For the longest time, Whumpee was absolutely convinced Caretaker had beautiful red hair.
Every time they pictured Caretaker, that was the first thing that came to mind, even years into their captivity. Faces of other friends gradually faded as time went on, specific memories of Caretaker started to blur at the edges, but even when Whumpee's own name occasionally slipped their tongue after being only addressed with Whumper's nicknames, they never forgot Caretaker's face. Their smile, their laugh, the crinkle in their eyes, their stunning red hair -- it was always a picture perfect comfort for Whumpee to dream of.
So imagine their confusion when one day, either out of a rare bit of kindness to reward Whumpee for good behavior or because Whumper wanted to twist the emotional knife a little deeper, Whumper gifts them a picture of their beloved Caretaker. It's an older picture, naturally, as it had been many months (years, even?) since Whumpee had seen that familiar face but Caretaker looks...different. Off. It's still the same warm smile, the same soft features, but their hair isn't right.
It isn't red. It's blonde.
But that can't be right. Whumpee knows for a fact it's red, they can always see it so crystal clear in their memory when they envision Caretaker. This has to be another psychological trick by Whumper to make them think they've gone crazy, making them think they've forgotten their only source of comfort in captivity, and they won't fall victim to their tactic!
Red hair, are you sure? Whumper asks, almost as surprised as Whumpee for misremembering such an important person in their miserable life. Caretaker never had red hair, not even a box dye, it had always been a light, golden blonde. Oh, Whumpee, you're getting yourself all confused again.
No, Caretaker had red hair, Whumpee insists.
Yes, the last time you saw them, perhaps. The last time they saw Caretaker was however long ago, weeks, months, years, just before Whumper had snatched them away to this new hell. They didn't like remembering that night, frankly they didn't like remember any nights during their captivity, but even less so the night that they had to leave Caretaker's side forever. Even after all this time, with one simple trigger from Whumper, the event came flooding back to Whumpee in an electric rush.
They remembered crying out for Caretaker before the gag was shoved in their mouth, they remember the throb in their shoulders as their arms were yanked behind their back to be bound with zipties at the wrist, and they remember the wind being knocked out of their chest when they were hefted over Whumper's shoulder to be stolen away. They remember the tears that stung their eyes from the dizzying, upside down angle, they remember the disarray Caretaker's once tidy home was now in--
--and they remember Whumper stepping over Caretaker's broken body, glassy eyes staring up and past Whumpee, with a dark pool of blood spreading out from under them, soaking into their blonde strands until the locks were matted red.
This has been blowing up for the past week for some reason and I am reading the very specific anecdotes people are tagging this with and I would like to state, for the record, that this was 100% a stress dream brought about by someone close to me not getting the vaccine
Thank-you to all of my new Internet stranger friends for being so gracious about having my post shoved onto your dashboards. I loved reading all of your kind tags and comments! Both Martin and Bosco have been gone for several years now but for 24 hours, they felt very present in my life. I greatly appreciate this gift. ❤️
A key point in framing is that almost every anti-choice idiot says, is that they always frame it as "the choice to have a kid". Specifically, in this case:
"You chose to have sex, so you have to deal with the kid"
Let's just...side-step the puritanical root of punishing people for having sex, and the actual, sincere belief that humans Not Having Sex is something we can actually achieve, which is stupid.
People explicitly make choices to not have kids when they have sex, too.
There are whole swaths of things that men and women do, hopefully overlapping, to not have kids.
None of them are 100% effective. Even Female and Male sterilization aren't 100% effective, other than a full blown hysterectomy.
Literally, a man and a woman can both go to a doctor, have actual surgeries performed so they don't have kids, have sex with one another, and still wind up pregnant. Especially if it's in the first few years after their surgeries are performed. Surgeries which have weeks to months of recovery time, planning, and costing thousands of dollars each.
I choose to go to work every day; punishing me for getting hit by a cab as a "potential outcome" of going to work is fucking ludicrous. People smoking are more likely to get a cancer, but we still treat them in hospitals. Getting AIDS from donating blood is a thing that can happen, but you're damn well going to sue the hospital or agency that gave you AIDS. I can play the lottery every day and eventually win a million dollars, but it's still "the stupid tax" and actually thinking it will happen is the literal Gold Standard for "not gonna happen".
Nowhere else in society do we accept bullshit like that except when we're talking about controlling women and their sex lives for doing things you don't want them to. And it's always, always from the same people who want the woman to deliver the baby (which itself has a high risk of just killing the mom outright, especially in the US) who don't want to feed the baby when it's delivered, who don't want to give it a home or clothes or healthcare.
Yes, I've posted this before. It is super-relevant now.
If you are able to become pregnant, YOU HAVE NO SAY over what happens if you do. You have no right to make your own decisions about your own life and your own body.
I have complicated feelings about marine mammals in captivity but (a) this seal’s tango ability deserves recognition and (b) I’m inclined to think that this level of coordination suggests the seal legitimately enjoys it.
you really should change your icon, title, or ideally, both.
that is what bots look like! even if you have posts on your blog, it’s very hard to distinguish an actual user from a bot if your blog looks like one in the above photo.
i block bots and i really don’t wanna accidentally block an actual person, but if you follow me and you have a blog that looks like that, there’s a good chance that you’ll get blocked.
also another important note: don’t just change your description or header or blog colors. make sure you change the icon or blog title, cause when someone is looking at their follower list, this is all they see:
we just see the icon and title, so it’s best to change those that way no one has to go through your blog to try and figure out if your a bot or not.
Especially important if your handle is three words in a row without hyphens, or a name and a bunch of numbers! These are the two primary bot blog usernames.
If they do have an icon, it is usually a selfie of a conventionally attractive woman.
[Image description: Screenshot of a tweet by Twitter user “@HTHRFLWRS”, that says, “not nonbinary as in “add a third X gender marker to licenses” but nonbinary as in “remove all genders from licenses, holy shit why would you want a cop to know you’re trans” /end ID]
I'm gonna keep asking it: if the law is supposed to be the same regardless of gender, what is legal gender needed for if not treating people different based on their gender?
In light of recent events, I would like to remind everyone that the correct pro choice talking point that will actually pull people to our side is NOT whether a fetus is human or not because you'll never win. The correct argument is how the state should never have the power to force you to give up physical autonomy for the sake of any other being.
if the state can't force you to be an organ donor after your death, it shouldn't be able to force you to be an organ donor before your death. if you can't be forced to give even a pint of blood for half an hour, you shouldn't be forced to give up your uterus for nine months. if your alcoholic father can't demand you give him half your liver, if the red cross can't just demand your blood, if those wig making companies can't demand your hair, no one should be able to demand your reproductive system.
even if a fertilized egg is exactly as much of a person as a twenty one year old citizen, no one else in the world should have a legal right to make use of your body parts without your express consent.
I always explain that Consent to 1 thing with 1 person for 1 period of time is NOT consent to a totally different thing with a totally different person for a totally different period of time.
If I consent to have sex with my husband tonight, that is NOT consent to make out with his friend tomorrow. If I consent to donate blood to the hospital today, that doesn't imply consent to have my kidney harvested by a neighbor tomorrow. If I consent to have a professional at the tattoo parlor pierce my ears today, that doesnt mean Ive consented to having my tongue pierced by an employee at Claires tomorrow. Consent is specific to person, act, and time. Consent to sex with a romantic partner today is not consent to carry a totally different person *inside my body* for 40 weeks.
Even if consent to one act with one person coukd be transfered to another person and another act, consent can be revoked at any time, even during the act, and once that is communicated, it must be respected. You can call something off, whether it's sex or blood donation or getting your ears peirced, even if you've already begun. The same is true for carrying a pregnancy to term.
Good response, although I think it might still falter when the opposition considers pregnancy to be a reasonably expected result of sex. Consent to one thing is also consent to associated actions.
For example, consent to driving is also consent to wearing a seatbelt, obeying traffic laws, and restricting your drinking. Consent to blood donation is also consent to tests being run on that blood and that blood being given to anyone, even someone you may not have wanted to save, if given the choice.
How would you respond to this argument?
(to be clear, I am on your side and playing devil's advocate in good faith.)
Is the fetus a *person* in this situation, or is the fetus some kind of secondary situation that always follows?
Because I ALWAYS have to wear my seat belt, by law. But there is no law that I HAVE to get pregnant if I have sex. So unless *not getting pregnant* is now a crime like not wearing a seatbelt, that analogy falls apart.
The "who the blood goes to" fails an analogy because once the blood has been donated, its not yours anymore. You don't have to consent to things that *used* to be yours. It's not part of your body any longer, so it's no longer under the umbrella of your bodily autonomy.
I've seen people compare pregnancy to consenting to a risk- like getting injured in a car accident. But if the fetus is a RISK, akin to an injury, then you can deal with it like any accidental injury. You don't have to just let your arm heal on its own. You can get a cast.
But they'll insist the fetus is a person, and by definition, not the person you included in the original consent. (How could you, when they didn't exist.) And if the fetus is a person, it has to follow all the person rules.
Also, consent isn't transitive. Giving consent doesn't mean you've also consented to anything associated with that act. Here are a couple of examples:
Consenting to engaging in sexual activity doesn't mean you've consented to become pregnant, contract an STI, get married, or raise a child.
Consenting to work in a dangerous profession doesn't mean that you've consented to be seriously injured, despite it being a clear and obvious consequence of working in dangerous circumstances.
Consenting to drive doesn't mean you consent to wearing a seat belt or following traffic laws because you aren't actually consenting to the act of driving. Instead, you agreed to follow traffic laws and driving regulations when you were trained and licensed, that's what you consented to. And that training requires you to become fully informed, complete with testing to prove it.
When pro-forced birth arguments mention consent, it's a rhetorical trick. They aren't actually providing any evidence that they're right about consent, they're trying to get you to unconsciously agree with them. It's a disguised appeal to tradition and it has nothing to do with consent.
While you can work around that in an argument, I prefer highlighting the underlying deception because it demonstrates that they're being unethical from the outset. It makes it much easier to demonstrate to bystanders that pro-forced birthers aren't actually making an argument, they're just trying to control people.
I guess I just don't understand the rioting of Roe V. Wade being overturned in states that are keeping abortions legal haha. People just rioting & causing chaos for the hell of it, apparently. & they say they're not violent. Lol.
1. Those states are keeping abortion legal *for now*, but without Roe as a safeguard, that could change.
2. Solidarity with those of us who do live in states being affected right away. Some people have empathy.
3. With the fall of Roe, all court decisions that were specifically based on the assumption of the right to privacy (like same sex marriage, contraceptives, sodomy laws, and interracial marriage) are now on the table- and Thomas has SPECIFICALLY named some of those as something he wants to reevaluate.
4. Given that part of the justification for bringing down Roe was that it isn't *specifically* protected in the constitution, that calls into question a LOT of things that *also aren't in the constitution*, like...OH, women owning property in their own name, or free public education, for example. The court is signaling that it would let *basically any* human rights violations be a "states rights" issue unless we could pass an amendment about it.
The fall of Roe is, obviously, very upsetting and scary for those of us in immediately impacted states. However, it is also existentially terrifying for anyone who knows anything about the legal workings behind this decision.
1. I really don't see that happening. Maybe if a state turns more purple than blue, but the voters in those states will not allow abortions to become illegal, especially in a state such as California where abortions are allowed up to 3 days after the child's already been born.
2. I only feel empathy for the women that need it. I'm sorry, but women who use abortion as a form of birth control doesn't deserve empathy whatsoever. & just btw, most red states even have exceptions to their laws, whether the pregnancy is life-threatening to the woman or she's pregnant due to rape/incest & it can be proven.
3. Thomas is the only one I've heard wants to reevaluate those other laws. Most people aren't going to allow those laws to be reversed. Burn the whole country down if the Supreme Court tries to make contraceptives, same sex marriage, interracial marriage, etc. illegal, but I feel this isn't an issue that deserves that.
4. Again, if the Supreme Court tried to undo all or many human rights laws, then riot to your heart's content. I would, too. But abortions should only be legal in certain circumstances, anyway. Abortion is one of the very few laws where people don't have to take accountability for their actions. Now that's going to change. If someone isn't ready to become a parent but they can't be bothered to keep their business in their pants, then use contraceptives, condoms, & make the guy pull out all at once. There are many ways to keep from getting pregnant. If contraceptives are used, but the woman still gets pregnant, then imo, abortion should be allowed if she chooses. But it's going to be extremely hard to get pregnant if you're doing EVERYTHING in your power to make sure that doesn't happen.
I guess we'll just have to wait & see what all is going to happen in direct consequence for Roe V. Wade being overturned. But I don't see them trying to take away human rights. & if they do, then I will help with rioting, but I just don't see that happening. Hopefully I'm right on this.
But they're *already* taking away human rights, smart ass. That's what this *is*. That's what them saying that Miranda Rights don't need to be read is. That's what the ruling about warrantless searches within 100 miles of the border, eroding the 4th amendment, is. That's what ruling that wrongfully convicted prisoners don't have a right to appeal is.
The fall of Roe isn't even the *first step.* it's like, the 5th this month alone, and that should scare the shit out of you, even if you're going to be a shithead about abortion.
And "well, I don't think that will happen* isnt good enough protection.
Like. I'm fucking *done* arguing with people about whether or not they are entitled to the private, personal information of a pregnant persons life so they can pass judgement on whether their reasons are good enough to have the basic DIGNITY and RESPECT to make their own medical choices. I don't give a SHIT if you think someone's reasons are good enough. It's not your business. It's not your job to control their access to medical care.
But you should absolutely care about the fundamental attacks against our human rights.
Hey everyone, there's a ton of terrible attitudes and misinformation in this thread and you probably shouldn't listen to anything inhumanenature says on this topic, but I'll direct my response to them directly to explain in detail.
...
@inhumanenature, most of what you've said here is both incorrect and highly unethical, so let's talk about that and correct some of the misinformation that you've posted in this thread. I started out thinking that you were ignorant, but since you're trotting out well-worn lies now, I'm guessing that you just want to offend people while pretending that you're not acting like an asshole.
Let's get started:
----------
1) California does not allow you to get an abortion up to three days after a child has already been born. That is not just a lie, it's an obvious lie.
Just stop and think about it. Do you honestly believe that a child who has been born and who is three days old, a three day old infant in other words, can be aborted?
That's not just logically impossible, since you literally cannot abort an infant as they've literally already been born, it's also completely and obviously ridiculous. You're trying to put the idea that doctors murder babies into people's heads. It's the kind of lie that pro-forced birth people come up with to scaremonger and terrify people into seeing anyone who provides abortion services as monsters and anyone who seeks an abortion as complicit in murder.
Here's the truth:
In California law, you can seek an abortion up to the point at which the fetus is viable, which means that it would likely be able to survive outside the womb, or about 24-28 weeks into the pregnancy. Furthermore, people don't get abortions for babies that are close to term unless there's a serious and life-threatening complication, like the fetus not being able to fully develop or becoming inviable in some way.
Also?
Discussions of late term abortions are honestly one of the most cruel aspects of right-wing attitudes and they show off exactly how disingenous and unethical authoritarians can be.
People who seek a late term abortion are people who were looking forward to becoming parents who now have to process the trauma of losing a child. These are parents-to-be. They picked out a crib, and painted the baby's room. And now they've been told that they won't be parents because something went wrong and their child is no longer viable, due to a complication outside their control.
Just sit with that for a moment and realize how heartbreaking that could be. And when you've done that, realize that you're suggesting that people like that are somehow monsters that we shouldn't feel any empathy on.
That's why I'm explaining, in detail, exactly how unethical your attitude is. You're spreading lies that don't just make people more ignorant, you're encouraging them to join you in learning how to hate other people.
Disgusting.
---------
2) If you only feel empathy for people when they satisfy your whims, you aren't actually using empathy, you're just pretending to in order to appear magnanimous.
It's rather disgusting behavior because it suggests you don't actually care about being empathic towards other people, you just care about making yourself feel good. Otherwise you'd be kind and empathic and respectful of other people's decisions even if you didn't personally agree with them.
You may not be aware of this, but you can dislike abortion because you have an emotional reaction to it while also supporting other people and their right to choose what to do with their own bodies.
No one asked you to leap to the defense of right-wing authoritarianism like this.
----------
3) You're spreading more misinformation by suggesting that people seek abortions casually, inventing a justification for not caring about such people. In reality, you clearly don't know why people seek abortions, so you're just inventing a reason to justify why you don't like what they're doing and would rather they stop.
This is classic right-wing asshole behavior that pretty much everyone has seen ad nauseam. There are so many people like you who'd rather follow the crowd than actually think about these things, and people in your position always seem to think it's better to spread ignorance and fear than knowledge and compassion.
Which is really just another way of saying that you're all cowards who lie to manipulate people.
----------
4) Since you also don't seem to understand how the Supreme Court works, let's talk about that.
Thomas is the most conservative member of the court and he's been serving on the court the longest, so he's going to take the lead on matters like this. He's the tip of the spear, as it were.
The reason we know the current goals for the Republican party and the conservative justices is because Thomas explained it in detail. When he talked about the need to re-evaluate established precedents that protect the right to seek contraception or the right for queer people to get married, he's telling you what the current Republican agenda is.
Given everything else you've said in this thread, I don't think it's possible that you could be ignorant of this, so it sounds more like you're lying in an attempt to twist the knife. I mean, everyone knows that this is exactly what Republicans want.
They've been trying to make it illegal to get an abortion, to get contraception, to be gay or queer or left-wing or pretty much anything other than a white conservative Republican for longer than I've been alive.
So yeah, you don't sound ignorant, you sound like you're intentionally deceiving people because you have an agenda.
----------
5) You also don't seem to understand what personal responsibility means either.
People who seek abortions are exercising their personal responsibility by tending to their own medical needs. You and your ilk might try to argue that getting an abortion is a moral failing that demonstrates a lack of personal responsibility, but you're doing that because it's easier than confronting the truth:
You'd rather have a world where you get to control the bodies of pregnant people because somehow you're terrified of not being able to force people to carry a fetus to term.
Really, you're just ashamed of being an authoritarian. And if you're dead set on being an authoritarian who wants to control other people's bodies, at least have the backbone to admit it openly instead of trying to bullshit people into agreeing with you.
The personal responsibility argument is some of the most manipulative language that you and other pro-forced birth types engage in.
Disgusting.
----------
6) Overturning Roe v Wade is the court taking away rights. If you honestly believe they aren't then you're a fool, a complete and utter fool. If you're lying and you do understand what they're doing, then you're a coward.
If you stop spreading misinformation and stop trying to scaremonger, people will probably stop getting angry with you. That said, since you seem like you're dedicated to acting like a jackass, I'm not going to hold my breath.
kaledo-art
theartofmadeline
dailybridgerton
tangentwithtanner
kianamaiart
yousharknotpass
ellievsbear
