I might get attacked for this but genuinely the plural community has a racism problem??
A huge thing that kinda slowed down my syscovery was seeing how white plurals would say racial slurs and excuse it with "oh my headmate is poc!" be fucking serious, on top of that you guys never really give room to poc system voices?? any major plural channel/resource is made up of white systems.
while there is a racism issue on both ends of syscourse, it also feels like anti endos ignore cultural plurality for the sake of their white psychiatrist's dsm-5
On the pro-endo side there will literally be white plurals defending the use of (radqueer) transracial and cultural appropriation, check your privilege
if you feel offended or uncomfortable by this, you might have some shit to reflect on
KKK Bombs Home of Alabama Civil Rights Leader the Reverend Fred Shuttlesworth
On December 25, 1956, Ku Klux Klan members in Alabama bombed the home of civil rights activist the Reverend Fred Shuttlesworth. The Rev. Shuttlesworth was home at the time of the bombing with his family and two members of Bethel Baptist Church, where he served as pastor. The 16-stick dynamite blast destroyed the home and caused damage to the Rev. Shuttlesworth’s church next door, but no one inside the home suffered serious injury. White supremacists would attempt to murder the Rev. Shuttlesworth four more times in the next seven years. In an attack in 1957, a white mob brutally beat the Rev. Shuttlesworth with chains and bats and stabbed his wife after the couple attempted to enroll their daughters in an all-white high school.
The Rev. Shuttlesworth became a popular target of white supremacists in the early 1950s after assuming leadership of the civil rights movement in Birmingham, Alabama. As founder and president of the Alabama Christian Movement for Human Rights, the Rev. Shuttlesworth organized and participated in numerous protests and boycotts challenging Jim Crow customs and policies in Birmingham and across the South. The day before the Christmas bombing, the Rev. Shuttlesworth had called upon local African Americans to desegregate the city buses starting on December 26. Undeterred by the Klan’s assassination attempt, the Rev. Shuttlesworth proceeded as planned with the December 26 protest rides.
The Rev. Shuttlesworth was involved in nearly every pivotal civil rights event of the 1960s, including the 1961 Freedom Rides and the Birmingham Children’s Crusade in May 1963. His tireless activism in the face of violent opposition led Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. to describe him as “the most courageous civil rights fighter in the South.”
This might ruffle feathers but I’ve noticed a trend across the board.
We agree that intolerance and discrimination is wrong, yet I see entire sub-groups being lumped into one “bad” category and then judged.
For example “anyone who likes Harry Potter” “being Christian” “writes RPF”, etc.
Because it’s technically a choice of interest, I think there’s a culture that it’s okay to judge that and make sweeping assumptions.
It’s not.
There’s a difference between “I like the HP books because I grew up with them” and “I support JK Rowling’s views directly”.
There’s a difference between “I was raised Christian because I didn’t have a choice” and “I am now Christian and gays are going to hell.”
People can and will have different interests than you. Sometimes those interests reflect their beliefs and actions. But sometimes they don’t. Don’t make that decision for them before you even interact.
We judge people to put them in a hierarchy, or virtue signal, and to avoid reckoning with those same views ourselves. You can read more here.
It’s toxic. We need to make the choice to withhold that judgement—at least until you get to know someone.
how the hell do I write discrimination, let alone magic discrimination
I'm a white American raised in an upper-class religious society, I've been harassed a few times, mostly for being queer, but that's about it. Aside from the news and what's shown in movies, I've been raised in a very sheltered place.
I've never really seen discrimination outside of popular media, and I don't know if that's a good thing or a bad thing.
Maybe Reagan isn't allowed in certain places? She can't attend events because she's a NonMagi. Her parents try to hide her from society because they see her as a disgrace to her family from being a NonMagi. Her girlfriend has to date her in secret or risk the consequences of interacting with a NonMagi. She's seen as dirty, morally wrong, a threat to society, despite her status as NonMagi being completely out of her control. Cadimus wonders where he went wrong, Kluera puts Reagan in a class specifically to teach NonMagi how to hide themselves, how to use magic, and act 'normal'
WYNONNA: “Out already? Didn't even have time to send flowers.”
BUNNY LOBLAW: “It was just a fancy faint.”
WYNONNA: “Yeah, the cat made a bed in your ass crack.”
BUNNY LOBLAW: “The doctor said I'm fine. I'm as healthy as an ox.”
WYNONNA: “With the cankles to match.”
BUNNY LOBLAW: “Listen. I am just here to tell Officer Haught that despite the day's events, she will not be getting my support.”
WYNONNA: “She saved your life, you incorrigible bitch.”
BUNNY LOBLAW: “Perhaps. But she does not belong here in Purgatory. She is not our... people.”
WYNONNA: “Are you a xenophobe or a homophobe?”
BUNNY LOBLAW: “Why pick just one?”
WYNONNA: “Even though it was against her best interest, Nicole did the right thing. She always does the right thing, no matter what. That's the kind of person who should be Sheriff.”
BUNNY LOBLAW: “I'll keep that in mind.”
WYNONNA: “No. Bunny... shouldn't we talk about what really happened today? What's really got your pearls all twisted?”
BUNNY LOBLAW: “I don't know what you're talking about.”
WYNONNA: “What you saw. Because you saw something, didn't you, Bun Bun?”
BUNNY LOBLAW: “It was just a dream, a terrible dream. Like the one where I'm on the cruise ship with all the shirtless... Portuguese sailors.”
WYNONNA: “Okay, there's a lot to unpack there. But no... you weren't dreaming. See, you think you want to know the things Nedley's been keeping secret. You don't. That monster you saw today, it's just... the tip of the iceberg.”
BUNNY LOBLAW: “Iceberg?”
WYNONNA: “If you don't back Nicole for Sheriff, I am sending that monster and all of his demon friends... to your house.”
BUNNY LOBLAW: “You can't and you won't.”
WYNONNA: “Oh, bless your cold, withered heart. You think you could handle another "fancy faint"? Then Nicole Haught's gonna be the next Sheriff. Okay? Have a lovely day.”
BUNNY LOBLAW: “I need to get to church.”
WYNONNA: “You gotta book yourself that cruise.
*she turns around to see Nicole stood at the doorway*
How long have you been listening?”
NICOLE: “It would've been rude to interrupt.”
WYNONNA: “Naughty Haughty.”
NICOLE: “How's your head? Because... I feel like I can hear space and time. Hair of the dog?”
*opens two bottles of alcohol, hands one to Wynonna*
WYNONNA: “Officer Haught. At work?”
NICOLE: “Well, some rules are made to be broken.”
WYNONNA: “Huh. Maybe you would be a good wife.”
NICOLE: “Ah, thank you. But you're not my type. You cheat at drinking games.
*they laugh and Nicole holds out her bottle*
Truce?”
WYNONNA: “More than a truce. A win.
*they clink bottles*
You know, I used to think you were an outsider too. And that things would get too demony and you would... go and leave my sister with a broken heart.”
NICOLE: “Wynonna, I love her.”
WYNONNA: “Ew.
*smiles*
Also, you better.”
NICOLE: “And I love you, too. I mean, I know it's terribly unfair and sometimes I really get... jealous, because you get to be...”
WYNONNA: “Get to be what?”
NICOLE: “You.”
WYNONNA: “You know, you're staked to this land, same as me. You never had a choice.”
NICOLE: “What do you mean?”
WYNONNA: “It wasn't Black Badge who saved you from the Cult of Bulshar massacre, Nicole. It was an idealistic local cop.”
*pulls out a photograph of a younger Sheriff Nedley with his arm around a young girl - Nicole as a child*
I’ve said it before. While I really do not like that they had to blackmail Bunny to back Nicole for Sheriff when Bunny shouldn’t even be a part of what they do because she’s a discriminative asshole, I understand that it’s in character for Wynonna to do that for someone she cares about and will defend. So the sentiment of the latter outweighs the former. She could have just let Bunny make the remarks she did and sent her on her way, letting her believe whatever she wanted. But no, she layed into her because she knew that Nicole deserves to be Sheriff next election. And the fact Nicole was stood there watching the whole exchange and never made a move to intervene shows how much she appreciates the support from Wynonna even if that support was a threat towards Bunny and could land them in even more trouble.
It matters. It’s not something I would think of to do myself, but it matters because it’s Wynonna and Wynonna always does the crazy thing for love. Nicole understands that and knows this is just Wynonna’s way of helping her. So she doesn’t stop her and instead just lets her potentially create more chaos.
They’ll cross that bridge when they come to it.
If it comes to it.
Then there’s the other part to this conversation where they sit and drink and relate to each other, and Wynonna reveals that while she is cursed to stay in Purgatory to fight Wyatt’s revenant demons, Nicole also had no real choice about who she would end up becoming in Purgatory either. Meaning it’s not just because she’s dating Waverly why she’s in the show. And I really love that they included that because it simultaneously gives Nicole purpose as her own character within her own individual arc and gives her representation and development beyond just being a love interest but also tells us that she always was - is - meant to be with Waverly and as part of the team because she has ties to the supernatural life too that she can’t just leave behind because she’s “abnormal”.
Combined with the former scene and conversation - this is the creator and cast/crew basically telling us that being “abnormal” or an “outsider” isn’t something we ever choose to be. It chooses us. The only thing we choose is to accept and embrace it…
Or not.
Maybe it’s just me reading into the narratives and themes a bit more than I should with this episode but I think it’s clever that the writers combined a narrative about being unlucky and having to work through the hardships of that with someone else we don’t always have common ground with and a narrative about acceptance and support from that someone when we’re being discriminated against for being too “different” to belong in a place we had no real choice to be part of the social community of in the first place.
We get the hand that we are dealt and we deal with it because that’s the only thing we really can do to survive somewhere non-inclusive. And if we happen to find people within that social community that are just as much of an “outsider” as we are even if they were born and bred in it then we are lucky and we are worthy and we do deserve to be treated with respect no matter how “not our people” we are perceived as.
And this is how I interpret this episode and these couple of scenes. It might not be the intention. I could be entirely wrong about what the writer intends it to represent. But I’ve never been one for canon anyway.
I’ve always made up my own lore and narrative when watching TV art/entertainment and I really miss show creators that accepted and encouraged this and gave you enough room to interpret any of it any which way you want and choose so that it could be so much more meaningful to you each time you engaged with it. I didn’t think TV shows like this existed anymore. But I’ve been pleasantly and gratefully surprised with ‘Wynonna Earp’ and other stuff I’ve recently watched.
I hope that streak continues when I watch Arcane. Shows that put the storytelling first have my heart even if I might be entirely wrong what story that is. It doesn’t really matter because I don’t deal in canon. I never have and I never will. That’s how I watch shows.
Art is and should be in the eye of the beholder always.
I'm reaching out to share my experience with my LL and to seek advice or support as I believe I am experiencing disability discrimination.
Questions:
Am I on the right track? Are they in violation?
What to I do next?
Can I represent myself? Do I need an attorney?
Is it time to file state and federal reports?
Know of an AZ attorney who can help?
Summary:
I've been facing significant issues with my landlord (LL) regarding delayed disability accommodations and incorrect billing. Despite requesting accommodations over three months ago, they has not resolved the issue. Additionally they have made billing errors, including unauthorized charges and fees that are connected to my accommodation request, and they have failed to communicate effectively. Additionally, their legal counsel has used ableist language and derailed conversations about accommodations, seemingly to discourage me from pursuing my rights; I also think they are misrepresenting the law. This situation has caused undue hardship, and I believe their actions may constitute harassment and discrimination under the Fair Housing Act (FHA), Americans with Disability Act, and Arizona Residential Landlord and Tenant Act (ARLTA). At this point I am prepared to take legal action if necessary and am seeking advice or support from others who may have faced similar issues.
Context:
- I and two roommates have lived here for 4 years. In December, my symptoms got worse, and I was diagnosed with chronic conditions. We have been in an ADA unit for 3 of the 4 years.
- I pay for a garage, one roommate pays for a carport, and the other utilizes the free parking option. There is no ADA parking on the shortest route to our ADA dwelling. Free ADA parking spaces are not accessible to me due to having to cross a parking lot and other spaces or walk through a handful of hallways.
- Many tenants complain of a lack of parking and often need to park far from dwellings, park illegally, in another’s paid spot, or leave the complex to park elsewhere.
- All dwellings aside from ADA units have top-loading washers. E-check payments can only have 2 fails before being revoked. During my flare of symptoms and unexpected medical costs, we had two fails. Our first two in 4 years.
- This is a privately owned complex with more than 4 units, built in 2009. AZ has one-party consent recording laws. LL office has a history of not answering the phone.
Timeline:
April:
-Concern (confidential per agreement)
-During this concern I began learning about my rights with regards to my disabilities
-Concern resolved
-Accommodations requested
-documentation submitted (doctors note, state issued Handicap Card)
-Maintenance staff states it would be easy to provide top loading washer, could do it right away
May:
-Attorney pushback need new medical note (dr signature not seen), states ADA doesn’t apply, doesn’t understand nexus
-New Medical Note submitted
-Detailed explanation o f nexus over and above required
-Lawyer states LL Not obligated to pay for modifications
-Approves some modifications at my expense
-Approves reinstatement of my ability to make echeck payments, one additional chance only
-Does not approve transition to top loading washer or elevating washer per doctors note or accessible parking
-LL legal rep implies I should be grateful for the upgrade despite stating why it is not accessible for me
-LL legal rep states ADA has no relevance
-LL states they have other top loading machines available but don’t want to have to deal with/ store our front loading.
-LL legal rejects accessible washer and dryer accommodation and accessible parking does not offer alternative solution
-LL states they will have maintenance build block under washer to raise it despite LL legal rep decline (this has been provided)
-LL legal rep states keep paying for garage or use covered parking space, despite covered spot irrelevance as it is another tenants
June:
-payed June invoice via e-check since ability reinstated (documented)
-Lease on dwelling needs to be renewed at the end of month, in reviewing contract notice garage rent has increased by ~67%
-Called City of Gilbert to review ada parking codes, informed that if in an ADA unit FHA states that there must be an ada parking space on shortest route to dwelling. Recorded call.
-Emailed regarding lease renewal and ongoing parking discussion pushing back on increase and restating my request for accessible parking accommodation
-LL legal rep states there is no such thing as an ADA unit, despite the property management referring to it as it and it being a colloquially accepted term.
-LL rep states they do not see why I need accessible parking when I pay for a garage, and we have a covered spot and nothing LL needs to do. That the city is incorrect.
-Push back on this, reexplain that I would give up my garage if g tr here was a free accessible parking option and once again that the covered spot belongs to another tenant.
- nearing lease deadline, reached out asking if we can sign bur leave the garage terms out until resolved or have an extension without fee
-Followed up again with no response onexpiring lease options, highlighting unresolved disability accommodations initially requested in April (over 3 months without resolution).
- LL acknowledged the need for review and suggested a month-to-month (MTM) option at no extra cost until disputes over increased garage rent and the request for accessible parking are resolved.(Documented)
- Received recurring payment reminder, states billing amounts may change based on account balance, account balance is controlled by LL
- while not required as auto pay established, checked ledger around 10pm on 6/30 and saw an amount of $99.76. (Documented)
July:
- In July 1 discovered LL increased the bill and auto-billed $2,943.81, including fees previously agreed not to charge (MTM fee and disputed garage cost).
- Called LLtwice, no response.
- Visited the leasing office with roommate 1; charges were adjusted but a refund was refused. LL assistant manager (am) asserted that only a credit for the following month could be issued, leaving us without $500 in our budget. LLAM said, “It’s not fair but that’s how it is.” Suggested we stop check if we needed another solution. The conversation was recorded.
- Emailed LL with an update.
- Called the bank and was informed of a $30 fee for stopping the check.
- Called LL and spoke with LLAM she stated LL would not cover the canceled check fee. Reminded LLAM this issue arose due to LL oversight and they should bear the fees. -Discussed an alternative solution of letting the check bounce, which LLAM confirmed would not incur a fee and would allow continued e-check payments per the accommodation terms, without a late fee. This call was witnessed by another resident.
- Emailed LL to summarize the call and communicated that we would not return from our holiday until July 7 and would make the payment once there was confirmation that the check had not gone through.
- LL acknowledged the situation, mentioned a grace period for late fees but incorrectly stated that we chose to make an overpayment.
-July 4 Leasing office closed.
-July 8 Received notice that the check was rejected by SanTan upon our return from holiday, attempted payment but was unable to do so online, called the office but was unable to connect with staff.
-July 9 Attempted payment again and found additional fees despite agreements from LL,LLAM
- Received a threatening eviction notice on the door with no prior communication from the leasing office.
-Emailed LL all the above, proving that we did not choose to make this payment; it resulted from LL error in not updating the system per the agreement to not charge for MTM or the disputed garage fee. The auto payment was triggered by LL incorrect managing of account balance despite stating we would not be charged fees and late payment was due to LLAM not following through with commitments on being able to make e-check payment and no fees.
-July Three calls to the office from various residents of 1086 went unanswered.
- Sent an email to LL seeking resolution.
- Follow-up emails from LL and LLAM stating they will get back to us
- Conversation with LL over the phone, who inaccurately asserted that the overpayment was our mistake and held us responsible for all fees. Clarified that the June 30 and July 1 amounts were both incorrect, and the automated payments were managed by LL. Call recorded.
- Left a voicemail for LL corporate office
- Paid July rent, excluding disputed fees and deducting $10 for the cashier check charge that was only needed to be obtained due to LL Error. LL spoke to other roommates incorrectly stating they didn’t understand why I chose to over pay. Roommate 2 states, auto payment controlled by them, and we had checked which we should not have needed to do -no one is checking their Spotify auto payments - recorded
- Submitted formal complaint for delayed accommodation and billing error highlighting the above information
- LL said was not needed as they had been communicating and that the billing and requests are a separate issue - says accepted partial payment as curtesy
- LL legal rep responds to earlier email, not formal complaint, and again rejects accessible parking accommodation, says not needed despite documentation, to keep paying or use other tenants spot, no other option provided, states rate increase is not discriminatory, says this is the last of the matter.
-LL states we are to sign lease by Aug 1, no reinstatement of epayment, offered to cover $80 of fees and we are responsible for over $250
-LL sends this in three separate emails
- Forwards Formal complaint to senior LL corporate staff, LL legal rep, and LL. States that billing errors and the 3 month delay in accommodation are inherently linked as the LL said no fee to extend while we sort through accommodation, then failed to ensure their billing was correct and put burden on me.
Key Points:
Untimely Resolution of Accommodation Request: Over three months have passed since the initial request for disability accommodations, an excessive and legally questionable delay under the Fair Housing Act.
Potential Delay Tactics: It appears that LL may have deliberately delayed the accommodation process, which coincided with our lease renewal period. This delay tactic is concerning as it suggests an attempt to force us out of the premises, especially given the sudden notice of five days provided after their billing mistake.
Legal Counsel's Conduct: LL legal counsel has repeatedly used ableist language and derailed conversations about accommodations by fixating on irrelevant information and nitpicking colloquial language. This appears to be an intentional strategy to wear out disabled tenants and discourage them from pursuing their rightful accommodations.
Legal Implications: Potential disability discrimination due to unresolved accommodation requests and mishandling of billing.
Definition of Harassment in Housing Context: Harassment in a housing context includes actions that create a hostile living environment, repeated and unreasonable demands, or failure to make necessary accommodations, particularly when these actions are taken against someone because of their membership in a protected class (such as individuals with disabilities).
Legal Case Summary:
LL actions constitute a blatant disregard for Arizona state law and federal housing regulations. Under the Arizona Residential Landlord and Tenant Act (ARLTA), landlords are required to maintain fit and habitable premises and make all repairs necessary to keep the premises in a livable condition (A.R.S. § 33-1324). LL repeated billing errors and failure to address accommodations contravene these obligations. Furthermore, under the Fair Housing Act (FHA), it is illegal to discriminate against individuals with disabilities, including failing to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services when such accommodations may be necessary to afford a person with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. The excessive delay of over three months in addressing my accommodation request is unreasonable and likely a violation of the FHA. Additionally, the rent increase after the accommodation request, the assertion that paying for accessible parking is the only option, followed by an increase in garage rent (the accessible parking option), and the mishandling of July rent with associated fees and penalties, are all linked and indicative of a pattern of discriminatory and retaliatory behavior by LL. These actions, taken together, create a hostile living environment and impose undue financial and emotional stress potentially constituting harassment. Federal guidelines and best practices indicate that accommodation requests should be acknowledged within 3-5 business days, an interactive process should begin immediately and be completed within 1-2 weeks, and simple modifications should be addressed within a few weeks. The delay of over three months in resolving the request for accessible parking is excessive and fails to meet these standards. Timeline above illustrates LL failure to uphold agreed-upon lease terms and accommodate disability needs regarding accessible parking. Their actions have led to undue financial burden and threats of eviction, potentially violating both the FHA and state law. SanTan's conduct could be construed as harassment and discrimination, subjecting them to significant legal liability.
Action Needed from LL:
Immediate correction of billing errors, waiver of unauthorized fees, reinstatement of e-check payment ability, resolution of the accommodation request, and execution of the lease agreement. LL must address communication shortcomings and ensure compliance with the FHA and the Arizona Residential Landlord and Tenant Act to prevent further legal consequences, including potential lawsuits for discrimination, harassment, and breach of contract.Failure to comply to result in legal action seeking damages, including punitive damages, for the distress and financial losses incurred due to LL unlawful practices. We are prepared to pursue all available remedies under state and federal law to protect rights and ensure fair treatment.
Any advice, support, suggestions on the above much appreciated!
For his latest intervention, Pejac chose the entrance of a building specifically chosen because it hosts many charities as well as homes for vulnerable residents facing social exclusion.
The multitude of tiny figures that make up this doormat come together to stand for every aspect of the WELCOME concept, the meaning of which has been increasingly hard to find recently.
The message is one of dignity, understanding that those who have been pushed to the margins of society can recognize the importance of an open and heartfelt welcome more than anyone. It re frames the potential of those who have been discriminated against and in some sense stepped over by society, and presents them as united and proud.
