
Kaledo Art

★

JBB: An Artblog!
Alisa U Zemlji Chuda
Show & Tell

izzy's playlists!

tannertan36
tumblr dot com

titsay

❣ Chile in a Photography ❣

pixel skylines
Three Goblin Art
Lint Roller? I Barely Know Her
"I'm Dorothy Gale from Kansas"
YOU ARE THE REASON

No title available
dirt enthusiast

⁂
cherry valley forever

#extradirty

seen from Netherlands

seen from United Kingdom

seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from Malaysia
seen from South Korea
seen from Singapore

seen from United States

seen from Malaysia
seen from Australia

seen from Malaysia

seen from Türkiye

seen from United Kingdom

seen from United States

seen from Malaysia
seen from Türkiye

seen from United States

seen from France
seen from United States
seen from Australia
@hypoxiac
If you think Remmick's behavior in Sinners towards Sammie was in any way queer or motivated by sexual attraction, boy do I got a book you'll love!!
Join your fellow centuries of believers as you learn the racist history of white people (yes, the women too!) taking advantage of their enslaved Black victims' bodies in any way they saw fit, because they had a psychosexual obsession with the power they held over them! I'm sorry, I mean the "enemies to lovers obsessed vampire trope"!
That title is kinda creepy to me.
So is eating Black people both literally and figuratively, my dear
we were tagged in the replies here. just wanna say this book is incredible. we’ve got the audiobook at QLL (& hope to add the ebook in the future)
it is also an award winner! 2014 Lambda for LGBTQ Studies
using violence to liberate people from sweatshops, unsafe mines, and grinding poverty isn't the same as using violence to impose those things on people. the idea that violence is morally repugnant regardless of context is a belief that every oppressor throughout history would love for the oppressed to hold
Rapists, and killers, too? Really? (Those on death-row?) The drug/prostitution problems are just a portion of USA criminals.
yes, all criminals. the moment you say “except X criminal” is the moment that people will try to convict their opponents as having committed X crime.
it’s the same thing as what’s going on right now with people equating drag to some sort of child exploitation. “but the children!!” they wail, and people listen because oh, if drag is harming children, then drag MUST be BAD, so we HAVE TO BAN DRAG.
do you understand what i’m saying? you can’t take away the rights of any category of criminal, because suddenly that category will be overflowing with people who totally 100% definitely committed that horrible crime.
Just to look at this from one step further back, let's accept the premise. Let's imagine that there is a type of crime that is 1) horrible evil irredeemable universally-agreed-upon bad, and 2) could somehow be prosecuted with 100% accuracy and 0% bias. Yes, even then, those criminals deserve a right to vote.
Do you they're going to like vote themselves out of jail? Vote to make murder legal? What exactly are you afraid of.
Realistically they'll just... vote just like anyone else. They'll help elect city councilmembers they think will better their hometowns, and presidents they think will best serve the country. They might even vote in their own interests! To reform prisons, fund rehabilitation programs, and outlaw predatory practices by telecoms. Are you saying you don't want any of those things?
And even if there were one of those super-duper-unambiguously-evil totally misanthropic death-row convicts, who's scheduled to be execute the very next day and just wants to sow chaos and watch the outside world burn however they can... what's the worst they could do, vote republican?
Taking people's rights away isn't bad because it might happen to someone you like, it's because taking people's rights away is bad.
do people think that convicted serial killers are going to vote to legalize serial killing
everyday white women complain about weaponized incompetence with men and everyday they turn around and do the exact same thing to poc
“I didn’t know what xyz meant!!” why on earth would you repeat it then without looking it up first if you didn’t know the meaning. google is right there you can use it.
“How am I supposed to learn if you don’t educate me?” once again, Google is at your fingertips, use it for the love of god.
“Well I can’t find any sources on [this topic]” found four within a minute, you just want poc to do the labor for you.
“Being mean doesn’t mean you’re right!” “You’re just aggressive!” “Well if you don’t want to have an ~civil~ conversation..” “You’re overemotional” do y’all even hear yourselves. Like do you never stop to think that maybe, just maybe the shit you’re parroting sounds a little familiar?
“This is the nightmare that I've had—literally had nightmares woken up in a cold sweat about. The government has kidnapped one of my friends
"38-year-old regional video gaming champion Ludovic Mbock, who came to the US legally from Cameroon, was snatched by ICE while applying for his yearly work permit—as he’s done for 20 years. He has since been detained for three weeks and moved to facilities in Louisiana and Georgia, and his freedom depends on a critical bond hearing this week. In this urgent episode of Working People, we speak with Diane Sohna, Ludovic’s sister, and Nikhil Delahaye, a close friend of Ludovic’s and a fellow gamer."
hey, this is a friend of a friend -- i made a post that didn't get much traction, if you'd like to help out with legal funds, here's the campaign.
Ludovic Mbock is a dear friend who has always brought kindness and positivity to those… David Hazlewood needs your support for Support Ludov
the transgender persons act 2019 was introduced in the lok sabha today and it is imperative that it does not pass
I think that a lot of us are shying away from an obvious truth, that the kind of blatant racial prejudice we are witnessing in Ferguson, Mis
From research:
“Longitudinal studies provide some of the most convincing evidence. One such study looked at general intelligence in 10- and 11-year-old kids, and then re-studied those kids as adults two decades later—and found a clear connection between low intelligence and subsequent racism and sexism. Similarly, higher intelligence in childhood has been shown to predict less racism in adulthood. These analyses strongly suggest that low intelligence actually leads to hateful attitudes later on.
This is just a sampling of the accruing evidence on this point, all of which points to another puzzling question: Why? Why would verbal ability and math skills and other cognitive assets translate, over the years, into such hateful attitudes?
Dhont and Hodson believe they have an answer to this, again one based on rigorous abundant evidence. Their theory is that right-wing ideologies attract people with lower mental abilities because they minimize the complexity of the world. Right-wing ideologies offer well-structured and ordered views of society, views that preserve traditions and norms, so they are especially attractive to those who are threatened by change and want to avoid uncertainty and ambiguity. Conversely, smart people are more capable of grasping a world of nuance, fluidity and relativity.
The empirical evidence supports this link, too. Low intelligence and “low effort thinking” are strongly linked to right-wing attitudes, including authoritarianism and conservative politics. And again, there appears to be a demonstrable causal link: Studies have found, for example, that children with poor mental skills grow up to be strongly right-wing adults.
There is a final link in the chain of causality, according to Dhont and Hodson. Considerable evidence shows that conservative ideology predicts all sorts of prejudice—against ethnic and racial minorities, the disadvantaged, any outgroup. Indeed, right wingers are much more likely to see outgroups as a threat to traditional values and social order, resulting in heightened prejudice. Dhont and Hodson tested and confirmed this mediation model: Lower childhood intelligence clearly predicts right-wing ideology and attitude, which in turn predicts prejudice in adulthood.
The scientists elaborate on this idea in the Current Directions article: Intelligence and thinking determine how people assess threats in the world. Those with lower ability—reasoning skills, processing speed, and so forth—prefer simple and predictable answers, because that is what they are capable of processing. Any uncertainty is threatening, and they respond to such threats by trying to preserve what is familiar and safe, the status quo. These conservative reactions are basic and normal—they reduce anxiety—but over time they harden into more stable and pervasive world views, which include stereotypical thinking, avoidance, prejudicial attitudes and over discrimination.”
The claim is not new — the Miami Herald published its findings in summer 2025.
source for the congresswoman thing as well, because i hadn't heard about that:
The Trump administration has repeatedly attempted to restrict or thwart congressmembers’ access to ICE jails.
In the nineties, people started to pay attention to peanut allergies. There were definitely people with severe peanut allergies before than, and to lots of other things, because human bodies are bs. It’s likely that some quantity of unexplained deaths in children came from allergies they didn’t know about. But in the nineties, people started to get scared of it, wanted more safety, wanted to be sure their child didn’t become allergic because they were exposed to an allergen too young.
New parents got scared and got told that you shouldn’t expose your baby to any of the big bad scary allergens. Not until they’re older and their immune systems are more developed. Peanuts were the most notable. So parents kept little kids away from peanuts entirely. Peanut allergies — severe allergies rose. And it showed up later, and was more severe from the start. Some schools fully banned peanuts. And the allergy rate continued to rise.
In the nineties, immune system fears increased. Stories like bubble boy made new parents think about germs a lot more. The idea of antibiotic resistance was entering the public consciousness, and people were scared for their kids when they got sick. Parents got obsessive with hand sanitizer and bleach and keeping their kid clean all the time. No more playing outside in the dirt. We need to sanitize the playground. Stay out of that ball pit. Give them the antibiotic just in case so the parents didn’t worry.
More kids had a harder time fighting it off when they got colds or bugs. Schools and parents got more worried and pushed for more hand sanitizer and wanted more antibiotics for any and every cough or cold. They wanted to be sure they had some later if the doctor said no next time, or if a friend needed some for their kid. Parents would only give 5 of 7 days, stop when the kid seemed healthy, and keep the last few, because they wanted to keep their kid safe. Drug resistant bugs got more dangerous and more prevalent. More kids showed up with weaker immunity to things and got scarily sick from stuff that would have been a few days feeling gross.
In the nineties, the idea of kids not having an education became a nightmare scenario for parents. It became a social taboo not to graduate high school, and college became an expectation not an achievement. Parents were scared their kid might fail a grade, and it would ruin their life. To help stop that, schools added standardized testing, no child left behind type initiatives, and parents fought for things that promised all kids would graduate.
Testing got tied to funding for schools, so the tests became the most important thing, and classes shifted focus. Teacher’s jobs got tied to whether all the students passed, or got high enough scores, and schools with lower graduation rates were tarred and feathered. Parents showed up screaming at teachers if their kid got less than an A on a test because that might keep them out of the best college five years later. Kids got shoved into advanced classes and yelled at by parents if they weren’t perfect, because they wanted the best life for their kid. Schools lowered the standards, changed the requirements, made sure that even if they had to lie, even if the teacher had to fake the test scores, the kids would pass and graduate on time.
Now the general recommendations say to make sure toddlers taste peanut butter with other early foods and are exposed to as many potential allergies as possible while young. That you should toss the kid in a mud puddle and shrug when they eat some dirt, and give them soup and a popsicle before you rush to the doctor for a Z pack. That standardized testing has wrecked the education system, and made sure that kids learn less, and made it harder for them to handle failure.
Sheltering kids from anything that might hurt kids, hurts kids.
The fact that there are kids with severe peanut allergies, and there are kids with dangerously weak immune systems, and there are kids who will flunk out of school does not mean it will happen to all kids. And you’re hurting the majority by sheltering them like the minority.
They’ll find out they’re allergic to mangos when their lips swell up, they’ll have a runny nose most of preK and kindergarten, they’ll fail a class or a test or a grade and learn that the world doesn’t end.
Some kids get truly, scarily damaged by things. The others get stronger, more resistant, more able to shrug it off later if they got mild exposure when young and they become healthier adults. They don’t get knocked into a dangerous overreaction when they finally encounter it. They learn, physically and mentally, how to handle things that might be bad for them, without crashing out.
This post is about pornography.
remember to cry for help without guilt-tripping. i know it feels like you’ve been abandoned and betrayed, but it’s probably not true, and it’s not okay to accuse the people around you of something they might not have done.
“i guess none of you like me” could be better phrased as “i feel unloved right now”
“but nobody cares anyway” could be better phrased as “i feel insignificant and i need reassurance”
rather than assuming others’ feelings, give them time to explain them. you’ll usually get a much better answer.
This is really important for future predictions, too. “You’re eventually going to leave me” is impossible for someone else to disprove without just sticking around forever, but no one wants to stick around when they’re being constantly accused of future abandonment. Giving someone no choice but to either stay with you forever in order to prove you wrong or leave you and prove you right is incredibly emotionally manipulative, whether you mean it to be or not.
“I get scared sometimes because I’m afraid of being alone again” is easier to address and doesn’t leave your partner(s)/friend(s) feeling as though they’re being preemptively accused of something.
On Shopping While Fat 2: Son of Fat
"Please, do not ignore my story. Your donation and sharing this message is a part of your humanity and support for us. Every help, no matter how small, makes a huge difference in my life and my children's lives. Be our voice, be the hope for those who have lost everything." 🇵🇸🍉🙏🏼
I am Ahmed Mahmoud,34 years old, from Gaza, married with four childr… Ahmad Mahmoud needs your support for Help me save my children from dea
✅️Vetted by @gazavetters, my number verified on the list is ( #521 )✅️
Share, donate, help us survive. 🕊️❤️
In a corner of Gaza, my family and I are drowning in destruction, with the echoes of suffering surrounding us. I sat beside my modest tent, hastily erected after losing my home in the latest bombing. The faces of my family tell stories of patience and resilience, with lines of time etched upon them, as if they were records of unforgettable events. 🇵🇸⏳🍉
I once lived in a small home, filled with the laughter and voices of my children. Today, I have become a witness to the agony of displacement. The bombing forced me to flee with my children after a shell struck our home, leaving behind years of memories and simple belongings I never imagined would become unreachable. 🏚️💨
Every morning, I leave my tent and go to work, using a clay oven to provide food for my children. Meanwhile, my youngest son heads to the charity kitchens that offer aid, waiting for long hours under Gaza’s scorching sun. Despite the exhaustion that weighs down his frail body, he carries the food mixed with his tears and returns with a fake smile, hiding behind it the burdens of his struggles. 🍞🥀
At night, when everyone else is asleep, I remain seated at the entrance of my tent, gazing at the dark sky, reminiscing about days gone by… about my home that was once filled with warmth. Yet, I still find remnants of hope in my heart—a hope that one day peace will return, and my children and I will live in a new home, filled with joy. 🌙🏡✨
In moments of solitude, I find peace in prayer and supplication. I plead to God to protect Gaza and its people, to wipe away the dust of sorrow from our hearts. I always repeat🇵🇸🍉🌿
"We are here to remind the world that we are stronger than war, and we will rebuild our lives anew, no matter the cost!" 🙏
Every donation creates a smile. Be part of those smiles.
It's a real shame that online reply guys have made 'thought experiments' into a constant ordeal of 'would you let me say the n-word to save 5 black children?' bullshit, when actually, real thought experiments are important training tools to unlearn acting on bigotry, biased instincts and propaganda.
In life you're going to encounter ethical questions that you've never considered before or you'll find reasons to question ethical questions that you always thought that you knew the answer to. And when that happens, you have to be comfortable thinking the whole things thru from all angles, even though your gut instinct tells you to settle for the easy answer that makes you comfortable.
You have to be able to ask questions like 'but is anyone harmed by the thing that disgusts me?', 'is this about improving the world or just about punishment'?, 'what if my assumptions about why people do this thing are wrong'?
You have to be comfortable not being sure yet what your conclusion will be. You have to be comfortable exploring opinions that differ from what your friends think. Thought experiments teach you this.
If you don't get comfortable doing that, propagandists will trick you into accepting a comfortable answer based on your preconceived biases and whatever new biases they want to slip in there.
I regret to announce that I need to actually explain to insufferable people in the notes why 'would you let me say the n-word to save 5 black children?' isn't a clever little thought experiment. Let's start with a little story:
I work the door at a feminist club sometimes. We've got a big sign at the door in bold letters reading "No touch of any kind without consent, you will be kicked out". When new guests show up, we point out the rule and ask them to confirm that they'll follow this rule.
Every night, there will be a few guys whose response to this is to immediately put a finger somewhere on my body, like my shoulder or my arm, and ask "not even this?". If those guys are allowed to enter the club, they ALWAYS end up groping people. Their response to a boundary that was put in place to prevent harm, is to immediately push it, test it, see if they can do a little bit of harm, see how much harm we will tolerate. That's what that finger and "not even this?" shows.
In this club, little innocent touches without prior consent definitely happen. It's loud and it can get crowded on the dance floor and around the bar. Shoulders touch, people tap each other on their arm to signal that they want to get through the crowd. No harm is done. But "No touch of any kind without consent" stays up at the door because its an effective filter to keep out the predatory guys.
Social conventions around the n-word are a lot like that. While it is technically true that the sound of the n-word does no harm on its own and it's the intent that makes a slur into a slur, to point that out is to misunderstand why the "don't say the n-word ever" social rule is there. It's a test, like our "No touch of any kind without consent" rule. People who see that rule and respond by pushing its boundaries are telling on themselves. They're showing that they want to explore how much harm we will tolerate.
So you're not particularly clever if you invent a thought experiment that shows that the n-word isn't a magic sound that does harm on it's own. We all knew that already and you're not cleverly exposing purity culture or dogmatic liberal behavior. You're just telling on yourself. The "don't say the n-word ever" social rule is a filter that exists to get people like you to tell on yourself.
This also branched into a bigger thing about thought experiments: Thought experiments are NOT neutral lenses which reveal inevitable truths. They're artificial realities controlled by their creators, and as such they're extremely subjective.
Clever, insightful thought experiments have no clear answer and challenge us to examine all sides of an issue, to dig deeper until we get to a more complex nuanced understanding of moral issues.
Thought experiments whose only purpose is to create a scenario in which we must inevitably say the n-word, or we must torture someone to defuse a bomb, etc. are not insightful, they just reveal that their creator would really like to be alloed to say the n word / torture. They're blunt manipulations and we have every right to refuse to play that game.