"I'm Dorothy Gale from Kansas"
No title available
Kiana Khansmith
đ
Sweet Seals For You, Always
Keni
Fai_Ryy
romaâ
No title available
The Bright Sessions
Mike Driver
taylor price
art blog(derogatory)
blake kathryn
tumblr dot com
The Stonewall Inn
Cosimo Galluzzi
The Bowery Presents
h
noise dept.
seen from Panama
seen from United States
seen from Senegal
seen from Canada
seen from United States
seen from Australia
seen from Indonesia
seen from Romania
seen from United States
seen from Singapore
seen from United States
seen from Argentina
seen from Venezuela
seen from Malaysia
seen from United States
seen from Canada
seen from Malaysia
seen from Malaysia
seen from Malaysia
seen from United States
@i-amtransexual
HELLO
tag for my posts is #me.yay
If I've liked art but haven't reblogged, it's in the #kyou wahoo
i love being demisexual #itsawesome
my ao3 writings yipee
my bluesky for funsies
đłïžââ§ïž he/him | bun/bunself | star/starself đłïžââ§ïž
đ Karter âš
Image IDs under readmore if ALT isn't working.
i do wonder how mamdani would have solved a problem like the green goblin
"Wow, you're really good at this, you should do this professionally" okay but have you considered that I don't want to because that would suck all the fun out of this thing that I do for fun and entertainment and it's actually a conscious choice to not do this professionally because that would destroy the very reason I do this to begin with
"You should monetize this hobby" You should go outside and leave me alone
It kind of makes sense for there to be a lot of gay/trans/queer fascists: a) they are isolated and alienated from their liberal-capitalist society, so they marinate in the ambient racism and misogyny dimension (the internet) and b) have a strong desire to seem tough and imposing and powerful by somehow disproving those who see them as inherently weak and c) much more likely than straight people to be fashionable, on pinterest, and fans of Lana del Rey
K!ll your science lapdog
big tshirt that says MY INTERPRETATIONS MUST HAVE A STRONG BASIS IN THE SOURCE MATERIAL on the front and THIS IS FUN TO ME on the back
ohhh we love a good âforced to torture your friend while undercover as a bad guyâ donât we
like. when you meet their eyes and you both know you have to do it and you have to do it well
are you telling me a horse drew this wagon????
a carriage too!!!???
do you still think i'm hot with this giant hole in my chest
obsessed with whatever the fuck is wrong with book grace
character sketch commission đčđ„ ^^
red mackerel tabby with moderate white spotting
red mackerel GAMER with moderate white PWNING
someone keeps arguing with me on a post where I described the state of being a child as functionally disabling (in the context of human rights) and they keep trying to make ridiculous comparisons that no one would ever believe like âyou would never say that women are disabled!â yeah obviously no one would ever argue that women are inherently physically and cognitively unfit for human rights or autonomy. no one would ever say that. itâs so fortunate that we live in a world where no one believes that.
Except, you know, when you do. Say for instance if you are not able to open a bank account or own property or get a job or go to school or wear pants or go out into public alone or or or or or orâŠ
also their other comparison was âyou wouldnât say being gay is like being disabled!â and youâre right I wouldnât but this was a mainstream sentiment in the US within living memory and people got institutionalized and lobotomized and forcibly sterilized for it so like.
and then you look at medical racism and phrenology and it starts looking more and more like all this shitâs more closely related than youâd imagine
So kids are an interesting case because by virtue of being non-adults, their rights are often sharply curtailed. They're restricted in what they can do, often severely restricted. Which is a big problem, because the people responsible for them often either don't have their best interests in mind or have Very Different Ideas about what the kid's best interests are.
sure, and legally on paper being a child looks pretty much exactly like being disabled enough that you're considered to "need" a conservatorship, or being declared "legally incompetent." that's a huge reason why "presume competence" is the rallying cry of a lot of people with disabilities, particularly those with intellectual/developmental disabilities and those with high support needs. similarly the concept of "dignity of risk" exists to argue that autonomy should be prioritized even in cases where society decides someone's decisionmaking process may be "impaired" somehow.
Ok here's a tangent, but bear with me.
Imagine you're dropped suddenly into an unfamiliar landscape, stark naked. Take a minute to think of everything you would wish you had in that situation. Clothes, a blanket, a way of contacting someone you knew? A knife, a fishing net, a fire starter, knowledge of local plants and animals? Prepared food? Glasses, shoes? Medications? All of those things are assistive technologies. They are tools that help you survive and thrive in the world, in ways you would struggle with alone and naked. Some are physical technologies, some are social technologies, some are things you could make for yourself and some are not - but all of them are things you rely on to get by.
As a society we've set an expectation about the set of assistive technologies it is "normal" to need. The fact of needing these things is glossed over, unexamined.
Disability is defined by being unable to perform key functions of your own life or participation in society - but it is defined this way in the context of assumptions about assistive technology access.
Some disabilities can be near-completely ameliorated by specific assistive devices (like glasses.) For others, the assistive technology needed includes more complex social support technologies. But broadly, an approach is possible that says, what would you need, in order to live your life fully? Does it exist, and if not, can we create it? Assistive technologies are by no means a solved problem, but the outlook is to improve life and capacity as much as possible by exploring support options. Anyone who has an unmet need can be benefited by this approach - a total expansion of social support.
In practice, what we mostly see is the inverse of that. The normal level of social support becomes a benchmark. Medicalization of disability often says, "what would it take to make you into someone who only needed 'normal' levels of support?"
Worse, the normal level of social support becomes a reward. A reward for what? Why, for being able to function in society without any more support than that! If you can't accomplish that, do you even deserve this much support? Key pieces of social technology for living in the world are withheld from some people - on the basis of their supposed unfitness to be fully independent members of society. This is what's discussed above - in the context of women being barred from property ownership or independent bank accounts, children being barred from decision making about almost every aspect of their lives, and disabled adults deemed "legally incompetent" facing both.
Lacking access to technologies that would make you able to participate in the physical and social world is disabling. Disability is a status of lacking what you need to function, which can arrise from many causes. Health can be disabling. Poverty can be disabling. Abusive relationships can be disabling. Criminalization and discriminated legal status can be disabling.
Very often, the people withholding key social technologies make the argument that they are withheld *because* you lack capacity - deflecting the impacts of what is withheld ON your capacity and re-naturalizing the source of the problem as inherent to you. This can be done to anyone, by anyone with enough social power over them. The fact that it often occurs to people who are Also struggling because of other unmet needs that would be unmet even if they did receive the full allocation of "normal" support, should not obscure that both of these dynamics are rooted in denial of needed support and blame for needing support at all.
It is because of this deflection that I think disability analysis can't afford to center on what disabilities are "inherent" to a person, versus situational due to discrimination and lack of resources. I don't think those are seperable factors, and even if they were I wouldn't trust people to seperate them accurately, due to the nature of discrimination itself.
Likewise, I think it's crucial to challenge the unexamined status of what is a "normal" level of assistive technology to have access to - including examining things like "autonomy" and "being taken seriously" AS assistive technologies - in the sense that they are social technologies that critically impair quality of life if denied. Perhaps if people who don't think of themselves as disabled, learned to view things they absolutely rely on as assistive technologies, they would be less careless about treating other people's assistive technologies as if they were optional.
(I think one reason for pushback on this framing is the fear that it trivializes disability. That by putting disability on a continuum with experiences had by people who face much less profound social struggles, people will feel they are granted liscence to focus on their own problems. I can't say that's not a real concern! We've all seen versions of that happen, I think. I DO think this type of reframing of disability is useful to understanding why people face the struggles they do, and what other approaches are possible. But it does always bear reiterating that some people are having an EXTREMELY bad time and that their struggles need to be prioritized.)
The older i get the more i understand why some people become obsessed with privacy, not because theyâre hiding something, but because being constantly perceived starts to feel spiritually exhausting.
Did you know that soda machines at restaurants and movie theaters spy on you? That most common new cars now record your sexual preferences and send it to the manufacturer (and also data about anyone who also gets in your car, walks by your car, and maybe happens to be within visual range of your car)? That grocery stores are trying to force customers to download an app to scan barcodes on shelves instead of putting up prices, so the app can scan the phone, decide how much that customer should be squeezed for, and adjust the price? That more and more innocent people are being sent to jail for crimes committed hundreds of miles away because an AI facial recognition algorithm spit their faces out and the cops didn't bother to do the most basic of checks?
I am not uptight about privacy because I'm hiding something. I'm uptight about it because the people who dismiss my right to privacy are dangerous to you and me and our families, personally, all the time.
And often, they are assholes, too.
Off the coast of Australia Macroctopus caught the shark, wrapped all its tentacles around it and soon released it. Most likely, he scraped all the parasites off her.
The octopus
me when i fucking get u
prev i loved your tags
i keep thinking i'm gonna have a "finding out firefox-official" moment in college but literally nobody i've met even knows what tumblr is. i get in a good convo with the most alt niche queer whatever person i've seen that day and i glance at their phone and i see a tiktok notification. the world is in shambles
ABCDEFGHI KLMNOPQRSTUVWXY
24/26
let it be known that three years on i am now in a band with someone who knows this blog never đ stop đ blogging
*realizes i stopped blogging* oh
