[queen-breha-organa-archived-dea]

Seriously how much longer are some of y’all gonna eat from the palm of Disney’s hand.

The company consistently proves itself to be a power hungry void.

Costumes are CGI bc costumers have unions. Marvel storylines are ripped from the comics, but often the writers/artists/designers aren’t even acknowledged, much less payed for their ideas. Actors of color are degraded, pushed aside and ignored. Characters of color are hardly ever present. Whitewashing is rampant in Star Wars. And don’t even get me started on the Live Action Mulan controversy.

And I could list a thousands more issues. But what I’m trying to say here is; Disney is NOT some innocent, ideal company. They activity contribute to the issues of the Industry. They LEAD the issues in the Industry.

Im not saying you can’t like Disney things. I’m not saying you have to give them up.

Just please, be aware of the reality of Disney, and mindfully consume their content.

[yasminbenoit]

Yasmin Benoit in Cosmopolitan: “I’m the Unlikely Face of Asexuality”

I was 10 years old when I started to wonder if there was something wrong with me. I realised I was asexual around the same time as my peers realised they weren’t. In late primary school, the boys and girls didn’t want to play together anymore - they ‘fancied’ and wanted to ‘go out’ with each other. I watched girls fighting over boy drama in the cafeteria and wondered what had gotten into everyone.

That’s when I decided I’d attend an all girls’ school under the naive belief that, in the absence of boys, none of the girls would care about sex or dating. I quickly discovered that a same-sex environment had the opposite effect.

By the time I was a teenager, my peers started to wonder what was wrong with me. The sexual frustration was turned up to 100, which made it all the more obvious that I wasn’t reacting the same way as the other teens. While their sexuality was directed towards any nearby boy, a poster of a boy, or even each other, mine wasn’t directed anywhere. And other people wanted to work out why that was more than I did.

Before believing that it was just my innate sexuality, it was easier to assume that I was gay and in denial. Maybe I was molested as a kid and I’d forgotten about it, but been left with psychological scars. I could be hiding a hidden perversion – my dad asked me whether I was into inanimate objects or children when I told him that I wasn’t attracted to men or women. I might be a psychopath, unable to empathise with people enough to deem them attractive. The theory that held the most weight was that I was 'mentally stunted’, and I was treated as such. I started to wonder if they were right.

At 15, I learned the word asexual. It was during yet another analysis session of my sexuality at school. I described myself as not being attracted to men or women for the thousandth time, and someone suggested I might be “asexual or something.” With a quick Google search, I realised I wasn’t alone. Asexuality is a term used to describe those who experience a lack of sexual attraction and/or low levels of sexual desire towards others.

It wasn’t a mental or physical disorder, or a personality flaw, or anything related to my appearance or my life experiences. It wasn’t the same as being celibate, or anti-sex, or just being a ‘late bloomer.’ It was a legitimate sexual orientation characterised purely by a lack of sexual attraction or desire, meaning that it had no implications on whether an asexual could masturbate, or actually enjoy sex, or have children, or be in a romantic relationship. There were no limitations, just a way to bring a lot of people under one united umbrella.

I had finally found an answer to everyone’s question… only, no one else knew what the hell I was talking about. Unfortunately, that didn’t stop them from spewing the same ignorant views I had been hearing for years.

To an extent, I can’t blame them. It’s been almost 10 years since I discovered the term and it is barely part of public consciousness. It isn’t included in sex education or any conversations about sexuality. We’re left out of policies, pathologised in psychiatry and there is next-to-no representation for asexual people in the media. You can count positive examples on one hand. Most of the time, asexuality is either a fleeting reference, the butt of a joke, or a trait in a character that’s either an alien, robotic, or evil – a manifestation of their lack of empathy. Think your Sheldon Cooper, your Data from Star Trek, your Lord Voldemort.

Especially for women, it’s seen as a symptom of their prudishness, unattractiveness or overall blandness, which needs to be resolved by the end of the plot so they can be complete, appealing, lovable people. After all, being virginal is a good thing, perpetual sexual unavailability is not, particularly when you need a loving sexual relationship to be whole. Even our non-fiction portrayals tend to conform to stereotypes and perpetuate a ‘woe is them’ narrative. And among all of these things, they’re probably white, occasionally East Asian, but never Black. Black people are hypersexualised to the point where that would become contradictory and confusing for the audience. And that’s what I would end up being.

When I first mentioned on social media that I was asexual, I had no intention of becoming a voice for the asexual community. It seemed too unlikely to contemplate. After all, I was a Black gothic student from Berkshire who got sat on at school because I was that invisible. On top of that, my work as an alternative lingerie model meant I was far from the girl/boy-next-door like the asexual activists who had come before me. But, apparently, that’s what the community wanted. From there, my activism took off.

I quickly found myself becoming one of the community’s most prominent - but unlikely - faces. I used my platform to raise awareness for asexuality, empower asexual people, dispel misconceptions and promote our inclusion in spaces we’ve traditionally been left out of. From incorporating asexuality into lingerie campaigns, speaking at government institutions, being the first openly asexual person to appear on LGBTQ+ magazine covers, and opening asexual spaces, my work has been intersectional if not a little controversial.

I had never experienced hatred online like I have since speaking openly about asexuality. Only through my work did I become aware of acephobia and the exclusionary discourse surrounding what at first seems like an inoffensive and discreet orientation. It’s shown me how important asexuality activism is, and it’s made me aware of just how diverse, powerful and unique the asexual community is. How they stand up for the rights of others even when we’re ignored ourselves, how they’ll never let their invisibility stop them from developing their own unique culture, history, and progressive understanding of human sexuality and love.

This week is Asexual Awareness Week, an occasion founded by Sara Beth Brooks a decade ago. It’s one of the few times in the year that the community demands to be seen and people start looking.

Don’t miss us, we have a lot to show you.

[yasminbenoit]

What Is Asexuality? Yasmin Benoit for Teen Vogue

For Asexuality Awareness Week, model Yasmin Benoit answers the question ‘what is asexuality’, and busts some common myths about what it means to be asexual.

I realized I was asexual around the same time my peers seemed to realize that they were not. Once the hormones kicked in, so did a nearly universal interest in sex for those around me. I thought sex was intriguing, but never so much that I wanted to express my sexuality with someone else. I had no sexual desire towards other people, I did not experience sexual attraction, and that hasn’t changed.

I didn’t learn that there was a word for my sexuality until I was 15, after being interrogated for the millionth time at school about my orientation, or lack of it. After doing some Googling as soon as I got home, I realized for the first time in my life that I might not be broken, that I wasn’t alone in my experience, and that it wasn’t a defect I had somehow brought on myself. I had spent the entirety of my adolescent life trying to answer people’s invasive questions without having the language to explain that I was just an asexual girl.

But even after I found the language, I had only solved half of the problem. We are taught in grade school that we’ll become sexually interested in others, but never that not being sexually attracted to anyone is an option. Because we’re not taught about it, no one else knew what I was talking about when I tried to come out to them as asexual.

Many don’t believe asexuality is real,  and that makes the experience of navigating our heteronormative, hyper-sexualized society as an asexual person even harder. I’ve spent my life battling misconceptions about it and so have many other asexual people. Now, I try to use my work as a model and activist to raise awareness and change the way our society perceives asexuality and asexual people. This Asexual Awareness Week, I’m busting some of those myths about my orientation.

Now, let’s separate fact from fiction:

Myth: Asexual people have no sexuality ✘

Truth: Asexuality is considered a sexuality, just like bisexuality, heterosexuality, and homosexuality. I often phrase it as being a sexual orientation where your sexuality isn’t oriented anywhere—because it isn’t actually the same as having no sexuality or sexual feelings. Asexual people have hormones like everyone else. It isn’t uncommon for asexual people to masturbate and there are asexual people who still have sex for various reasons and gain enjoyment from it. Some asexual people are romantically attracted to others, but not sexually attracted. Since asexuality is a spectrum, the ways in which asexuality is experienced can vary in different ways.

Myth: Asexuality is a lifestyle choice ✘

Truth: This misconception stems from the idea that asexuality is a choice and not a legitimate sexual orientation. Asexuality is often confused with celibacy or abstinence, probably because they can manifest in similar ways. In contemporary society, celibacy is often defined as being sexually abstinent, often for religious reasons. Sure, for many asexual people, their asexuality means that they aren’t interested in having sex with other people, but that’s a result of their orientation—not their beliefs about sexual behavior. Celibacy is a lifestyle choice, asexuality is not. Asexuality also shouldn’t be confused with being an incel. People don’t decide to become asexual because they can’t find sexual partners or because of any other circumstances. It isn’t a state of being when you’re going through a “dry spell,” nor is it a choice any more than being gay or straight is a choice. It’s just the way we are.\

Myth: Asexuality is an illness ✘

Truth: The assertion that asexuality is a mental or physical disorder is incredibly harmful to asexual people and has led to false diagnoses, unnecessary medication, and attempts at converting asexual people. For example, Female Sexual Interest/Arousal Disorder and Hypoactive Sexual Desire Disorder — which are characterized by low or absent sex drive — are in the DSM-5 and have been thought of as a medical diagnosis for asexuality. But the difference is that people who have HSDD are bothered by their lack of sexual drive, while asexual people are not. But even the inclusion of HSDD as a diagnosis is controversial — some argue that people who are asexual might feel distress at their lack of sexual desire because of lack of acceptance in society. Asexuality is not the result of a hormone deficiency, or a syndrome, or a physical or psychological ailment. Research has said as much. We don’t need to be treated or fixed.

Myth: Asexual people have anti-sex attitudes ✘

Truth: There are asexual people who are repulsed by the thought of sex, or by the thought of having sex themselves. I fall into the latter category. However, that feeling does not necessarily extend to what other people are doing. The misconception that asexual people are against other people expressing their sexuality, and that all asexual people can’t stomach conversations about sex, is quite an alienating one. It leads to asexual people being left out of important discussions about sexuality. It is entirely possible and incredibly common to have sex-positive attitudes and be asexual.

Myth: There are barely any asexual people ✘

Truth: Don’t let our lack of visibility and representation fool you. There are a lot of asexual people out there, but many of us aren’t entirely out, and some haven’t realized that there’s a word for what they’re experiencing due to that lack of visibility. While research into the asexual population is lacking, its estimated that around 1% of the population is asexual—but that’s based on a studies where the participants have likely known what asexuality was and been out enough to identify that way. It’s likely there are more asexual people than we know of, but even if we did only comprise 1% of the population, that’s still tens of millions of asexual people.

Myth: Asexual people just haven’t found the right person yet ✘

Truth: The idea that asexual people just need to meet the ‘right person’ who will unlock their sexual desire and ‘fix’ their asexuality is one I’ve always found quite perplexing. It’s an argument that seems to be applied to asexuality more than other orientations. You wouldn’t tell a straight guy that they just “hadn’t met the right man yet" as an explanation of why he’s attracted to women. I’d like to think that most wouldn’t tell a gay man that they “hadn’t met the right woman yet” either. It suggests that our sexuality is reflective of our company, that no one we have ever seen or encountered has met our standards, and thus we haven’t experienced sexual attraction to the extent that the term ‘asexual’ could be applied.

This assumption ignores and invalidates all of the asexual people who have found the ‘right’ person—the asexual people in happy, fulfilling, loving relationships or who have had them in the past. Because, yes, asexual people can still have romantic relationships, or any other kind of relationship. The validity of a relationship is not and should not be based on how sexually attracted you are to that person. This statement also plays into the notion that asexual people are “missing out” on something and haven’t truly discovered our entire selves, that we are incomplete because of our innate characteristics or our life experiences. This isn’t true either.\

Myth: There’s an asexual demographic ✘

Truth: Even though most people don’t know much about asexuality, they still have quite a specific idea about what asexual people are like. I’ve often heard that, as a black woman and a model, I don’t look or seem asexual. We’re stereotyped as being awkward white kids who spend too much time on social media and probably aren’t attractive enough to find a sexual partner if we wanted to. And if we are attractive enough, then we should tone that down as not to ‘give mixed signals.’ But there is no asexual way to look or dress. Asexual people have varying ages, backgrounds, interests, appearances, and experiences, just like those belonging to any other sexual orientation. So please don’t use the term “asexual” as an adjective to describe someone you think is sexually unappealing or as an insult, because that’s only perpetuating this harmful stereotype.

Makeup: Margherita Lascala

Photography: Becky Gannon

Hair: Kayla Idowu

Styling: Diesel, Cheimsee, Sixth June, Northskull, Lamoda

[afronerdism]

On god

[afronerdism]

This is a gender neutral statement by the way. My least favorite thing is when masculine women feel they need to be toxic in order to be masculine.

[didelufoa-deactivated20220212]

honestly at the end of the day fatphobes want us to jump through this hoop of proving we can be both fat and healthy, & they’re obsessed with the idea that it’s just not possible, but the whole damn argument is irrelevant because it doesn’t MATTER if we’re healthy or not, we STILL need to be treated with basic human dignity. healthy people are not inherently worth more than unhealthy people

im glad people are discussing fatphobia but please don’t throw disabled & chronically ill fat people under the bus while defending metabolically healthy fat people! health is not equivalent to morality or worth & unhealthy fat people’s bodies are no more the business of thin folks than the bodies of metabolically healthy ones.

fatphobia can not be disconnected from ableism. defend and support fat disabled people!!

[renthony]

Speaking as someone who has participated in stunt training with industry professionals, and has seen the aggressive way in which stunt industry performers have to unionize and defend one another or else nobody else will care:

I think there should be fewer stunts in films. I think extremely dangerous and complex feats of superhuman physical exertion should be reserved for animation. I think there are some things that stunt crews should just...not be made to do anymore.

Too many stunt performers have died for some of this shit to be worth it.

[renthony]

Sure, they make a big deal about how "no animals were harmed in the making of this movie," and not being able to have that literal seal of approval in your end credits is a BIG DEAL that always causes a controversy, but they don't have to ever verify that no human workers were injured, do they?

Imagine a world where "no cast or crew were harmed in the making of this film" was considered a basic standard, and any production that couldn't meet it got investigated and held accountable if it proved necessary.

Imagine.

[renthony]

This post got a surge in notes again today because another stunt performer has been killed by the job.

Too fucking many, y'all. Too fucking many.

[datfearlessfangirl]

When pigeons make their little "aroo" noises reblog if you agree

[yharnamsnewslug]

Actually, amab non binary people are super cool and hot and they can do whatever the fuck they want.

[yharnamsnewslug]

This goes especially for those who don't seek transition, for the fat, burly, bearded, comfortable-with-their-current-body non binary people! For the non binary amab people who do not shave and don't want to shave. For those who wear dresses and don't shave. For lipstick-and-beard. For the ones who have been told by every God damn fucking queer space that they're "basically cis men". For the amab non binary people who don't feel safe in queer spaces because they keep singling you out, excluding you, telling you that "you'll make people uncomfortable". For those left aside who cries about the queer community not wanting you around, because you're "the wrong kind of non binary".

Guess what? We do want you.

Queer spaces are INHERENTLY made better by your inclusion.

You ARE NOT cis. You're not binary trans. You are non binary, and whatever way you feel most comfortable expressing your gender is the CORRECT way.

Kick anyone in the mouth if they tell you that you're not. And if any of you come by my blog, lemme buy you a drink and hear a good story from you!

I hope you all have a nice day :)

[cis-enby-culture-is]

non-binary amabs are wonderful and you aren’t just wanted, you’re needed.

[beggars-opera]

Absolutely losing my shit over this Russian ballet dancer jumping around like freaking Gumby while also playing the accordion. Actually you should watch the whole thing because the following sequence of a giant kickline of similar gumby-men is also tripping me out

[beggars-opera]

[jackironsides]

As a former ballet dancer, I absolutely lost it watching the full version. Just, holy shit.

Tumblr always says that they want men to be sluttier, but we finally get a male version of the can-can (a fixture for girls in my ballet school), and you mock them?

This isn’t pure ballet, by the way. It’s heavily influenced by Hopak (Cossack dancing) – unsurprising considering it’s a Russian company. Those bits where they bounce between deep pliés (squats?? I guess) and then back up to standing are classic Hopak moves. I remember when I was at my fittest, doing about five or six hours of dance a week, I could do those deep Hopak pliés, but I sure as heck felt it the next day. These guys would absolutely have thighs of steel. (And not so much hip flexors of rubber bands, but hamstrings of rubber. Hip flexors of steel. That’s gonna be the necessary ingredient to be able to kick your leg above your head. Which I used to be able to do, once upon a time.)

Ballet itself is a formalised form of dance that has always taken peasant dances into itself and stylised and gentrified them, so a melding with Hopak is absolutely part of the tradition. As part of my ballet training, I was taught stylised versions of a hornpipe (a sailor’s dance, not entirely unlike Yablochko above), Hungarian folk dancing, the tarantella, the polonaise, and flamenco. There are even steps like ‘pas de basque’ which acknowledge that they’re lifted from other places – in that case, Basque folk dance.

[gaphic]

this isn’t mockery homie, it’s amazement and amusement

[copperbadge]

It’s Actually Ok To Round Up At Checkout

I keep seeing posts about how you shouldn’t round up your payment at checkout “for charity” because the company takes the money, gives in their own name, and then receives a tax break for the donation.

This is incorrect. It’s just plain wrong information. 

Because it’s illegal for a company to claim collected donations on their taxes, since they give you a receipt that proves you can claim it on yours. They are considered a collection agent – the corporate equivalent of a firefighter with a boot soliciting on the sidewalk.

And the sentiment is potentially fucking nonprofits out of serious change.

So here’s how it works. When you make a purchase you’re asked if you’d like to round up your price, say $22.70, to $23 and give that extra 30 cents to charity. When you choose yes, the company adds that as a special charge, and transfers the amount to a processing company. The processing company disburses many small gifts in one big chunk to the nonprofit, so that the nonprofit doesn’t get ten thousand transactions of thirty cents. Over the course of a couple of years, campaigns like this can raise millions for the nonprofit. 

So where’s the catch? you’re thinking. Capitalism doesn’t allow kindness like this to rampage unchecked!

Well, you’re kinda right. For one thing, there’s something called the Halo Effect, where companies get a huge PR boost from this giving. People feel better about themselves and the place they give, when they give this way. That’s why companies do it, pure and simple. It’s cheap, built-in positive messaging. 

The companies aren’t deducting it (it’d be chump change to them anyway tbh) but you can. You can literally deduct the thirty cents you gave at Jersey Mike’s off your very own taxes, if you keep the receipt. But unless you’re giving more than $6K to charity each year ($12K if you’re filing jointly!) then there’s no point keeping that receipt, because before that threshold you won’t get a tax break for charitable giving anyway. 

UPDATE TO ABOVE, thanks @evvrythingisawesome, you do get a credit on your tax return for up to $300 in giving, which I even DID LAST YEAR and forgot about because that’s not my area of specialty. Sorry about that! 

One significant benefit of giving at checkout is that the nonprofit doesn’t get your name or address, so you never go on a mailing list. If you give an average of 30 cents twice a week when you buy a soda at the gas station, over the course of a year you’ll have given over $30 commitment-free. Sweet deal. 

Here’s what most people think is the catch: between three and seven percent of the money given goes to that processing company I mentioned. Because they have to, you know, process that money, which comes with expenses like software, customer support, servers, bank fees, etc. 

However. Three to seven percent? That’s nothing. A good fundraiser working for a nonprofit costs, in salary, roughly 20% of what they raise. For every dollar they earn, they bring in about $5 from donors. Round-up campaigns raise $5 and charge you 25 cents for it and require almost no work from the charity – that money just shows up. And even if you didn’t give at the checkout, if you give online we pay a processing fee to the place processing THAT payment. If you give by check or cash, we still have to pay people to count, record, and deposit those payments. Giving money costs money. That’s just the way it is.  

2. Unless you actually are giving elsewhere, if you choose not to round-up, then you’re just…chest pounding. You’re pretending to stick it to the man when really you’re just not making a charitable gift at all. If you do give elsewhere that’s great, keep up the good work, I’m not talking to you. And if you can’t afford to give, I’m really sorry, I want you to keep your money and I’m also not talking to you. As we know, thirty cents adds up. I couldn’t give for several years, and it’s a point of pride now to always be able to hit the round-up button without doing any math. 

But if you could give and aren’t giving somewhere…then no offense but you have no skin in this game and you need to sit down and let people who give a shit get on with their work. 

Because an additional truth is that some people only remember to give when they’re asked but they HATE TO BE ASKED, except at checkout. And some people only give if they feel like they’re giving insignificantly relative to their income – like thirty cents at checkout. These campaigns are nearly-free, super-easy money for us from people who probably wouldn’t otherwise give. They raise our profile, too, so that people who have given at checkout think of us when they DO remember to give (like oh, around the holidays, which are fast impending). 

In the end, I suppose I’m really just begging people, as a whole, for about the seventh or eighth year running, to stop coming to charitable giving from the standpoint of “Well whaddaya give me for it? Where’s the catch? How do I know you’ll do the best with my money? Can you prove you aren’t a scam?”

I know that most of you, most of the time, come to any relationship with an inherent assumption of good faith – from tv shows to friendships to Etsy purchases to pet ownership. You’re not deeply suspicious by nature! But this lingering hostility towards charitable giving, where the immediate assumption is one of bad faith, is really harmful to people who are attempting to do good work. An extremely small fraction of the nonprofits that want your funding are scams, religiously sketchy, or deeply negligent when it comes to how your money is eventually spent. Most are doing their best and many are putting up with a lot of unnecessary fucking side-eye while they do it.

So try to downshift from “Who will scam me the least” to “Who would I like to help the most?” and give accordingly. Whether that’s a local pet shelter, a toy or blanket drive, a national cancer organization, your friend’s top surgery gofundme, or the woman standing in traffic with the cardboard sign. Your blood pressure (and mine too, for that matter) will go way down.

[equalseleventhirds]

have now seen multiple posts abt cancelling streaming subscriptions in support of iatse, but also have seen multiple posts with conflicting information about when to cancel them, how long to cancel them, which sites specifically, etc etc

now, i am not an iatse member (fingers crossed for the future tho lol), but it sorta... didn't seem like the ppl making those posts were either. the lack of unity in the message, among other things.

so i looked up the iatse strike and specifically for announcements and news articles wrt cancelling streaming subscriptions:

hey look at that, they have a toolkit

as of right now (round about 12:30 am est, 10/15/21) the main action they are asking for is to sign the petition. also, to actively spread the word and show support on social media (seems mainly angled toward twitter so may not be usable here but still good to have, and oh look they also have a twitter where you can keep up with the latest news, like the bullshit happening in response to the strike)

does this mean don't cancel any of your subscriptions? not necessarily! some iatse members, independently, have decided to cancel their own subscriptions, so you're most likely not hurting the movement if you do, and you might even help! (might i suggest making it very clear to the website you're cancelling your subscription to about why you are cancelling it? fill out the 'why are you leaving us' questionnaire. send an email. that is only a suggestion as an individual tho, again this is not something the union has requested, this is mostly me being paranoid bcos u kno how companies like to come up with reasons they lost membership lol.)

but mmmmmaybe uh. maybe prioritize the things the union has asked people to do. bcos most of those posts i saw didn't even mention the petition, and not one linked to the official iatse toolkit with the like, official hashtags they're using to draw attention to this.

[arcanegryphon]

IATSE member here!

As of right now (early morning 10/15), our locals have not officially said anything about cancelling streaming services.

Definitely check out the toolkit, sign the petition, and if you’re on Instagram, check out and follow ia_stories! There and the IATSE Twitter account will keep you up to date with any changes and requests on how to help support us if we do strike Monday.

Visibility is key right now. The studios continue to bank on people being oblivious, or making us look like the bad guys for “being greedy” and “making you wait for your favorite shows”.

Visibility and sharing helps not only support our cause, but also helps prevent other non-IATSE members from crossing the line. There’s been talk of studios reach out to film students across the country to get them to replace us, which is NOT OKAY for so many reasons. Other productions are scheduling jam-packed 6th and 7th days this weekend to try to get whatever they can before we go dark. Also super NOT OKAY.

But yeah, I’m glad to see enthusiasm and support for us and what we’re fighting for. We love our jobs and creating for everyone. Which is why we want it to be safer, healthier, and reflecting of our time and skill.

[rslashrats]

its me :o)

[eatelonmusk-deactivated20231217]

i get where that 'u are not immune to cult conditioning' sentiment comes from, but if u spend any time actually reading cult stories u notice pretty quickly that there are always ppl who do successfully resist, ppl who leave when things start getting bad and ppl who see through the bullshit in the first place. there is a large gradation in susceptibility to con artists and there are things u can do to get better at spotting them. treating cult leaders like they're irresistible mind control supergeniuses is kinda just doing their propagandizing for them.

[trust-me-i-just-get-weirder]

The important thing to emphasise with the “you are not immune to cult conditioning” phrase is that there is nothing inherently different about people who join cults. It doesn’t mean cults are all powerful mind control, it means you’re not smarter, stronger, or more moral than a cult victim. It can happen to you too, so stay vigilant, educate yourself on cult tactics, and treat cult victims with dignity and respect.

[crpplpnk]

“…because now society’s collective mind has been reprogrammed to think that people that suffer from chronic illness or disability, their narrative story should follow that of a 1980’s sports movie montage, wherein you receive your diagnosis, you go through a brief period of depression, you have some inspiring conversations with friends and family, and then you cowboy up. You write that novel, you go to college and get your advanced degree, you run a marathon. Whatever it is, there is a definite thread that you are expected to follow because we see so many of these inspiring, overcoming-at-all-odds stories, when in fact they are extra-ordinary achievements. They are not the normal, and should not be used as a baseline to judge all chronically ill people against. It’s completely unfair and unrealistic. For so many people that suffer from things like fibromyalgia, and chron’s, and ulcerative colitis, their Rocky Balboa moment for the day might be finding the strength to just take a shower, to stand in their own kitchen and fix themselves something to eat before they have to crawl back to bed because just that much effort is too painful or too exhausting for them. And yet our society looks down on those people now, we judge them as somehow lacking because they’re not rising up to achieve all these great things. We have completely unrealistic expectations of them thanks to too many inspiring stories. So now we look at them and judge them as somehow inferior, somehow weaker. They don’t want it enough.They’re not trying hard enough to just be better.”

— Ken McKim - The Slow Death of Compassion for the Chronically Ill [x] (via bifurious-babe)

[ftmjerryseinfeld]

normalize not celebrating xmas. like every single piece of media involving xmas in any way shape or form has everyone celebrating it like no matter their religion they just like do it for the spirit or the holiday or whatever and if they originally don't it ends w them giving in out of consideration and being guilted. like if you love xmas, that's great. i love bubble tea and i love rosh hashanah, but i don't expect everyone to love them or even experience them. it's not sad for me if someone doesn't enjoy them bc i'm not a self obsessed prick who assumes everyone else enjoys and celebrates the same things i do. pls be respectful this year, pls acknowledge xmas IS NOT a secular holiday, please do not other and exclude those who do not celebrate it. and btw this goes beyond inclusive language.

(goyim and christians/atheists can rb and add if you want but do not clown i am begging you)

[mikmaqs]

people living in the americas, are you a settler? if so, here's a question to think about today, and every day:

do you know whose land you're living on?

if your answer is "no" or "i'm not sure", go here.

you'll find an extensive map that'll answer this question for you, and from there you'll be able to figure out how to help, because just because your history landed you here doesn't mean you can't help us. there's an estimated 30,000 children in makeshift graves that we have yet to fully recover killed in reform schools. our people are dying of diseases caused by horrific living conditions. we're set up for failure from the day we're born by the active genocide against us. countless women and children are missing and murdered to this day. if we can stand to bear this unfathomable horrifying information every day, then you certainly can stand to spread the word and spare some money when you're able. especially if you're living on our land.

it's so, so easy to spread awareness and do what you can to help.

we need it.

[superunfriendlyreminder]

[guidetodreaming]

One of the most important things I learned in my Language and the Law class is that law enforcement will intentionally misinterpret every type of statement asking for a lawyer as not asking for a lawyer. Even directly saying it like this “I will not speak to you without a lawyer” can be taken as a simple statement of fact rather than a request for a lawyer. You literally have to state “I am now invoking my right to a lawyer” and every time they try to proceed with an interrogation you have to answer every question with “I am invoking my right to have a lawyer present”. You can’t just tell them you won’t talk without a lawyer or that you want a lawyer. You have to state that you are invoking your rights. Otherwise they could just say “well they just said they wouldn’t speak without a lawyer present. That’s not invoking their rights to a lawyer. It’s just stating a fact.” even just stating your right to a lawyer doesn’t count!

[penrosesun]

PLEASE share this addition. I am a lawyer who works in criminal defense, and this is one of the most avoidable things that people consistently get wrong about the Miranda rights.

Here are some more “ambiguous” phrases which courts have found DO NOT invoke your right to a lawyer:

“Maybe I should speak to my lawyer first.”

“I might like a lawyer.”

“I think I should have a lawyer present for this.”

“Could I speak to my lawyer first?”

“How long until my lawyer gets here?”

And perhaps most egregiously – “Get me a lawyer, dawg – ‘cause this is not what’s up.”

Here are the magic phrases which you need to know if you want to invoke your Miranda rights:

1) “Am I free to leave?”

It’s worth asking this even if the answer is obvious. Even if the officer does not let you leave, by forcing them to admit that you are not free to leave, you are creating a record which your attorney can use to prove that you were in custody. Miranda rights only apply if the interrogation is custodial, meaning that police officers will frequently claim that their suspects were “not in custody” to get around their Miranda rights.

2) “I am invoking my right to remain silent.”

Simply staying silent will not invoke your right to remain silent. As absurd as this is, you must explicitly say that you are invoking your right to remain silent in order to invoke that right.

3) “I am invoking my right to an attorney.”

As stated above, you must be not only clear and unambiguous, but clear and legally unambiguous. Don’t get cute. Don’t get sassy. And on the flip side, don’t get intimidated and use verbal ticks to minimize your request. Say the line with those words exactly – say it clearly, and say it once, and then say nothing else.

Because even after you’ve done all this, the police can still try to get you to talk. They’re not supposed to interrogate you, but they’re allowed to make casual conversation, and if that conversation just happens to circle back around to the thing they wanted to question you about, well, that’s really your fault for talking after you said you wouldn’t, isn’t it? Can’t possibly fault the poor officers when you initiated – if you really wanted to have your rights respected, you wouldn’t have talked to them in the first place.

The police know this, and they will mercilessly exploit this loophole. So, once you’ve successfully invoked your Miranda rights, any and all conversation you have with police officers will put those rights back into jeopardy. 

Putting it all together:

Ask: “Am I free to leave?”

If they say no, say: “I am invoking my right to remain silent and I am invoking my right to an attorney.”

And then shut up and do not say a single thing to them for any reason whatsoever until you have actually spoken to an attorney. Yes, even if it takes hours. Yes, even if they start talking to you about something else.

Finally, a very important disclaimer:

I may be a lawyer, but I’m not your lawyer, and I cannot guarantee that what I’ve just laid out here will always work for every situation. We didn’t get to this bizarre and absurd place overnight – we built this ridiculous system piecemeal, by deciding on a case-by-case basis that certain phrases were “too ambiguous” or certain types of questioning weren’t actually questioning at all. The law is still in flux, and is still fundamentally out to get you, and willing to bend plain meaning beyond all recognition to do it. Even if you invoke your rights perfectly, exactly as I have specified above, there’s a chance that your invocation of rights will be disqualified on some new technicality that no one’s even thought of yet – and that’s precisely the problem.

[lemonsharks]

Watch this video: “Don’t Talk To The Police”