistic; that they don't matter outside of being a quick fuck. If someone tells him off, or doesn't like him it's because "she's a crazy bitch." I was once told "men don't have friends, men have competition." This is how they're taught.
So now you approach this man in some attempt to help him understand the faults in his ways. The problem is he's been convinced for the last so many odd years that by simply being a Leftist, or by being gay, or by being trans; you're wrong. Before a single word leaves you mouth. Because "all Leftists are special snowflakes who just get triggered by everything." Which unfortunately the internet has "proved" to him because of those videos of gay people screaming at cameras, or posts that generalize all straight/white/cis men to be bad people.
Again, this isn't some catch all solution. It's not going instantly turn the tide or something, but you have to stop using general terms. Be specific; don't say "men" say "Sexists" if what you mean is "sexist men" then say "sexist men." Because when you just say "men" you do imply "all men, including you; the man reading this." Whether that's what you mean or not. I don't believe that men are inherently born with a want for things like sexism and racism. I really don't believe men are some inherent evil born with bad intentions. I believe it's a combination of the way the popular culture tells them they should be something great; and the way the Left tell them they're a horrible person for how they were born. That's a fast track for becoming a "Crypto Hitler."
I cannot tell you how many genuine conversations I've been able to have with Rightwingers, where I've been able to sort of get them to see my side of things even just a little. Because I didn't point a finger at larger audiences. I was talking to a man on a forum just a few days ago about the inherent issue of sexism in an abortion ban. I made sure to use the word "sexists" and the word "men" as separate entities. When I was discussing how men have bodily autonomy that women don't, I would say just that; when I mentioned that sexists want to control a woman's body I would also say just that. He still mentioned several times "Well I never said I wanted to do that." To which I had to point out to him that I never said he did, I said Sexists did; so if he wasn't in fact Sexist then the shoe doesn't fit.
My goal in all of that was to absolve him of blame; but only so long as he didn't fit the bill for the sort of people who deserved the blame. I let him see it as a matter of simple fact. No different than saying "if you didn't shoot this man then you're not the murderer." I didn't say "everyone with a gun shot this man and therefore everyone with a gun, including you; is in fact the murderer." Because doing so would cause nothing but argument. Rather I treated the whole thing as though he couldn't have possibly been at fault right? By the end of it he came out of it saying that abortion still goes against his religious beliefs; but that he can understand how it's specifically a women's issue; and how there should be further discussion about the effects of abortion as a treatment that could potentially save lives. Crazy how that works right? I got a Rightwinger to admit that hey, abortion isn't an issue men should be speaking on. All because I ensured that he didn't feel as though I was pointing a finger specifically at HIM as a man, for being the problem; and instead let him come to the conclusion of whether or not he specifically fit the mold of a "sexist" or a "man." He told me that I was a lot smarter than "those autistic leftists" but he never knew I in fact am an autistic Leftist. That's literally just because in his mind he knows what an "Autistic Leftist" is, what they will say; how they will act, how they'll react. By not being that stereotype; he couldn't just label me some buzzword and write off what I was saying. In his eyes I was a man with a wife and was merely concerned over the safety of our wives and daughters.
Sometimes that's what it takes to make someone see things your way, if I explained to him that I'm a pansexual genderfluid individual who never intends to have children and just believes women should have the right to bodily autonomy for the sake of bodily autonomy the same as cis men have; well he'd probably write me off immediately.
I'm not saying you have you hide who you are, I'm not saying you have to appeal to their bigoted whims and humor their insults. However I am saying that you need to conduct yourself in a way that's going to show young men that you care about them too. That even the young cis white straight men have a place in a Leftist society; that they won't be hated for simply being true to themselves, how they identity; and how they love. That what we want is equality for everyone; and specifically what rights they have for simply being those things, that the rest of us don't for simply being who and what we are.
tl;dr We can save a lot of young men from becoming Crypto Hitlers if we actually stop talking about men in general like they're already Crypto Hitlers.
To the Americans and those otherwise likely to be affected, please know that there is still hope. It looks like Trump is going to win, but it has not concluded ended, and even if he does, we do not know what will happen in the future. As far as we know, he may be impeached and removed from office again, or some other, as of yet unknown, circumstances will arise that will lead to him retiring early.
I know that things seem bleak for those that are likely to be hurt by his position, but there are no guarantees.
Wishing Americans the best of luck. I'm terrified for you.
How Do You Move A Crocodilian?
In light of a recent post, you may be wondering: just how CAN zoos move crocodilians without hitting them in the face with a shovel? I linked some good examples in the post above, but here's some more. Sometimes with small crocodilians if you want to move them, you can just... pick them up. Gently and carefully, but you can lift some smaller species without causing them much distress. Of course, there's a lot of trust that needs to be built first, but it can be done! Here's Cincinnati moving their Chinese alligators between habitats.
Great handling here. Two handlers on the gator at all times, pelvic and pectoral girdles supported, easy release into the water. This is a small species so this is safe, and look how relaxed and easy their body language is!
This is another safe way to move a crocodilian- leading them with a target! Obviously you can't pick up a fully grown American alligator very easily, but here's Brevard Zoo showing you how responsive their big boys are to this kind of training.
Zoos all over the world use different training techniques to work on their crocs. Here's a nice video from St. Augustine Alligator Farm that shows how they work their gharials to participate in their own healthcare:
Training is really important for human and animal safety. For the animals, it helps them participate in their own healthcare and know what to expect. It also helps mitigate social tensions, lets you see that every animal is getting the right amount of food, lets you easily work with them in and out of the water (you need to see them on land for an accurate body condition assessment), and provides mental and social stimulation for them.
But also: if your animals trust you and have some training, it protects both you and them in an emergency. When you work with large carnivores like crocodilians, you need to be able to predict the unpredictable, and be prepared for things to go wrong. Part of that preparation is setting the animals up for success. An animal that's scared of you isn't going to cooperate with medical care. It will be difficult to move in case of an emergency, and it will be harder to maintain control during a worst-case scenario.
If you have to evacuate your facility or something, and you need your croc to go into a carrier box, if it is trained to do that, it's not going to add yet another new, terrifying experience to a pile of new and terrifying experiences. Training is how zookeepers protect themselves and the animals, and when you compare this type of thing to more aversive techniques, it should be fairly easy to see why using the right training techniques is important!
Crocodiles afraid of the shovel
Not afraid of the shovel? Apply the shovel!
Happy Shovel Smack Saturday
THE STORY BEHIND THIS
This emerged as a video on a French Subreddit of an crocodile farm where the man holding the shovel is trying to get all the crocs in the enclosure into the water so that maintenance can be done on the enclosure safely.
Unfortunately this has drawn harsh criticism from people believing this is abusive behavior. Crocodiles are strong, heavily scaled and armored creatures. The severity of the bonk this handler is giving them is basically a smack on the tush to get them safely into the water.
I can't believe people actually thought this funny shit was "abusive"
@kaijutegu what do you think about this?
Tl;dr: no, you're reading this, because there's nothing funny about hitting an animal with a shovel and I can't believe I have to say that.
The snouts of crocodilians are some of the most innervated tissues in the entire animal kingdom. They are more sensitive than human fingertips. They can detect the tiniest pressure changes in the water; an alligator in the pitch-black dark can sense the ripples from a single drop of water in an aquarium, even when their hearing and sense of smell are blocked. Their faces are covered with tiny sensory organs. The epidermis is 40% thinner immediately above these tiny sensory organs, while the keratin layer is 60% thinner and more compact. Here's a map of that nerve tissue:
And this guy knows that because when he hits them with the shovel, the moment of impact is on the side of the face. He is making the decision to hurt these animals.
In the stills, you can see that he's going in from the side and the front of the mouth. He's not smacking them on the tail or flank, he's hitting them in the face. These animals are afraid of him, because this man is coming in with a shovel and hurting them, on purpose. Why is the one in that second still opening its mouth and charging? Because it is afraid of the man with the shovel, who has come here to hit it.
Seriously, this is toddler stuff. Did you not learn in preschool that it hurts when you hit things? Did your parents never say "no, we don't hit the doggy, he doesn't like that?" The crocodilians don't like it either! You see how many of them fled or took defensive positions immediately? That's not a good thing in captive animal management! You want them to NOT be terrified of you because a terrified animal lashes out.
Think for a moment about your fingertips. You need those for typing, for scrolling, for touching, for finding out about the world. Now imagine me smacking the hell out of them with a shovel because I wanted you to move. Not fun, right? You'd call me abusive for doing that right? Perhaps I could have found a less-aversive way to get you to move rather than beating you with a shovel. Perhaps I should have learned your body language better, or asked you to move with auditory cues, targeting, anything else other than beating such a sensitive body part with a shovel. Crocodilians are quite trainable and easy to move in zoological settings. Here's a video from Reid Park Zoo showing exactly how their alligator targets and follows a pole:
And because crocodilians are so intelligent and have such strong sensory input, you can move them without having to be in the same room. When I was job shadowing at a zoo many years back, I moved a fully grown male Cuban crocodile away from the nest he was guarding with nothing more than some splashes in the off-exhibit water. I was fourteen and had never worked with a croc of any kind before, and I was able to do it because the zoo had trained their animals to shift. That's basic predator safety. (I mean it's basic animal safety, but I don't want to get into that. I'm talking about how bad of a zookeeper you have to be to think that the only way to shift crocodilians is to hit them.)
Even baby alligators can learn how to follow a target.
Here's a video of Zoo Australia moving the largest species crocodilian, a huge male saltwater croc. This is a far more dangerous procedure, and surprisingly, it can be done without hitting them! You'll notice they do use physical cues here, like the top jaw rope, which is aversive- but also notice where it sits. Compare it to the nerve map above, and the locations where the animals are being hit.
So yeah, this is abusive, and if you think it's not, go smack your hands with a shovel and see how you feel after. You won't like it! Also, maybe we don't hit things, because we are grown ups and have different tools in our skillset. If my one-year-old niece can gently pet a lizard, this grown-ass zookeeper can learn some basic animal handling skills.
Sources
Leitch, D. and Catania, K. Structure, innervation and response properties of integumentary sensory organs in crocodilians. J Exp Biol (2012) 215 (23): 4217–4230. https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.076836
Knight, K. Croc jaws more sensitive than human fingertips. J Exp Biol (2012) 215 (23): i. https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.081950
Soares, D. An ancient sensory organ in crocodilians. Nature 417, 241–242 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1038/417241a
St. Augustine Alligator Farm post about station training
Karen Pryor post about clicker training gharials, another crocodilian species
Reid Park Zoo post about training their alligator to move in response to a target
My other long posts about crocodilian behavior, both of which come with peer-reviewed citations
Alligator Body Language
Courtship (this one also talks about how sensitive their snouts are)
I keep feeling like what I am saying here is very silly and naive, or like I am somehow being horribly insensitive, but I know that it's just the brain gremlin likely doing its thing.
With that said, you are welcome to correct me if I am mistaken about anything. (Though I do request that you're fairly gentle in your approach, as anxiety is sadly a bully and I am a terrible overthinker.)
You know, it occurs to me that the known internet phenomenon of Reddit “am I the asshole?” posts having completely misleading headers is actually a really great example of a far less known but far more common practice of extreme journalistic spin in cases where there are large monetary incentives to diminish the story in question.
Like, if you see a Reddit post titled “Am I the asshole for buying my wife a new dress?”, the post is pretty much always something totally deranged like: “I (48) really dislike the way my wife (20) dresses, because I think it’s too revealing and makes her look slutty, which was fine when we started dating five years ago, but it makes me feel like she’s going to cheat on me now that we’re married. I’ve politely asked her to get new clothes multiple times, and every time she refused because she said she liked her clothes, and didn’t want to waste money buying new ones. Yesterday I couldn’t take it anymore so I threw out a bunch of her old dresses and bought her a new one that was more modest looking. She started crying because one of the dresses I threw out had been left to her by her mom who died when she was a teen, but I couldn’t have known that it had sentimental value. She said that I should have asked, but obviously if I asked she’d have just told me not to throw out any of her clothes, including the ones that weren’t sentimental. Also, the more modest dress I bought was pretty expensive, and she never thanked me for it. Am I the asshole here, or is she being unreasonable?”
Similarly, whenever you see a headline like “Woman Wins Millions From McDonald’s Because Her Hot Coffee Was Too Hot”, if you dig a bit, you’ll almost always quickly find out that what actually happened was: A 79-year-old ordered coffee which, unbeknownst to her, was being served extremely dangerously hot, because McDonald’s was trying to have coffee that stayed warm over a long commute without spending any extra money on cups with better insulation. The coffee spilled on the old woman’s lap, giving her severe third degree burns over a huge portion of her body, including her genitals. She got to a hospital and they managed to save her life with skin grafting, but she became disabled from the accident, and her genitals and thighs were permanently disfigured. She tried to settle with McDonald’s for her medical costs, and McDonald’s refused to cover any portion of her medical expenses at all, and so she sued. At trial, the jury discovered that this same exact thing had happened seven hundred times before, and McDonald’s had still decided not to change their policy because paying out individual suits was cheaper than moderately reducing their coffee profits. As a result, the jury awarded punitive damages designed to penalize McDonald’s two days worth of their coffee profits, in addition to the woman’s medical costs.
I think it’s largely the same phenomenon, but I know a lot of people who are familiar with the first case, but don’t know to look for the second. If you see some totally outrageous “how could a person ever sue over this stupid thing?” case, you should immediately be incredibly suspicious that that’s all that actually happened, because a lot of the time, it absolutely isn’t. The people who have the most incentive to make their opponent look not only wrong, but completely crazy for having any sort of grievance at all, are often the actually unreasonable ones.
Anyway this is all to say that if I see ANY of y’all automatically siding with McDonald’s over the recent case where 4-year-old girl was severely burned by their chicken nuggets because “hurr durr dumb kid didn’t know that chicken nuggets were hot, people sue over anything lol”, I will grab that McBoot you’re licking and shove it all the way up your McFuckingAss.
Hey btw, this goes for the Panera lemonade thing too. I’m already seeing articles with headlines like “Caffeinated lemonade turns out to contain caffeine”, which is a truly incredible level of spin, seeing as the issue is that Panera fucking killed people. Their products were so deceptively labeled that multiple people who were actively attempting to carefully monitor their caffeine intake still mistakenly drank a lemonade which had more caffeine in it than any energy drink on the market. Do not let a handful of carefully crafted PR one-liners about “underlying conditions” and “what did they think charged meant” turn the narrative on this into a wankfest of victim blamey bullshit. The facts of the case are utterly damning, and the money and effort that Panera is pouring into smearing the victims is as appalling as it is predictable.
I hadn't heard about the McDonald's chicken nugget incident until now, so I looked into it further. The CNN article is, in my opinion, lacking in vital information here, too. The nuggets were pressed up against the child's skin for two minutes, which was about the amount of time that it took for the mother to find a spot to park and assess the situation from what I can gather.
The temperature of the nuggets was not agreed upon, but according to the defence, they were 71 C, whereas the family's lawyer claimed that they were 93 C. Both sides are going to be biassed, and I'm not sure which is more accurate.
As for whether the food was too hot when compared to other fried chicken meals of a similar size, I don't feel educated enough on that topic to say. Regardless, it was obviously hot, but I don't know if it was 'unusually dangerously hot', if that makes sense, seeing as hot food can absolutely be dangerous normally.
I'd prefer to know more about the temperature of the food and how it compares to most similar foods before I make my own judgement.
I'm not a fan of McDonald's by any means, but I think that there's some nuance here, rather than it necessarily being a repeat of the hot coffee incident or parents suing over nothing—a child did get badly burned, after all. Again, I'd personally prefer to know more before I decide where I stand here.
With that being said, I think that it is imperative that we do our research and do not base our judgements on a headline, or ideally any singular article, as even if the source is trustworthy, it may be missing important information. This is especially likely when the source is biassed, as they may exclude information as it is in contrast to their own agendas and/or considered unimportant from their perspective.
I'm not saying 'stick to 100% unbiassed sources' as I'd guess probably most major news sources at least lean politically left or right, and biassed does not necessarily mean unreliable, nor am I saying that you should throughly fact-check everything, but rather only really what you intend to spread or are interested in, but it's a good idea to look at multiple sources about those topics, preferably with different perspectives, to ensure that you're getting the full story, regardless of whether it aligns with your beliefs or not, and absolutely don't go off of a headline's worth of information alone.
Whew, I talked about the 'don't go off of a single article alone' part more more extensively than I originally planned as at the end of the day this is about misleading headlines, but I do believe that it's also an important practice if you want to avoid being mislead.
hi, you say you put links relating to health issues common with certain breeds, why do Persians, Exotic & British Shorthairs, other flat-faced breeds not have one? maybe I'm wrong but I thought they're pretty well known to have breathing and oral problems? /genq
There are different grades of brachycephaly and moderate - severe is generally where we see significant issues.
An appropriately bred British Shorthair (and similar breeds) shouldn’t present with a degree worse than mild… although unfortunately there are breeders who breed for extremes or overlook them in pursuit of a different desireable trait (looking at you dominant blue eye).
But the reason I don’t include a link to relevant cats is because I didn’t feel comfortable deciding where the line was for me to include a link.
This British Shorthair [source] has a nice muzzle length and well-balanced features. I wouldn’t say it’s much more severe than this Ragdoll [source].
Or what about breeds that aren’t brachycephalic per their standard, like the Devon Rex [source] but some breeders [source] are selecting for that extreme type anyways?
With the other breeds the issue is universally relevant, there is no room for me to make a decision on which individuals to mention it om and which deserve a pass.
Brachycephaly is horrible and those who breed these sickly cats are rotten but it’s an issue that can be worked out with ethical breeding. We can breed for longer muzzles and retain other breed traits.
The same can’t be said for the sebaceous cysts in Lykoi which are directly due to the abnormal formation of their skin responsible for the signature werewolf look. The same can’t be said for the Scottish Fold whose folded ears are exclusively caused by defective, weakened cartilage that effects their entire body not just the ears.
Is there really such thing as ethical breeding when there’s plenty of unadopted kitties? Personally I can’t see a need for it beyond human vanity
Yes, there is.
An ethical breeder will perform appropriate health testing, while nothing can be guaranteed as this is a living being and things happen it may be a comfort for some potential buyers to know certain issues are less likely to occur.
I knew someone who adopted two kittens who turned out to be FeLV+ despite initially testing negative. They passed away within their 2nd year. When the individual was ready to welcome another kitten into their heart they did their research and purchased a breed that is known to be generally healthy with very few inherited disorders known to the breed. Due to the controlled environment the kitten was born in and came from the owner didn’t have to worry about exposure to FeLV.
Some people also desire a predictable temperament and while, again, nothing is 100% and there’s variation individual breeds can be expected to semi-reliably display certain characteristics. You can expect a Siamese to be vocal and a Bengal to be active and a Ragdoll to be affectionate and a British Shorthair to be mellow.
Yes, you can potentially get a predictable temperament by adopting an adult cat but behavior in a shelter setting doesn’t always accurately reflect behavior in a home setting and some people want kittens. Adopting an adult cat is awesome but there is literally nothing wrong with wanting to start with a kitten.
If someone purchased a cat from a breeder that cat is not “taking” a home from an adoptable cat because this logic operates on the false assumption that the individual would adopt if the option to purchase this breed was not available.
It is entirely possible they would elect not to get a cat.
All cats deserve a home but no cat is entitled to a specific individuals home. A cat-less home is not already “spoken for” by a shelter cat, a pedigree cat is not stealing a home from an ambiguous shelter cat because the home was never theirs to begin with.
Purchasing a cat from an ethical breeder no more contributes to shelter pet overpopulation than choosing not to get a cat in the first place does. People who don’t want a cat aren’t bad people and people who want a purebred cat and are willing to put in the work to purchase one responsibly also aren’t bad people.
If we want to reduce the amount of cats without homes shitting on good breeders and those who buy from them is not going to get us anywhere.
Actual barriers we can focus our attention on include lack of education on appropriate cat care and cats as a whole, financial barriers to veterinary care and other essentials, and discriminatory adoption practices and unreasonable contracts.
Hey, thanks for your well thought out response. My main issue with your argument is the acceptance that humans are entitled to have the “perfect” pet.
To shop around for the perfect personality and temperament is to treat cats as PRODUCTS, not living animals with rights of their own.
While it’s true that some people would likely not get a cat if they couldn’t buy a pedigree cat, that can’t be true for everyone who has made room in their home for a pedigree cat. You can’t argue that on a practical level, buying cats from breeders doesn’t take away significant opportunities for shelter cats.
I don’t believe this is mutually exclusive with reducing other barriers to adoption and care. Cats on average have significantly less health issues compared to dogs and have not been bred as extensively. Your average shelter cat is not going to differ from a pedigree cat to the degree that a shelter mutt differs from a pedigree dog. Again, there is no reason for “ethical” breeders to exist beyond human vanity.
part of what leads to overrun shelters and lots of stray cats is that so many people will adopt a cat and then return it to the shelter or set it free because the cats personality or habits were undesirable to them. people who adopt cats with the idea that they’ll just get rid of them if the cat has problems or acts in ways they don’t like (who are probably the majority of adopters) should be adopting kittens from breeders instead of getting cats from shelters. to solve these issues it’s not about getting people to adopt as many cats as possible, it’s about making sure cats find a ‘forever home’ and an owner and environment that is suited to them.
To be interested in a particular breed and purchasing from a reputable breeder is not the same as looking for a “perfect” pet.
It is not treating animals as a “product” to desire a particular temperament, trait or health screening anymore than it’s treating adoptable cats as products to look for a particular age, trait, sex, color or the many other criteria adopters often consider.
I can and will argue, on a practical level, that reputable breeders and those who purchase from them are not taking away homes from shelter cats. Perhaps the individual would adopt if their purebred of choice wasn’t available and perhaps they would not, but as stated before their home is not owed to any individual animal.
Their home is not already “spoken for” by a shelter pet and a purebred cat is not taking away a home that rightfully belongs to the rescue cat because it does not belong to them. The only time a home is owed to a particular animal is when the people who reside there make the decision to take on the commitment of said animal.
The previous addition has a very good point.
After my 18 year old cat passed I wanted to adopt another older cat. I consider his later years to be some of the best I’d spent with him and I wanted to give that to another senior.
A 7 year old caught my eye, mature but not quite senior… still in the less adoptable age range, though. I won’t go into details but despite being approved the rescue gave me the runaround and wasn’t being communicative.
I saw a different cat available for adoption through a different organization during this time and decided to meet him. He was estimated at 2.5 years which… is younger than I had planned to adopt, yes, but was still an adult. Just a young adult.
I specifically did not want a kitten because I was not confident I could keep up with their energy and keep them entertained.
The rescue appeared to have estimated the age very incorrectly, though… based on his weight at adoption, growth rate and quality of his teeth he was probably closer to 9 months when I brought him home.
It showed.
Even now he is all over the place, he doesn’t stop moving and he gets into everything. I do not have a single space in my living area that is solely mine and off limits to him, gradually I had to make more and more spaces cat safe because he would get into them one way or another.
I love him to pieces and wouldn’t trade him for anything but if someone else adopted him in a similar situation… they very well may have returned them, which I couldn’t fault them for. He is a tremendous handful and someone looking for an adult or senior cat may not be equipped to handle his behavior due to space, amount of time at work, or other factors.
If I had purchased a cat from a breeder they would have definitively known the cats age, though, and the activity level would be more predictable. If I purchased a retired British Shorthair stud, for example, I could be confident that I was getting a mellow cat of the advertised age.
Your average shelter cat absolutely can differ greatly from your pedigree cat in a variety of ways. I feel like people who believe otherwise lack personal experience with pedigree cats. Due to my work I encounter them frequently and I assure you the difference is clear.
As for vanity… I’m not sure where you got that from. The majority of people looking for a purebred are looking for a pet, for a family member - the same thing that people looking to adopt want. A companion.
Sure, there are people who want a pedigree cat for other reasons but a reputable breeder - and that’s all I’m discussing here, I’m sure we’re in agreement about backyard breeders - won’t sell a cat to an unfit home. This includes a home that desires a status symbol and not a pet.
Honestly I feel like the opposite can be considered true to a degree, as people with adopted or rescue cats often seem to need their cat to be something special. They can’t accept their cat is a Domestic Longhair he must be part Maine Coon. They can’t just have a Domestic Shorthair it has to be a Russian Blue, and G-d help you if you try to tell them otherwise!
One small bit to add; and this is purely my observation from years working for both private vets and both public and private shelters.
Someone who spent time and money on getting their ideal purebred cat will more than likely take care of it properly. If you spend $600+ on a kitten (or retired breeding cat), you are going to “get your money’s worth” for lack of a better phrase. You are going to do everything in your power to keep your investment happy and healthy. Purebred cats show up at the vet more often than shelter cats. They are usually pretty consistent at showing up for yearly exams. Their owners are more likely to bring them in for minor things (little sneezing, head shaking) and for completely optional things (nail trims, sanitary grooming).
And, let’s face it; someone who can afford a pedigreed cat more than likely also has the extra income to pay for those services.
I’d also like to point out that an ethical breeder will not have more than one litter per queen a year; more likely one queen will have a litter every other year. So they aren’t really flooding the market with purebreds that can make any significant dent in the adoption rates of shelter cats. Plus, every breeder I’ve known has something in the adoption contract specifying that if the buyer ever finds themselves unable to keep their cat, that they must return the cat to the breeder. So, they should be adding to any shelter population either.
Cats, indeed all animals, are treated as property because that is what they are from a legal perspective. They are “products” that can be approved upon in successive generations. That’s how we got domesticated animals at all.
Another good addition!
Reputable breeders can have more than 1 litter per year, which is part of why they may have several queens but only 1 - 2 studs, but they shouldn’t have kittens available year round on demand and these litters should be planned and announced ahead of time… and if there isn’t enough interest they’ll cancel or delay the pairing.
Tangentially related but your addition reminded me so I’m going to add the thought here - depending on where you live a breeder might be your only option.
In much of Europe free-ranging indoor/outdoor cats are the cultural norm to the point where the majority of rescues will not adopt out a cat to a home without a garden and cat flap, exceptions are usually only made for cats with particular health issues.
The breeders in these same countries, though, are often more in favor of - and may even require their cats be kept as - indoor cats. Which I suppose makes sense, if you’re investing those kind of resources into little nuggets you’re raising from tiny beans you’d rather know it won’t be for nothing when they end up under a car.
So if you live in these areas and want an indoor cat, or a cat that will only have supervised/contained outdoor access such as on a leash, your only option may be to go through a breeder.
This cat had cancer of the ears, as a cat with a significant amount of white on his face he was at an increased risk of developing these issues. In cats the most common form of cancer to this area is squamous cell carcinoma, which we know can be related to UV light exposure.
Jammie already lost the majority of his pinna to this but instead of allowing him to retire to a good home they insist on him being able to remain an indoor/outdoor cat and applying sunscreen is a more reasonable requirement to them than just allowing him to be a house cat.
This isn’t uncommon in the United Kingdom.
This organizations goes on about #AdoptDontShop while excluding swaths of qualified owners who just want to keep their cats safe and be mindful of the environment.
Missing out: A longer one! It's no secret that I am not a fan of outdoor cats in the slightest. They're an ecological nightmare and feral cats are responsible for an astounding amount of harm to native fauna. But there's another side to it. Being an outdoor cat is TERRIBLE. Being in ER Vet-Med I have seen every bad thing that can happen to an outdoor cat; Dog attacks, Hit by car, Parasites, Poisonings, Snake Bites, Cat Fight Injuries -- it's rough out there!
Eggs Benedict (the cat who I don't shut up about recently) is an ex-stray we adopted who has just had the hardest go of it. Fungal lung infection, 3 strands of cat-scratch fever, potentially hit by a car, potentially burst ear drums, worms, fleas and stomatitis so bad he had to have every tooth pulled. This is a reality for outdoor cats. If you love them, keep them indoors.
by HeckoGecko
source
text: Rishi Sunak wants to ban kids from learning about gender identity and transgender people entirely, only teaching that there are two genders and two sexes. Also he wants to ban learning about puberty before year 4 (8-9 years olds), ban sex education until year 5 (9-10 year olds), ban discussion of sexual harassment before year 7 (11-12 year olds), ban discussion of suicide until year 8 (12-13 year olds, and have no direct references to sex until year 9 (13-14 year olds).
I'm reluctantly optimistic about the future. There's a lot in the world right now that is rough, but we've seen major improvements within much of the world, and I'd argue the world is better than it was even just two decades ago overall.
People are also more aware and care more about many of the issues that we are facing today. If we fight for change, it can absolutely happen, as impossible as it may feel at times. People fighting for change has brought about so many changes in the world, such as women's rights, improved animal welfare, gay rights, etc.
Of course, circumstances differ depending on where in the world you live, and sometimes protesting or otherwise fighting for change may be dangerous. Please do your best to stay safe if you do choose to protest.
Unfortunately, major news sources and social media has a tendency to focus on the bad, making some things, such as murder rates, for example, appear worse than they actually are, and it can give us a skewed, pessimistic view of the world. I highly recommend looking for more neutral and positive news sources to help balance things out.
Throughout much of the world, we've made so much progress already, and we can absolutely work towards making things even better. It's of course not going to be easy, but we as a society have done it before despite heavy, powerful opposition, and we can sure do it again. Even signing petitions and discussing it can help cause change!
It may take time, but I'd like to think that that the world will continue to improve with time, and that we will succeed in solving many of the world's current problems.
people say folks with adhd struggle with "delayed rewards" aka long term goals and as such we tend to focus more on short term rewards. what they don't talk about is that at when we Do accomplish long term goals we don't actually feel anything proportionate to the amount of work we did to achieve it. In my head I suffered for a while and then money spontaneously appeared in my bank account.
"Don't you feel satisfied that your windows are so clean now?" It sucked and it sucked and now I don't care. I just remember the sucking.
Hello, I have ADHD and I am also a licensed clinical therapist!
This part sucks. Not gonna lie to you. That said, our brains DO still get rewards, just not from "task completion" (something something, the combination of executive functioning whammy that is task initiation, task break down, task execution, and task transition following completion). Instead our rewards tend to come from one or more of a few areas:
Food. If you've ever seen the stat that ADHD folks are more likely to have "binge-eating" patterns related to sugar and carbohydrates, this is why! Simple sugars are an easy burst of energy, comfort, flavor, and sometimes even joy! For everyone, but for ADHD folks this may feel really significant because we so rarely have other reward responses
Drugs. People with unmanaged or undermanaged ADHD are more likely than non-ADHD peers to find themselves reliant on substances like alcohol, weed, cocaine, opioids, etc, due to the way these substances interact with our reward centers. And even once our disabling symptoms are well accommodated, reliance on substances to induce reward responses is still common, and can be essential to the "rest and decompress" process that our autonomic system (the sympathetic nervous system specifically) needs in order to reduce hyperactivity of motor movements, thoughts, or activation/reactivity responses.
Mentally/emotionally stimulating activities. This one is vague. But that's because they're going to be different for every person, and likely different even within one person's lifetime! For example, right now my "stimulation exposure" activities are to go outside on the deck with my dogs and tear bits of herbs off my garden growths to chew on (combining sunshine, watching my dogs play or playing with then, and fun variable tastes works well for me), or maybe putting on my noise cancelling headphones to my "caberet" or "southern gothic" playlists while I curl up in bed with some hot tea (the caffeine in the tea is regulated when I feel hyperactive, and the heat, steam, and flavor make for great mindfulness opportunities. Also, the music lets me shrink my world to a size that is tolerable for me at that moment), or diving into whatever my latest research project is (who doesn't love a research rabbit hole!)
Sometimes individuals have other things that can trigger rewards for them, and it's always worth making a note when you run across something like that!
I find that by popping off one of these options DURING or IMMEDIATELY AFTER a task that would otherwise be next to impossible to get thru without becoming a raging self hating asshole can make a big difference in how one experiences that task.
Examples: when I need to clean the house because my maintenance routine has fallen apart, I prep a vape with sativa delta or sativa THC, and shove it in my binder. I take a hit periodically throughout the task process to keep me functional and regulated. I also set pomodoro timers for 45 min each so I can alternate between "working" and "resting".
When I fall behind on notes, my wife buys me peanut M&Ms from the corner store and I pop a pair of M&Ms for every late note I submit for work.
When I'm having a low-function work day, I will prioritize taking my breaks outside with the dogs, and sometimes will splash water around from the hose on them and myself for a bit of a temperature change.
If I've overextended myself but still have essential tasks to complete, I will pause about every 15-30min to do a breathing exercise (5-6 count breath in through the nose, and 2-3 count breath out through the mouth - this is really good for short energy boosts and overcoming brainfog)
It's important to keep in mind, that these are not "incentives" in the traditional sense, where if you don't do the task, you don't get the reward. ANY use of your executive functioning would be rewarded in the brain to some extent for regulated neurotypicals, and just because our reward systems aren't great at self-activating as expected, doesn't mean we should have to live without the positive reinforcement that EVERYONE is supposed to get. So if you made an attempt at the thing, you get to trigger your reward response.
Overtime, myself and clients I work with have all noticed a shift in how we perceive tasks once this becomes common practice. Because we now have history and memories of tasks feeling positive to do (even when they are demanding or difficult for us), it becomes easier to interact with that task overall. You start to better notice the changes in approach that may make it even easier. You stop dreading the knowledge that the task needs to be done. It's easier to hop back into maintenance routines even after they've fallen apart. Basically, when you manually trigger what your brain NEEDS and can't self-create, a lot of the distressing aspects of executive function become WAY more manageable.
There's also a lot to be said about the experience of shifting self shaming and self blaming around what it means to "succeed" at a thing or "complete" a task, but that's sort of a different post. For now, suffice to say that being the kind and compassionate and understanding person you likely are for others, FOR YOURSELF, makes a big difference in how easy or hard the above strats will be to execute.
You probably know a few of the things that manually trigger that reward response for you. How can you make that ability work in your favor?
So if your brain won't give you a reward for completeing a task...store bought is fine?