[team43]

franco thats so sexy

[queerautism]

Just saw a trans person arguing "no one is saying it's wrong to segregate society based on men and women, it's just treating trans people as a third gender that's wrong"

No bitch I'm saying that!!!! It's fucking weird to keep people so separate on the basis of gender. It's extremely strange to have such isolated spheres of society, and to pretend there's some inherent hard coded difference, when we're all just people.

We're never going to get rid of all kinds of misogyny while reinforcing the idea that women and men need to be segregated away from each other at every turn. It might be normalised right now, but it will never be fucking normal to me.

[fuckthisshit-ugh]

please read this even if you're not indian. especially if you're not indian.

you've seen the jokes. india is "dirty", indians are "everywhere", why don't they fix their own country. ok. let me tell you why, and what's happening right now while nobody's watching.

first, the history you skipped: britain ruled india for two centuries and drained it. economist utsa patnaik's research estimates around $45 trillion in today's money was taken. the india that got independence in 1947 was one of the poorest countries on earth. every "why is india like this" question starts there. you don't get to profit off a robbery and then mock the crime scene.

now, what's happening RIGHT NOW:

in may the question paper for NEET leaked. that's the national medical entrance exam. over 2.2 million students took it. cancelled. years of studying, families' savings poured into coaching, gone overnight because someone sold the paper. students died by suicide after. these were kids who wanted to be doctors.

and out of that came a protest movement. a gen z group called the cockroach janta party, started by a 30 year old named abhijeet dipke, got 22 million instagram followers within DAYS. they've been doing a sit-in at jantar mantar in delhi demanding education minister dharmendra pradhan resign.

and then there's sonam wangchuk. if you've watched 3 idiots, he's the real engineer the character was based on. built solar schools in ladakh. invented ice stupas so himalayan villages have water. spent his whole life on education. he's 59 and he's been on hunger strike for 17+ days now. reporters went to see him this week and he was too weak to talk. and the troll armies are calling him "anti national" and "foreign funded". a man starving himself for other people's children. that's the thing here, anyone who asks a question is suddenly a traitor.

it's not one incident, it's everywhere you look:

• infrastructure worth thousands of crores failing within months of the ribbon cutting. tunnels collapsing in regions where heavy rain is a guarantee, not a surprise.

• youth unemployment near 10% for ages 15 to 29, 13.6% in cities. in a country of 1.42 billion where more than half the population is young.

• only about the top 3% of indians earn above 10 lakh a year. meanwhile billionaire wealth keeps ballooning and the headlines celebrate it.

• manipur burned for over two years. an ethnic conflict, tens of thousands displaced, and the prime minister barely said the word manipur while it happened.

• journalists raided. critics' houses bulldozed. activists sitting in jail for years without trial under laws like UAPA. our press freedom ranking has cratered.

• even the petrol is a fight now, ethanol blending pushed through while drivers complain about their engines and get no straight answers.

and through all of it, the PM, who came to power on religious polarisation (americans, sound familiar?), travels abroad for photo ops and has not held one single open press conference in over a decade. not one.

what i'm asking:

if you're not indian: share this. our media mostly won't cover any of it because the big outlets are owned by the same billionaires the government serves. the only reason wangchuk's fast is getting any coverage is people refusing to look away.

if you ARE indian: speak up even if you're comfortable. especially if you're comfortable. join the protests. add to this, correct me, translate it. staying quiet is a choice when nothing in this post touches your life.

india is not "dirty". india was robbed, and it's being robbed again, from the inside this time. but it's also the country where a 59 year old will starve for strangers' kids and 22 million young people will rally behind a party literally named after cockroaches, because cockroaches survive everything.

we can still save her. but only loudly.

reblog. share. don't scroll past.

[standwithdaanes]

India's youth-led Cockroach movement vows to continue protest after police crackdown

The movement, which began as a satirical protest, has evolved into a nationwide challenge to Prime Minister Narendra Modi's government.

Supporters of India's youth-led Cockroach movement said Tuesday they will continue their protest in New Delhi, refusing to leave their sit-in site a day after police used tear gas and batons to disperse thousands of them as they tried to march toward Parliament. Hundreds of protesters camped at Jantar Mantar, a designated protest site, under heavy police presence, saying they would stay until Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan resigns over alleged failures in India's examination system. "We are going to continue our protest," said Abhijeet Dipke, founder of the Cockroach Janta Party, which emerged just two months ago. The movement, drawing students, professionals and families, marks a rare public challenge to Prime Minister Narendra Modi 's government in its third term, reviving criticism over its handling of dissent and its use of force to respond to protests. [...] Sona Bisht, a 20-year-old student who was part of the protest, said the confrontation strengthened her resolve. "If the government thinks that doing this with Gen Z, they can stop us, then that won't happen. We are here talking about education, talking about securing our future. And till the time our demands are not met, we will not move from here," she said.

"Definitions developed thus far about youth, like the Gen Z narrative, have largely been linked to roles attributed by the dominant system. The rulers have invented a whole range of terms — rebellious, irresponsible, apolitical, extremist, consumerist — not to understand youth, but to neutralize it. They know as well as we do that whoever wins over the youth wins over society. [...] Thus the question is not whether youth is powerful, but in whose interest this power is directed. Today’s uprisings — such as those in Nepal, Bangladesh, Madagascar, Indonesia, Kenya, Morocco, and beyond — demonstrate that youth continues to emerge as a decisive actor. Young women like Deniz Ciya have proven this with their lives. These uprisings are not expressions of generational temperament. These „Gen Z uprisings“ are expressions of a social force confronting structural crisis inherent in the current system. [...] Recent youth uprisings — whether in the form of environmental justice protests, labor movements, or uprisings against authoritarian governments — are proof that youth worldwide are not only responding to a set of circumstances; they are consciously and collectively rejecting the narratives that seek to define them. Thus, it is crucial to analyze what transpired, and draw lessons from these uprisings, particularly in the context of building a global youth democratic confederalism. For the power of youth movements is interconnected, despite being geographically distant." — "Beyond "Gen Z": Defending Revolutionary Youth Spirit" by Lêgerîn

"The youth in general, and especially the young women, are the spark of every revolution.We can’t look at the history and found a revolution without the youth. We are a fundamental factor. We should be aware of this reality, we should take conscience of our historical role. By doing this we will provide ourselves with a plan that will allow us the unity of action and objectives. The Youth should not be condemned to be a slave of the capitalist system. [...] If we reject the labels and mentalities imposed by the system, taking consciousness as Internationalist Youth in a global level and organizing ourselves, is there someone who can stop us?" — "The youth is the spark of every revolution" by Lêgerîn.

[jakegyllenhaalsteeth]

whole lipstick on a pig is bogus to me because we put lipstick on a pig and this is what happened

[prismatic-bell]

Hey. Hey. Let's play a game called "tell me you have ADHD without telling me you have ADHD." I'll go first:

I'm pretty sure I haven't found them all.

I only remember buying one of these, which is probably what I said the last time I bought one.

[reallyneedsalife]

I have 4 frozen packets of mince in my freezer, and another packet of mince in my fridge. Because it goes like this

I want to make [insert meal here that involved mince]

I don't have any mince in my fridge, I should buy mince.

Promptly forget to make the meal with the mince, realise I won't in time before the use by date passes, open freezer.

Discover all the other packets of mince in there from the last 5 times I did this.

Forget they are in the freezer because I can't see them so the void ate them.

Repeat

[alpaca-clouds]

Something I keep thinking about is how a lot of people consider it a good thing that children cannot by themselves consent (or refuse consent) to medical treatments. Some people do kinda get it that maybe it might be a problem with stuff like kids not being able to access trans healthcare, or kids being refused vaccination by antivaxx parents. But in general I see that most people are actually okay with this idea for the most part.

And like... you do get that that is kinda insane, right?

Because this is something that so often leads to suffering. And I am saying this as someone disabled, who had so many issues due to this in his childhood.

Just three examples: when I was 7, I was supposed to get checked for autism. My mother did not want an autistic child. Since she just could have a "neurotypical" child by refusing diagnosis, she did just that.

When I was 12, my mother had decided I needed a certain plastic surgery (one that had a minor health benefit, but still was largely a beauty thing). I did not want it. I really, really did not want it. We still went through almost the entire process until thankfully there was a doctor who went: "Wait, this is elective. I am refusing to do this on a child that does not want it."

And when I was 14 my mother refused to get me to the hospital when I had severe food poisoning. She refused me hospital treatment for almost two weeks. By the time I got actually taken to the hospital I was almost dead.

And here is the thing: all of this should just not happen. The doctor when I was 12 was cool, but... he refused to do the surgery because he had the right to make a conscience call. Legally my mother was in the right to force me into that elective surgery. And that just should not be the case.

A lot of children die and suffer due to their legal inability to consent - or refuse consent - to medical treatments. And I wish y'all would understand that.

Whenever this is brought up, people will go: "Oh, but parents will decide what is best for the child." And here is the thing: No, they are not. There is so much stuff out there showing that indeed, a lot of parents suck at this. Some out of malice, some because they are religious nuts, and some because they literally treat their kids like some sort of doll or some shit.

[prismatic-bell]

There is a flip side to this, and I absolutely do not say this as a "gotcha," but rather as "there is no easy solution to this and we need to figure out a balance."

Consider: a parent takes a child in for a flu shot. The child is afraid it will hurt, so they refuse it. The child is now unprotected. If enough children refuse vaccination, we now have pandemics on our hands.

A child doesn't like the taste of their medicine (valid) and so refuses to take it, at all. Their illness gets worse.

A child has an accident that's not actually that bad from an adult standpoint but is horribly traumatic from a child's standpoint--let's say a broken arm. Touching the arm hurts horribly, but it can't be set or put in a cast without touching it. The child is still in hysterics because this is the worst thing that has ever happened to them, and injures themselves worse before calming down enough to consent to treatment.

Like yes, bodily autonomy is important. But a five-year-old has no frame of reference for how bad a lot of PCIs are, or what "antibiotic-resistant bacteria" means. A lot of kids that age have never encountered death. So how do you balance autonomy with "sometimes the kid doesn't know best either"?

[skydemonizark]

I mean the antivax movement is spearheaded by adults. and plenty of adults outside of that also make arguably poor medical decisions due to ignorance or fear. but no one argues that their autonomy should be taken from them (well unless they're disabled then people love taking autonomy from adults). but because people think children are uniquely incapable of thought it's totally fine to say they shouldn't have final say over what happens to their own body. like sure children might not have the same frame of reference that an adult would have that just means you need to frame the pros of the medical procedure in a way they do have reference for. like I'm pretty sure most 5 year olds have had a bad cold at least once, so if you want them to get the flu shot but they're too scared, you explain that the flu is WAy worse than even their worse cold and the shot will take just a second and will protect them from getting the flu. will that work on 100% of kids? probably not but there are plenty of adults who also don't get flu shots even tho they medically can. because children are still people and can be reasoned with just the same as an adult can be, source, me I am a person who from the age of I think 5 or 6 developed a strong fear of needles, and hated having to get vaccinated, but my parents were very much in favour of their kids bodily autonomy so wouldn't have forced me to get vaccinated if I insisted after getting the explanation on why they were important. but the explanation worked, and even tho I hated (and still hate) needles I still got every vaccination I needed growing up even when I was single digits years old. (I know not every kid is me and this is purely anecdotal. but I still think it's worth bringing it up)

[prismatic-bell]

You're not wrong. I should note that I have a very specific frame of reference here: I needed sinus surgery when I was four. I didn't know what a sinus was. I didn't know what a surgery was. I'm not sure I would have been able to understand the concept, and the way surgery was performed at the time would have sounded like a big NOPE no matter how much you tried to make it accessible to me (today the same procedure uses lasers; at the time they had to put metal rods in your face). Not having it would very literally have killed me. I wouldn't have understood that concept, either.

So...what do we do in situations like that? This is why I say there's no easy answer. Does a four-year-old have a right to choose death when they don't even know what that means? Is allowing them to make that choice cruel or kind? Would they make the same choice if they had a better frame of reference? You see the problem.

[skydemonizark]

I do see the problem yeah. I wonder if a good compromise is if the child refusing due to not understanding the concepts of what the risks are, would lead to their death if the final say should then be given to the parents. till the kid is a bit older, like maybe 6 or 7? tho that still feels wrong to me I do very much understand that both forcing a medical decision on a child, and letting them die just because they don't fully understand what death is so can't make a truly informed decision, is unfair to the child. yeah this is a complex difficult problem

[prismatic-bell]

It's one of those things where I'm not even sure there is a right answer. Even going by age isn't surefire. Some twelve-year-olds are great babysitters. Some twelve-year-olds need babysitters. So how to provide the greatest amount of autonomy while also understanding that some things kids are simply not equipped to understand yet? And how to navigate stuff like "sometimes kids insist they understand, but they've come up with an absolutely buckwild understanding of the thing"?

(I also remember insisting to my mom when I was five that 100 pounds was way too big for a human being and anyone over that would fall through the floor. This was not based in fatphobia, but rather the fact that I'd just learned my numbers up to 100, and had decided the whole extra number meant something was MASSIVE. I didn't grok that 99lbs and 100lbs were a loaf of bread apart. Clearly 100lbs was like, an anvil or something.)

[guildmage-charcoal]

So, when I was in medical school, one of the historical medical ethics cases we debated was about a 17-year-old girl who didn’t want chemotherapy. The chemotherapy was going to save her life with like a 90% chance, but, she was morally and philosophically opposed to chemotherapy.

She ran away from the hospital. Police tracked her down and she was handcuffed to a hospital bed, then given chemotherapy.

Now, I was the only person in the room who said that she should’ve been given her own choice there. Everyone else disagreed: “She’s not 18! It’s against the law!” A year later, she discontinued chemotherapy and died.

I’m with prismatic here. I don’t think there is a right answer. I don’t think even the most intelligent five-year-old has enough life experience to understand the risks and benefits of surgery. On the flipside, I don’t think there’s a magic switch that flips the day you turn 18. I think maturity has multiple dimensions to it, and a person can be very mature in one way and very immature in another.

[prismatic-bell]

I'm just stuck on being morally opposed to chemo. What...is the logic there?

[guildmage-charcoal]

The professor didn’t have that information for us, but ultimately, I don’t think it really matters whatever the person’s objection is, so long they’re of sound mind and they’ve been appropriately given informed consent. Like, if I don’t want to have heart surgery for whatever reason, ultimately my body, my choice, and all that.

If I had to guess, something like Jehovah’s Witness or something. I think I’ve heard that there are also some Native American cultures that are opposed to chemotherapy?

[prismatic-bell]

JWs don't object to it, but it did occur to me Christian Scientists do.

[changeling-droneco]

I would say the likely best potential compromise would be a staggered age thing? like until the age of mm 8 or 9, then parents have full control over all procedures

then for 10-13 its control over certain treatments considered more minor/less risky or more cosmetic require consent for example if the parents say no shot but the kid says yes shot the kid gets the shot unless there's serious risks (like say the kid is allergic to a type of shot then no amount of yes will override the fact the kids allergic) but if the kid was like no surgery for my broken leg but parents say yes surgery sorry Timmy you're getting surgery

then 14-16 it's for more serious medical stuff but not anything thats like "if you dont do this you'll die" not cosmetic dental stuff for example would be included here

and then 17+ is full control no exceptions

Kids deserve autonomy, kids lack a lot of experience to understand some topics like why they need to go to school, and kids of different age brackets may have extremely different needs/understandings of the world are all things that need to coexist. A one size fit all flat age simply does not works because an 8 year old and a 15 year old are going to have very little in common when it comes to understanding the world and their own bodies.

I feel a lot of people get caught up in having One age to solve everything but you can divide up and stagger things, both allowing to save more huge life changing things for when people are old enough to actually understand and conceptualize that scale while also allowing people to get experience and practice before hand with smaller things so it's less intimidating and you have a better idea of the systems you're navigating.

[prismatic-bell]

This is a fantastic idea except for one thing:

Define "less risky procedure."

This would have to be so heavily legislated to avoid what we're seeing in Texas right now. I'm not saying it couldn't work, just...I still have concerns.

[reallyneedsalife]

I'm gonna preface this with I am not medically trained, but I have looked at medicine from a legal standing as part of my degree. But also this is possibly England and Wales exclusive, cause what yous are saying is buck-wild to me.

Here, kids rule their own medical treatment from 16 onwards. (Children aged 16 to 18 are presumed to have capacity to consent to medical treatment in England and Wales -- Section 8 Family Reform Act 1969)

An interesting thing herw is the laws around kids and capacity. There is this thing in English and Welsh law called Gillick Competence. 16+ are presumed competence to consent to their own treatment, parents be damned, but all other children may consent or remove consent to medical treatment if found Gillick Competent.

i.e. if the kid can show that they are of sufficient maturity to make the decision in question, then the child can provide legal consent for the medical procedure

Not gonna give you a law lecture, because we would all be here all day but TLDR on Gillick Competence is that if a kid can:

Understand the nature and implications of the decision and the process of implementing that decision

Understand the implications of not pursuing the decision

Retain the information long enough for the decision-making process to take place

Weigh up the information and arrive at a decision

Communicate that decision

They are considered Gillick Competent, and therefore can consent or remove consent. This is regardless of age. If a 4 year old can do all those things, they are Gillick Competent, regardless of whether a 14 year old can.

If the Gillick Competent child says yes and the parents say no: you do it.

Unfortunately, if the Gillick Competent child says no and at least 1 of the parents says yes: you do it. So the child can say yes and that holds weight, but their no doesn't hold as much weight as their parents yes. But also the test for Gillick Competence complicates that so. Yeah.

HOWEVER when a kid is Gillick competent, the parents lose any and all medical parental rights/authority over the child.

There is more interesting stuff about parental decisions vs child decisions, but tldr here if the kid can comprehend and weigh up the pros and cons, they can decide whether to consent or not.

Do with that what you will 🫡

[reallyneedsalife]

"listen to your body"

my body has an anxiety disorder and IBS it does not know what is good for us

[green-grinning-glitter-ghosts]

do you ever watch a movie and it’s like. I’m too aro for this

[prismatic-bell]

@reallyneedsalife

[do-not-u-dare]

Why do 8 year olds have more highschool dating drama than me 😭

[do-not-u-dare]

right. the aromantic thing

[prismatic-bell]

@reallyneedsalife

[grouphug33]

Eva and Grace’s dynamic is so important to me. They’re in love platonically. Like, that’s not a common dynamic. She put the way he likes his coffee into the ship’s computer. He follows her around like a puppy. In the book, she cracks jokes with him and him only. She cares about his opinion. He was the only one she asked about the coma gene, wondering if it was worth it.

He’s her best friend, and she doesn’t even know it. They’re so close, that in the book, people think they’re sleeping together, and poor Grace is so confused because he thought that was his platonic work wife, wdym people think we’re sleeping together, that’s my person that I crack jokes with and then she glares at me because they’re not funny.

She’s softer with him than anybody else and is only ever vulnerable around him. We see in the movie, he’s the only one who ever gets her to smile, and sometimes even laugh, and then she serenades all of them, but mainly him, and he stares at her with those big, shiny eyes so lovingly, and she points at him when she sings, “everything’s gonna be alright”, and then she gives him those eyes, so loving.

And then she’s trying to stop herself from crying when she’s sending him away because, against her will, he’s become her person, and somewhere along the way, she’s become his, and they will have forever ended this relationship on bad terms, and nothing can fix that.

It’s a platonic tragedy. It’s a platonic love story. This is something we don’t get often, or, like, ever, and it’s deep and it’s tragic and it’s sad.

But even after, Eva’s still taking care of him. Packing clothes she knew would bring him comfort. Programming the ship to know how he likes his coffee. And Grace is still watching out for her, speaking to her directly in his video logs, with that same lopsided smile he used to throw her way.

He uses Rocky’s sign for goodbye, and she uses it back, and how did this book and movie give us such a deep platonic friendship because, guys, this NEVER HAPPENS.

Eva and Grace, the platonic male/female friendship of all time.

[hail-dondus]

Finding out Hans Zimmer is a transphobe genuinely had me falling to my knees

[cartoonistfreak101]

Thank you blastybaku for explaining this!/gen

[poetry-protest-pornography]

If you've ever heard a movie score and thought "holy shit, this is incredible", there's like, a 50% chance it was Hans Zimmer who composed it.

This is a pretty major letdown, ngl.

Anyways, fuck transphobes, which includes Hans Zimmer, apparently.

[excessively-english-jd]

Anyway shoutout to John Williams, amazing composer and probably the one who made the other 50% of "holy shit amazing" soundtracks (Jurassic Park, Star Wars, Superman, and incidentally the original Harry Potter theme and score) who famously worked closely with the first openly transgender woman to be nominated for an Academy Award, Angela Morley. He respected her, and so far as I can see, has never made transphobic remarks.

[pregnanthudsonwilliams]

not naming names but some of you are so creative and talented it's an honor to have you in my phone

[somuchspringg]

love mymoots.. hug... even if we donftalk i love you.. even if you secretly hate me ilove you...

[elfpractice289]

Pros: Wonderful friend. No comment, no nothing. All around, just a great person who has improved your life with their mere existence tremendously

Cons: You can only access them through the headache machine because they live 1 billion lightyears away

[imjunebitch]

anyway if u watch the new Harry Potter show in any way for any reason you're part of the problem. if you pirate it you're part of the problem, if you "watch it critically" you're part of the problem, if you watch it for the purpose of a smug little video essay pointing out some problematic element in it, you're part of the problem. it doesn't matter if some element of the show is problematic, the show existing is problematic. don't give it any revenue or contribute to its cultural relevance. boycott it and let it wither on the fucking vine

[papayajuan2019]

must feel so good to be soil absorbing rain

[ratantics]

Count Binface oozes more confidence and charisma in this 52 second clip than Farage ever has in his entire life and I'm actually going to be genuinely upset if he doesn't win.