taylor price
Alisa U Zemlji Chuda
occasionally subtle

pixel skylines
AnasAbdin
RMH
YOU ARE THE REASON
Not today Justin

★

shark vs the universe
Claire Keane
🪼
tumblr dot com
we're not kids anymore.

JVL

JBB: An Artblog!

if i look back, i am lost

⁂
TVSTRANGERTHINGS
No title available
seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from Indonesia
seen from Malaysia
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Türkiye

seen from United States

seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from Türkiye
seen from United States

seen from United States

seen from Türkiye
seen from United States

seen from Malaysia

seen from Malaysia
seen from United States
@tartrazeen
“He seems to have his hand in a lot of things around here”
– Kermit the Frog discussing Jim Henson
I mean, iconic?
"i would kill a pedophile to protect my child" ok but would you teach your child how to say no? even to adults? even to adults you like? would you teach your child the words "penis" and "vulva" and then use them? would you let them ask questions about their body? would you answer them honestly? would you learn how to cope with your feelings when you talk about human bodies, so they don't feel ashamed? would you set a positive example for how you talk about your body? would you tell your child they don't have to hug or kiss anyone? would you tell your family the same? would you stand by them when they refuse to hug someone? even someone you know has never done anything to hurt them? would you let your child avoid food they don't like? would you let you child avoid people they don't like? would you believe them? would you sit in the discomfort of not knowing all the answers and not take it out on them? would you love your child the same if someone did hurt them? would you make them feel valued just as they are? would you let them talk to doctors or nurses in private? would you let them express their feelings? would you show interest in their life? would you let your child say no to you? would you help your child feel safe coming to you when they make a mistake? would you apologize to your child? would you believe them? would you put aside your anger to focus on what would make your child feel safe and loved? would you put your ego aside for your child? would you take your child's concerns seriously? would you listen to your child? would you believe them?
I would both do all those things AND kill a pedo to protect my child, if I had to.
Yesss
i'm gonna add this comment by @papercrane:
"Maya angelou's family killed a pedophile that raped her, and that just traumatized her more. "I thought that I had caused the man’s death, because I had spoken his name. That was my seven-and-a-half-year logic. So I stopped talking for five years." Read I know why the caged bird sings."
and here is my comment:
the fantasy of killing a pedophile to defend your child is... an escape from reality. as with all fantasies where a single act of violence stands for a lifetime of effortful care. it lets us off the hook for the day to day labor of actually protecting the human beings around us. it gives us an excuse to look away from what abuse actually looks like.
it allows us to ignore that setting boundaries is a daily practice. it allows us to ignore the subtle ways in which we punish children for having boundaries. it allows us not to think about things we can do, the effort we can put in, in smaller repeated ways, to be kind and caring. to be safe to talk to.
it is a grand gesture that, were you to actually go through with it, would neither prevent the harm that you fear nor help your child to heal from it. it is an idea with no bearing on reality for 99.99% of people, while rape and abuse are a reality for a large fraction of people.
it is not useful to imagine killing a pedophile. it is not useful to claim you would kill a pedophile. it wouldn't be useful to actually attempt to kill a pedophile in almost any situation.
it is useful to think about how you can help your child know they can get help. they can say no. they can tell adults to stop. they deserve to be comfortable. they deserve to be informed.
the entire point of the post is that your child will not be saved by your imagined wrath. the entire point is that your day to day actions, and your attitude towards children as people, are more impactful to your child's well-being. far more realistic. more important.
not least because your child doesn't need you to be wrathful. they need your love. they need care. they need attention.
meanwhile, the public performance of wanting to kill child abusers doesn't do anything to child abusers. most child abusers believe they are doing the right thing for their children.
saying you want to kill abusers doesn't signal anything good to children, either. as others have said, it makes children more afraid to speak up and ask for help. that might be their mom, their coach, their troop leader. it gives those abusers leverage; the children cannot tell if they want things to be stable.
and it makes it harder for adults to BELIEVE children, too! because if their child was really abused, then they've staked their honor on committing that violence, even if it was against their brother or spouse or grandpa or pastor or neighbor or their other kid's favorite babysitter. and if they don't want to do that, well... then they must decide whether they believe completely their child, or whether their child's boundaries must really be respected, or... if maybe it's impossible to know.
how many abuse survivors have tried to disclose, only to be told that so-and-so wouldn't do that, or they didn't mean it, because so-and-so loves you and we all like so-and-so. this dichotomy goes both ways, psychologically. if a child abuser is entirely evil and has to be killed, then someone who's not entirely evil and i don't want to kill can't be a child abuser. this must be something else. there must be a mistake.
you can not adequately protect your children from abuse if you hold on to this idea. i am telling you. your insistence that killing pedophiles will protect your children is holding you back. it is not useful. it is not cute to talk about how much you want to do a single act of violence to abusers as if that would ever be enough to outrun the culture of abuse and the dehumanization of children in our society. you cannot cling to this like a talisman that would ward off any harm your children may come to. you cannot escape reality by telling yourself you'd be a total badass and kill that bad guy dead. this is not helpful.
we're not ever gonna make this website a safe space for black people or have a substantial black user base anymore unless y'all (non blacks obv) come to grips with the fact that y'all hold internal biases whether some of y'all be blatantly racist and hide behind your disabilities/mental illnesses queerness/transness or it's something as simple as if you see a black face on your dash you immediately swipe up
My face reading those tags:
(wip) what if EYE was a horror game protagonist ?
In advance of the DR Congo - England match later, here's a post about someone you will have seen in the stands: Michel Kuka Mboladinga, or 'Lumumba Vea'.
Michel Kuka Mboladinga, nicknamed 'Lumumba Vea', stands silent and motionless through DR Congo football matches in tribute to Patrice Lumumba (1925 - 1961), revolutionary, independence leader and first Prime Minister of the First Congolese Republic (now Democratic Republic of the Congo), who was crucial in transforming DR Congo from a Belgian colony into an independent state. Lumumba believed strongly in both national and pan-African unity, in full decolonisation and in freeing his country's resources, politics and economy from foreign ownership, interference and domination. He was kidnapped, tortured and murdered only seven months after election by Katangan seperatists and Belgian mercenaries, with US, UK and UN involvement. His body was dissolved in acid, and it took until 2022 - and a court ruling - for all that remained of Patrice Lumumba, a single tooth, to be returned to his family.
Stay standing, sir.
Oh.
Things might actually be *bad* bad, huh?
Keep in mind that the lowest amount of time is more than double than even the harshest sentence given to anyone who participated in the attempted fascist coup on January 6th
Who tf was their editor? What kind of grammar is this? Was that a real article from an actual journalist?!
Edit: oh, OP must have had an old version's screenshot. This is the current paragraph.
That's a load-bearing "although" for the comma. I still don't know why they didn't capitalize "justice department," though. It refers to the "Department of Justice" earlier in the article as part of a quote, so why are they bouncing around to using a nickname instead of the actual name?
Sloppy
Activists accused of being part of antifa get long prison terms in case seen as test of Trump’s crackdown on dissent
this is the least of my concerns, and also I am terrible at editing my own published work correctly.
Let's get keep focus here: being ANTI-FASCIST is being legally criminalized as terrorism in the USA by a fascist.
It's important when there's so much misinformation going around, and when OP didn't provide a link to the article.
Journalists are paid to write and research articles. Editors are paid to edit them. A very fast giveaway for fake articles being dressed up as legitimate are things like obvious bad grammar.
Now that we know the article was sloppy, but not fake, we can take the actual information on board. But we also have to keep in mind that some errors got through, so there's a chance a key detail got typo'd as well. Like imagine if they meant to write 60 instead of 50.
love island should introduce a "scheming eunuch" islander who is like a smart and completely asexual islander exempt from being kicked off or being made to participate in any challenges and they're just there to provide advice and be a sort of sounding board for the other islanders when they need a disinterested party to talk things through with. but the scheming eunuch has secret goals unbeknownst to anyone e.g. a cash prize for talking a certain couple into breaking up etc.
You just want the show The Traitors but with hot people 😭
"Today, a dead body is an alien entity that we encounter briefly in a hospital, funeral home, or place of worship, but in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, people tended to die at home rather than in hospitals, and the body, imbued with religious and social significance, was lovingly cared for in a way that bound the dead person to his family and society.
The corpse was carefully bathed and groomed and postmortem photographs, portraits, or other images were often created and distributed. This care of the body certified the person's meaning and status as a member of a family and community. Dissection, however, gave the corpse a very different meaning, limiting him to a bit of useful flesh, an object to be surgically severed from his community, treated with disdain, then discarded like trash.
For Blacks, anatomical dissection meant even more: it was an extension of slavery into eternity, because it represented a profound level of white control over their bodies, illustrating that they were not free even in death. Burial rituals were so psychologically important that insurance companies sold Blacks a macabre "social security" by collecting relatively high weekly payments towards funeral expenses.
Physicians, however, ascribed Blacks' horror of postmortem dissection to superstition, complaining that even during epidemics they avoided hospitals because they feared ending up on anatomists' slabs. But whites quietly shared this revulsion, including doctors, who avoided dissecting the bodies of their colleagues."
Chapter 5- Medical Apartheid, Harriet A. Washington
*in case y'all thought that bone stealing shit was funny. Steal your own people's bones, then.
Felt this in my bones
Oh.
Things might actually be *bad* bad, huh?
Keep in mind that the lowest amount of time is more than double than even the harshest sentence given to anyone who participated in the attempted fascist coup on January 6th
Who tf was their editor? What kind of grammar is this? Was that a real article from an actual journalist?!
Edit: oh, OP must have had an old version's screenshot. This is the current paragraph.
That's a load-bearing "although" for the comma. I still don't know why they didn't capitalize "justice department," though. It refers to the "Department of Justice" earlier in the article as part of a quote, so why are they bouncing around to using a nickname instead of the actual name?
Sloppy
Activists accused of being part of antifa get long prison terms in case seen as test of Trump’s crackdown on dissent