Vote for progressives. #DSA #ZohranMamdani
Democrats, are you taking notes? This is how you get shit done.
occasionally subtle
Stranger Things
noise dept.

tannertan36
Cosimo Galluzzi
styofa doing anything
Misplaced Lens Cap
d e v o n

JBB: An Artblog!
Aqua Utopia|海の底で記憶を紡ぐ

祝日 / Permanent Vacation
Monterey Bay Aquarium
dirt enthusiast
todays bird
trying on a metaphor

Kaledo Art
"I'm Dorothy Gale from Kansas"

No title available
will byers stan first human second

JVL

seen from Singapore

seen from Switzerland
seen from Spain
seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from Malaysia
seen from United States
seen from Türkiye

seen from United States

seen from Türkiye
seen from United States
seen from Colombia

seen from Taiwan

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 Italy
@littledinosaurarms
Vote for progressives. #DSA #ZohranMamdani
Democrats, are you taking notes? This is how you get shit done.
“Authors should not be ALLOWED to write about–” you are an anti-intellectual and functionally a conservative
“This book should be taken off of shelves for featuring–” you are an anti-intellectual and functionally a conservative
“Schools shouldn’t teach this book in class because–” you are an anti-intellectual and functionally a conservative
“Nobody actually likes or wants to read classics because they’re–” you are an anti-intellectual and an idiot
“I only read YA fantasy books because every classic novel or work of literary fiction is problematic and features–” you are an anti-intellectual and you are robbing yourself of the full richness of the human experience.
"you are functionally a conservative" is such a good and clarifying insult
Literally right after I saw this post, I saw another post in a discord chat for BOOK EDITORS in which an outspokenly liberal editor talked about how Nabokov should have never been published because he wrote about p*dophiles and described women's bodies in ways that made her uncomfortable. She described his writing as "objectively terrible" and said she wanted to burn his books. And other editors were bringing up classics they didn't like and talking about how they wanted to throw them in the trash. This wasn't like a light "unpopular opinion!" conversation. This was actual book editors talking about how books should be destroyed and censored.
There is something so scary and toxic in global culture right now. The revival of fascism is influencing everyone's mindset and approach to art, regardless of where they fall on the political spectrum.
I see far more books being censored today than when I was a kid. Librarians handed me The Catcher in the Rye, The Sexual Politics of Meat, and Animal Farm when I was literally 8-11. My mom would never have taken a book away from me. I read everything from the Tao Te Ching to the Qur'an to atheist texts under my desk at school. Teachers thought nothing of it or encouraged it. Books seemed universally acknowledged as sacrosanct to me.
Now I can't find any adults who don't hesitate or want to make exceptions when it comes to censorship. Even the most liberal social activist librarians I know go, "well except for book X..."
Functionally conservative. It's so important to have the language to express that.
Thank you for this addition!
I did a report on book banning once.
Actually, I did reports on book banning three separate times with three separate teachers, with three separate sets of parameters so I was able to write about the same topic in different ways, but this is specifically about the report I did in university. The actual specs for the report included that we were supposed to complete some kind of study or poll (this was not a science class). I put the questions out on a couple of forums I belonged to at the time and asked a few IRL friends as well. A lot of the questions were standard for this sort of thing, I think - were you ever assigned to read a banned book, did you ever read banned books on your own, did you read/were you assigned them BECAUSE they were banned or did you find out about them being banned later, what's your opinion on banning books, etc.
But there was one question I asked that ended up reshaping the entire thrust of my presentation: "Are there any books that you think SHOULD be banned, and if so, why?"
Here's the thing. Most of the forums I was posting on were fan spaces for a book series that, at the time, was one of the most banned/challenged books out there. It's a fandom that I have since entirely distanced myself from, that I one hundred percent do not recommend to anyone, that I will actively attempt to dissuade people from reading or talking about, and that I would like to not be popular anymore. I'm sure most of you reading this can guess which one I'm talking about (I won't name it or go into specifics because I don't want to trip any filters unnecessarily). But it was KNOWN that these books were banned in a lot of places. A lot of people wore the "I read banned books" badge with pride. I fully expected that the answer to that question would be a resounding "no" from the forums, and that I'd maybe get a few affirmative answers from one of the other spaces.
I was shocked. Not only did a lot of people come back with either "not exactly but I think we should keep [author] or [book] out of the hands of children" or "yes, [book]/anything by [author] should be banned because XYZPDQ", but not a single person who responded gave me the same answer. The only one I remember - keep in mind it's been almost twenty years - was that one person specifically said The Bone Collector, and for the "why do you think it should be banned" question, they only said, "No. I'm not explaining it. It's too horrible to even think about. Just believe me when I say nobody should ever be allowed to read this book."
I highlighted that last comment in my presentation, along with several other of my "favorite" official reasons for banning books - the Alabama school board that banned The Diary of Anne Frank in 1984 because it was "a real downer", the district that removed A Raisin in the Sun because it was "pornographic", the library that took Charlie and the Chocolate Factory out of circulation because it "might be hurtful to children without parents", and things of that nature - and pointed out that all of these were the same thing. This was somebody saying "I don't like this, therefore nobody should read it, and I shouldn't have to explain why." I also pointed out that if you can't give a good reason, the whole thing falls apart, and then I quoted "Smut" by Tom Lehrer:
All books can be indecent books, Though recent books are bolder, For filth, I'm glad to say, Is in the mind of the beholder. When correctly viewed, Everything is lewd. I can tell you things about Peter Pan And the Wizard of Oz - THERE'S a dirty old man...
Go back to that paragraph I mentioned earlier, about those books that I no longer recommend to anyone. Notice how I phrased that. I don't recommend them. I will tell you all the reasons why I don't think you should buy them. I will tell you all the problems with the author, with the franchise, with the writing. I wish they were out of print, I wish they were deeply unpopular, I wish nobody would ever read them again.
But I still won't advocate for banning them.
It's so easy to twist a justification. Look at what I quoted up there! A Raisin in the Sun was banned for being "pornographic". One of the websites I used as a source responded to that accusation with "Did they read the same play I did?" At the time, I thought the comment was funny. Now, twenty years later, I realize: It was a buzzword. It was a convenient label. At the time of the challenge, just saying "it's pornographic" was enough. Obviously you're not some kind of sicko who wants to hear about all the pornographic details, are you? Freak! That's pornography! And they're teaching it in schools! We should get rid of it!
A Raisin in the Sun, for anyone who didn't study it at any point or read it (or watch the movie, which was very good), is a play/movie about a black family in Chicago in the 1960s. The family matriarch has been in domestic service for years, but she's just received a very large insurance payment from her husband's death and is retiring. Wanting to give her family, especially her young grandson, a better life, she goes out and buys a house...in an otherwise exclusively white neighborhood. The head of the homeowner's association (essentially) comes to visit them and offers to pay them a substantial amount of money to not move into the neighborhood, because segregation isn't officially a thing and they can't legally stop them from moving in, but they don't want them there. There's a lot more that goes on in the play, and I highly recommend you go and read it, but the point is that there is nothing sexual or titillating in the entire thing. The closest we get is a scene where the daughter (Beneatha, a college student) is gifted a traditional African dress from her boyfriend, who's Nigerian, and he shows her how to put it on over the clothes she's already wearing, and maybe the scene where the daughter-in-law (Ruth, a laundress) accidentally reveals that, having found out she's pregnant, she's planning to have an abortion rather than bring another child into the world/have another mouth to feed.
It's not pornographic. But someone didn't want it taught in schools, so they called it that to get it banned.
It's so easy to twist labels. If you, a liberal, agree that books with X trait are okay to ban, the people who don't want books to exist will find a way to say they have X trait, and then what are you going to do, admit that you like that sort of thing? Sicko! Freak! Pervert!
You don't have to like the book, or the author, or the topic. But if you're advocating for banning them entirely, you're functionally a conservative.
People have called The Diary of Anne Frank child porn (which is now more properly called CSAM - child sexual assault material) because in the book Anne discusses her own sexuality and masturbation habits in a very direct and relatively detailed way. And since she was 14 and thus a child (except 14 year olds are not children, they're adolescents) this constituted disgusting vile child porn.
Which is ridiculous any way you look at it, but that's the justification many people have used to get that book banned. We can't let people know that minors have any kind of sexual awareness or feelings, now, can we?
The amount of medical gaslighting endo suffers endure literally drives people to suicide. Even after finally getting believed, care is poor because even "experts" often know very little. And the trauma of having to fight to he taken seriously while in terrible pain and having potentially life threatening complications laughed off in ER is nothing short of cruel and unusual punishment for the crime of being born with a broken reproductive system.
King Arthur Baking Company is coming under fire for holding a competition exclusively for people of color-owned businesses and brands.
According to the company’s website, “Baking Pitchfest 2024” offers a product edition geared toward baking brands founded and owned by people of color across the U.S., and a bakery edition, which focuses on people of color-owned bakeries in the Northeast and Washington state. “Half mentorship, half competition, Baking Pitchfest is an accelerator program designed to foster greater inclusivity and creativity in the baking world by providing equitable opportunities for People of Color entrepreneurs,” the website states, adding that winners will receive financial support, mentorship, and exposure. But the initiative has generated outrage amongst conservatives online, who have blasted the competition eligibility rules as discriminatory against white people.
One X user critical of King Arthur Baking’s contest posted an email she received from the company in response to her complaining. “Helping build joyful, equitable communities that celebrate diversity is an important part of who we are as a company,” the email states, later adding: “We love baking with anyone and everyone. Our simple expectation is that everyone show respect for one another.”
Time to buy more King Arthur Flour!
If you need more reason to support them, they’re worker owned.
Since 2004, King Arthur has been 100% employee owned. As a result, our company is built on a foundation of transparency and collaboration, a
Also they actually are working on regenerative agriculture:
This new whole wheat flour is an innovative blend of unique wheat varieties bred to be more tolerant of the planet's changing climate.
Also they do blog articles about adaptive baking:
Baking more than usual during the holidays can aggravate symptoms of chronic fatigue. So when the baking bug bites, here are some strategies
You know, way too often I find articles talking about how the maker of some product I use is actually Evil. It's really nice to get the opposite.
I vote we stop calling it inflation at all. Seize the language. It's price gouging, not inflation. Inflation is a nebulous concept that invokes feeling of being too complex for the layman, a struggle as old as economy itself against a beast no one has ever truly slain.
Price gouging is the truth of it. And it makes it very clear who is to blame, and what must be done to end it.
Can confirm this works wonders. Australia is in a cost of living crisis rn and the two major supermarkets are a big part of it, as they pretty much have a duopoly on not just the grocery shopping market, but a bunch of others considered to be essential (things like fuel). They are trying to blame their price rises on inflation, but the media recently started reporting it as price gouging (which it is), and it got the average person pretty worked up, better than blaming inflation did.
It's price gouging, not inflation.
#and it's punitive #one of the reasons they fired this up was because people were TALKING about raising the minimum wage #and the sudden jump in prices let them say “see? we told you this would happen if you raised wages!” #even though wages only got raised in a couple of places
@slyandthefamilybook oh, am I jealous that u haven’t seen this. It’s a very common goy thing. Like. All the damn time. Basically we learn abt the holocaus and it’s like. It’s us. We’re the victims. What we would have done is run, hide, fight, comply, or die trying to one of those things. For the goyim what they’re hearing is, “This is you. This what y’all did.” And so, they all have to tell themselves that they wouldn’t have. That they’d have fought back. Hidden jews. Whatever. But, statistically, well. We saw what happened. Just about every goy thinks about themselves that they would have protected us. So, “If it was the holocaust, I would have saved jews!” becomes a sort of personal mantra for a lot of goyim when racial injustices come up which lets them push away their own failings in that regard with a sanitized hypothetical about a specific historical event they know is wrong and their confidence that they would have know to stand up. Much in the way people say, “No! I love jews! I just [insert classic antisemitic trope here]” and because they don’t understand bigotry on any level besides personal hate they truly believe their love for “jews” is enough to protect them from being antisemitic.
I’ve been getting a LOT of goyim reblogging this post from me. That’s good, but I think I wanna make something clear so the message isn’t getting lost, just in case. This post IS about you. All of you. I don’t mean this to say that you hate jews or won’t stand up for us now. Idk y’all reblogging this, so I really can’t say if you will or won’t, have been or haven’t. But I can say that, statistically, you would NOT have saved jews during the holocaust. I can say this because so very few did. You are saying you would have w the benefit of hindsight and growing up in a world that told you the holocaust was bad. But, as garfield is so kind to remind us, you are not immune to propaganda. You would most likely have fallen for the nazi party line. You would have believed it wasn’t that bad. Or that it was worth the cost. Take a look at this quote from a german mathematician, Erhard Schmidt, about Hitler.
This man did not have some special enmity for the jews. He simply did not care enough to do anything to protect us. Especially not when he benefitted from our suffering. This was most people. What you, as a goy, should be learning from the holocaust is absolutely under no circumstances, “I would have saved jews”. If that is your lesson, if that is what you think to yourself when you think about the holocaust, I can almost guarantee you that you wouldn’t have. What you SHOULD be thinking is this: A whole nation of people fell for propaganda based on deep hatreds present in society for centuries. These hatreds were exploited and weaponized to enable the rise of fascism and the genocide of the jewish people. This spread beyond just one nation. All the places the nazis conquered were eager to surrender their jews to concentration camps. A continent decided the jews were not deserving of life, and the rest of the world turned away jewish refugees, leaving them trapped under a regime who wanted to exterminate us. You have to remember that you are no different from any of these people. Not the poles and french who eagerly helped the nazis get us out of hiding. Not the germans who voted for hitler, for “economic reasons” or for hate. None of them. They’re all just as human as you are and, therefore, you are just as susceptible to propaganda and bigotry as they were. If you sit and tell yourself in the safety of your world, “I would have saved jews” you probably wouldn’t have. If you want to be the person who would have saved jews what you actually have to do is recognize how the holocaust happened. The historical trends, hatreds, politics, and propaganda that led up to its occurrence. You have to be able to understand all those people who turned their backs on jews in need. And then you need to take active precautions to make yourself resistant to propaganda. To set up strategies to ensure you don’t fall for it in the future. And make plans to resist when they come for the jews again. And make sure those plans include resisting before hand. And to that end, let me ask you something. Are you engaging with your jewish friends and neighbors about jewish causes and how you can support them? Are you learning about jewish oppression from other jews and learning the best ways to notice and fight antisemitism in your community? Are you following various jewish organizations and listening when they discuss what you can be doing? Are you reading a wide variety of jewish perspectives on anti-jewish oppression and hate, including ones you disagree with? Are you actively fighting back against antisemitic rhetoric when it happens around you? If you’re generally answering no to these questions then you probably wouldn’t have been helping us during the holocaust. Cause if you’re not doing any of these things, then you’re not an ally. At best, you’re a bystander. And those who stand by and do nothing are not friends to our community, and are not people we can trust to help us when it matters. Because if you don’t bother when the personal stakes for you are low, why would anyone trust you to act when there’s real danger. And. One final reminder. Well, I’ll let garfield say it
There are approximately 28,000 Righteous Among the Nations – people recognized as having put themselves at risk to save Jews during the Holocaust. I couldn’t find a specific estimate of the population of Europe (yes, not all Righteous were European, but the majority were, and rounding works for these purposes) during WWII, but estimates seem to put it at about 500,000,000. A little bit of math tells us that someone who would help Jews during the Holocaust isn’t one in a million, but they are one in about 18,000.
18,000 is a pretty big number, so let’s put it in some context. You probably don’t know 18,000 people. That means that if you’d help Jews, statistically, no one else you know would. Caesars Superdome (where they held the Superbowl this year) seats 83,000 – only 5 people in that giant crowd would have helped. There are just over 30,000 students at Columbia – two people (or maybe only one) who would have helped Jews, against how many at the student protests?
I know it’s comforting to think you would have helped Jews. And who knows? Maybe you, whoever is reading this, would have. It’s not impossible. But the number of people who think they would have helped is orders of magnitude bigger than then number of people who actually did.
To all the goyim out there who learned about the Holocaust and imagined what they would have done, I want you to understand that Jewish children generally don’t (because we know that every possible answer is deeply upsetting to a 9/10 year old). But something that Jews do think about is “would this person hide me?” Would this person risk death everyday for months or years for me? Would this person lie repeatedly to armed and very intimidating men for me? Would they be willing to risk themselves? Their families? When there are extreme penalties for hiding me, rewards for turning me in, and virtually all of society is telling them that they’d be morally correct for doing so, would they still hide me?
I have goyim in my life that I believe would do so. I have goyim in my life, people who I consider friends, that I don’t think would. It’s not a small ask, and I don’t hold it against them that they’re not willing to take a bullet for me.
But to tie all this back to OP’s meme, there are people at pro-Palestinian rallies who are throwing Nazi salutes. If you’re not fighting back against them, what makes you think you would have fought actual Nazis? There are people posting signs with antisemitic slogans. If you’re not tearing them down, what makes you think you would have opposed Nazi propaganda? There are people advocating for the ethnic cleansing of half the world’s Jewish population. If you’re not opposing them – not just thinking, “well I don’t agree with that” but actually working to prevent that from happening, then what makes you think you’d do anything more against the Nazis?
If you are out there, standing up to antisemitism, thank you. And if you look away, or don’t want to get involved, or don’t want to start trouble, or now’s just not the right time, I understand. Antisemites frequently come in groups and are aggressive, it’s perfectly reasonable to want to avoid conflict with people who are probably more willing to escalate than you are. But either way, if you were ever curious what you would have done if you lived in 1930’s Germany…you’re doing it.
The most important post I’ve ever reblogged.
people moving to tumblr from twitter please fucking reblog art likes literally dont do anything except make the artist upset bc they have 2 reblogs and 55 likes
yes this includes fanfiction, gif sets, edits, etc.
theres this one person who reblogs this post like 20 times a day and then sometimes will also reblog it like 200 times at once and also anytime it appears on their dash they apparently will queue it again too and i just want you all to know that you pissed them off real bad and that should be your sign to reblog art actually. for them
heyyyyy followers and mutuals who think this only applies to people from twitter:
it doesn’t.
Saying that cannabis isn’t a drug further stigmatizes drug use. Cannabis is a drug, and that’s okay. When you say it’s just a plant or it’s just medicine, while both those statements are true, it is harmful in many ways. People who use drugs are not bad. Drugs are not bad. Stop stigmatizing drug use and start encouraging safe drug use.
Alcohol is ALSO a drug, and so is nicotine and caffeine. The more we recognize that the chemicals we use to alter our physical and mental states are all drugs, the more respect we have for these substances for both risks and benefits. Not only does the recognition of this destigmatize drug use, it promotes safer drug use by encouraging responsible engagement with drugs instead of treating it as an all or nothing situation.
The fact that you can’t raise taxes on billionaires even slightly without them pouring money into fascist political movements is, of itself, evidence that billionaires as a class shouldn’t be allowed to exist in the first place.
I’d just like to point out that every single thing that has happened in the 6 years since I created this post has only reinscribed its absolute moral correctness in my mind.
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?
I always feel kind of uneasy when people who are apologizing say, "I don't even know who the person who did that was. They feel like a totally different person from who I really am."
Sweetie, I'm sorry, but you have to get to know that person. If this person you apparently detest on every level just occasionally hijacks your body and does something awful, your understanding of how and when and why that happens is essential to your ability to promise anyone else that they won't be on the receiving end of that.
It might sound a little backward, that the key to avoiding destructive behaviour is not forcibly repressing that detestable energy inside yourself. You can deny those feelings and force them into exile, but they're going to come back and take over sometime in the future when your defences are down.
If self-loathing actually got shit done, I'd still be in favour of it. Unfortunately, it's only good at satisfying emotions in the short run, so you can really feel like you're putting in serious effort. It's not a winning strategy if you want to genuinely change your behaviour or thought patterns or emotional responses.
Self-reflection is not supposed to be a lesson in flagellating yourself. It is more brutal and gentler, because it rakes over the twisted shards of what happened in your mind with the dispassion of an engineer assessing a bridge collapse and says, "What really happened here? How can we prevent it from happening again in the future?"
It's possible to get to know your shadow, but not be consumed by it. You could eventually feel able to turn over the rocks in your brain, and catalogue and understand all the things squirming beneath. The shame won't kill you.
And being able to understand your triggers and tells, spotting your brain taking off before it's completely left atmosphere, is an incredibly important part of that.
It comes hours after a judge told a Missouri prison warden to release Christopher Dunn from custody or face consequences.
More than 30 years in prison for a crime there was no evidence he committed. He was only 18. Now republican AG is refusing to allow his overturned sentence be implemented.
Don't stop talking about Christopher Dunn until he is released.
#not a dream #christopher dunn #andrew bailey
“Abolish Golf”
Sticker spotted in Chicago, Illinois.
A typical golf course uses 200 million gallons of water a year. There are over 16,300 golf courses in the United States.
That's nuts.
Ngl I hate golf and I'm all for this. They put a golf course in our public park at the expense of hundreds of centuries-old live oak trees. Half of the walk around the park you're just looking at an empty golf course. Like 2 people want to play golf. So annoying.
Golf was a game developed in Scotland, where it rains up to 250 days of the year, and where the courses use very hard-wearing grass. The sand in the bunkers is because it used to be played on the coast - these traditional courses are called "Links" courses. The top Links course in Scotland, Royal Dornoch, uses no mains water at all. They have their own rainwater collection system.
It wasn't originally intended to be played in the middle of a desert on lush green turf that takes thousands of gallons of water a day to maintain. Unless you can keep the course alive using only rainwater collection, it shouldn't exist.
@criminalizegolf
sometimes you just have to let yourself be a bit neurodivergent.
i hate going out, it gives me a lot of anxiety and sensory input that i dont like, and i am often forced to talk to people.
so i do this thing on more difficult days, or sometimes just for fun, where i "bring a fictional character with me". i walk and imagine Fictional Character walking next to me. they talk to me, reassure me, hype me up, whatever i need them to do.
today dean winchester came christmas shopping with me. he went over the list with me of stuff i needed to get, told me i was doing a good job every time i finished in a certain shop, reminded me to take a deep breath when i got a little overwhelmed.
and yea. its kinda silly. and i know its just me talking to myself in a different voice, but it Works! especially since all of my special interests/hyperfixations tend to be tv/movie related.
so do what you gotta do to Get Shit Done. stop holding yourself to neurotypical standards. if you need Fictional Character to tell you you're doing a good job, do it! if you need Favourite Singer to walk you to school, do it! yea it might feel silly but you're literally fighting against your own brain to get stuff done every single day. you can have a little self indulgent daydream, as a treat.
Why are all the comments like "I'm not neurodivergent, but-"
Yes, you are! And that isn't a bad thing! We are never going to be accepted as long as people still think being one of us is a bad thing!
Most people are at least slightly neurodev, you can't NOT be living in the times we live in. Stop worrying about whether or not your brain is normal, normal is just a word people use to shame each other.
If you want to support neurodevs, start by being ok with the idea that you might be one.
Actually I love voting for the lesser evil. It's less evil. I support that whole heartedly.
Like. Less evil is clearly a better option that more evil. I don't get why this is even a question.
Those who live by absolutes will surely die by them.
Sick to death of “lesser of two evils.” Nine times out of 10 whoever’s saying that is using it as a shield from having any real convictions and falling for the “both parties are the same” falsehoods. Grow the fuck up, do some research, and see the big picture. There is no political Jesus, there is no Santa Claus. Lasting change is incremental.
Like. One party literally wants to overturn democracy and commit genocide against its own citizens. No other party comes even CLOSE to matching that level of evil. For now, we are a two-party country, so we MUST vote for whoever has the best chance of beating them. That means voting Democrat until a better (i.e. more progressive) party becomes competitive.
Don’t be a single-issue voter.
See also, "We're in a drought; conserve water!" Meanwhile, bottled water companies and golf courses for rich folk empty the aquifers.