little bit of everything

sky ★ they/them ★ adult ★ tired AuDHD queer disabled asocial cryptid ★ pfp: wenqing yan / yuumei

[therewithinthestars]

Sky / adult / queer & aroace / disabled / neurodivergent / vegan

i care deeply about stuff. incredibly tired all the time.

i had this blog since forever and it's just a big eclectic pile of random reblogs and the occasional thought or a rant - i don't recommend following me just for one fandom/topic because i do hop around a lot

not the best at tagging but i'll try if it'll help, just lmk :)

---

fuck terfs, fuck transmeds, fuck aro/ace exclusionists, fuck ableists, fuck racists and bigots, fuck body shaming and the concept of cringe culture, fuck AI, fuck speciecism and fuck all oppression of any being. if you fuck with any of these i don't fuck with you, bye.

[acti-veg]

This is maybe a silly thing to be worry about, but as someone who is completely ethically vegan but due to extremely restrictive food allergies can't go 100% vegan in my diet, I always feel like I'm not allowed to call myself vegan or talk too much about veganism. It's probably irrational but I always have this fear that people are going to laugh in my face for advocating a lifestyle/diet that I can't even follow perfectly myself

I think that feeling is understandable and not silly at all, but honestly I'd love it if we heard from more people like you. All we ever hear is "I cant eat 100% plant-based so I'm not even trying to reduce the amount of animal exploitation I am funding in any other way." People treat it as some sort of all or nothing, and to be fair I think vegans framing it that way is partly to blame for that.

That is why we need to hear more from people who are not eating fully plant-based but are still avoiding animal exploitation in every other way that they're able to, because most of them feel like you do, and so they just don't really talk about it. I wholeheartedly support people who still have to eat some animal products advocating for veganism and teaching others how to navigate the things you can control, while accepting that you can't be 100% plant-based just yet.

People need to know that we should all be doing our best, sometimes that means eating plant-based completely, sometimes that means just doing what you can. I'd encourage you to be open and honest with people about your situation if you're able to, because you may show someone else in a similar situation that they don't have to just give up trying entirely just because they can't be completely vegan.

[dragon-in-a-fez]

under US law, it's illegal for anyone who's not a member of a recognised native tribe to own an eagle feather. the penalty is a $100,000 fine.

14 years ago when I had recently moved to Alaska, I went hiking with an Aleut friend, and she pointed to a feather lying on the ground and said "hey that's a bald eagle tail feather, you should grab it!" and I was like "uhh I'm very white and that's very illegal" and she went "they're fuckin everywhere up here man. I have 20." so she grabs it off the ground and hands it to me and says "there, now it's a ceremonial gift from an indigenous person."

and I'm like, okay, cool, I guess this is how we do things in Alaska. nice.

so I keep this bald eagle tail feather around for years. display it in my home among other cherished memorabilia from places I've lived and visited, etc.

on a whim, I have just now looked it up. there is no exemption to that law for a ceremonial gift from an indigenous person. the last 7 years I lived in the US, I was technically a bald eagle poacher.

probably a good thing I don't intend to move back there anytime soon. I wonder what the statute of limitations is on bird crimes.

[dragon-in-a-fez]

@freedomisscaryshit I'm fucking dying I think you forgot the word "feathers" in your tags?? or do you just wish you could grab whole ass eagles that land in your yard??

[emotional-support-husband]

As an Indigenous person, it continues to astound me that there are such strict laws (written by White people) in our name, laws against...picking up things just found on the ground. Like, stop pretending this is "for" us. We don't want this.

[dragon-in-a-fez]

so, for clarity, that's not what this is. the law against possessing feathers is an anti-poaching measure, derived from a North American treaty protecting certain migratory bird species from hunting. that treaty has an exemption for indigenous people to allow tribes that use eagle feathers in ceremonial or religious practices to continue doing so.

[chekhovs-raygun]

i used to collect feathers (illegally) as a teenager and the thing is that it's incredibly important for feathers from wild birds to be illegal to possess because it ensures that they never become fashionable to wear. the reason we passed the migratory bird act was because the american and european fashion industry was driving species to extinction in a timespan of years. not just decades. the ecological devastation of exporting birds for hats was absolutely insane and people were watching wetlands and forests and meadows just empty out in realtime. look at the wikipedia article for the plume trade.

the law against 'picking feathers up off the ground' means that you can't go shoot an eagle then sell the feathers on etsy by saying you 'just found them'. you can't own them no matter where they came from, which makes sure that they're not going to come from any birds killed and then secretly disposed of.

these laws, as harsh and ridiculous as they seem, saved flamingos, spoonbills, egrets, and all kinds of hawks and eagles from extinction. the minute these laws weaken and people can make money off killing them again, they're fucked.

[koobiie]

i feel strongly about this

[ailurinae]

[theprofessional-amateur]

She won an exemption from using AI at her tech job. The Pope's remarks could fuel similar appeals.

Legal experts say employers must take AI-related religious objections seriously, as a 2023 ruling raised the bar for denying such accommodat

"The funniest possible outcome of the AI mandate era is about to be HR departments discovering that 'sincerely held religious belief' under Title VII has a much lower bar than they assumed, and Pope Leo handed every Catholic employee a written excuse," wrote Corey Quinn, a software-startup founder in San Francisco, on X.

Employers could wind up in court if they outright dismiss workers who request a faith-based exemption from using AI, said Ashley Herd, a former McKinsey counsel and head of North American HR who now advises managers and employers on workplace issues.

"Playing priest, and telling employees their request isn't legitimate, does not tend to bode well for companies," said Herd, also a cohost of the "HR Besties" podcast. "A jury doesn't like it when employees get made fun of by managers or HR."

[theconcealedweapon]

[maarvarq]

Always bear in mind that there is absolutely no legitimate evidence that Luigi was actually the one who killed the insurance company guy.

[theconcealedweapon]

Of course he wasn't. He was at a party with me that day.

[tiny-space-whale]

No but like literally, actually. All bits aside.

He didn't do it.

The cops very clearly planted evidence on him because they had to make an arrest because all eyes were on them and whoever actually did the deed was making them look stupid.

Why would the real killer hero have kept the weapon on his person and traveled two states over while carrying it and a manifesto in his bag, conveniently turning the crime into a federal matter? The same guy whose bag they found in a park, filled with monopoly money? Why did the police turn off their bodycams, take Luigi's stuff, drive a block away, turn their bodycams back on, go back into the restaurant, and then arrest him?

From the moment of his arrest, even left-of-center media has been presuming his guilt without examining anything (e.g. calling him "the killer" instead of "alleged" or "accused") and then when I say he didn't do it, the nearest person chimes in with some quip that tells me they think he did do it but should go free anyway. Don't get me wrong, I would have the same attitude if he had done it. But he didn't. It makes me feel like the only sane person in the world, even among my staunchly leftist friends.

[redstonedust]

i like when you can tell a screenwriter thinks that being good at computers is all about how fast you type. you need to out-computer your enemies with your superior wpm. whoever types the fastest is the most elite hacker in the cyberspace. its all up to you, johnny quickfingers. we're counting on you.

[wheelie-sick]

the minute someone is noticeably psychotic people's social skills fly out the window because they don't see psychotic people as people

"what do I do if I shouldn't call 911?"

well "I'm sorry I'm in a rush" is a pretty good option or "I can't talk right now, sorry" and then move on.

psychotic people, ultimately, are people. they are just as human as you are and the vast vast vast majority of the time they're not interested in hurting you.

when you're approached by a psychotic person ranting about delusions or hallucinations (and possibly speaking with disorganized speech) they are just looking for human connection, that's all. they might not have many people around to talk to and it gets lonely. when someone talks to you about a secret society of mind readers out to kill them they are just trying to connect with people and sometimes process the fear they're experiencing (because a secret society of mind readers out to kill you is rather scary!)

things like mania can also make you very talkative and very social.

someone coming up to you to talk about being the second coming of Jesus isn't trying to hurt you. they just want to talk. if you have time then have a conversation, most of the time you don't even need to say much. you can politely nod and go "wow that's crazy" and "that's so scary" and it might be one of the kindest things someone does for them that day. if you don't have time just say you're in a rush and leave.

it's that simple

[my-heads-gonna-explode]

The moment I hear someone accuse a disabled person of faking it, I lose all respect I previously had for them. I have absolutely zero tolerance for fakeclaimers.

People have passed out on buses after being denied seats, because people thought they were faking it. People in excruciating pain have been turned away from hospitals, because people thought they were faking it. People have been publicly shamed both online and in person for their disabilities, because people thought they were faking it. People have lost their jobs after being denied accomodations, because people thought they were faking it. And I'm partially talking from my own personal experiences. I've been yelled at for having meltdowns at school after being told I wasn't allowed to wear ear plugs, because people thought I was faking it. These aren't hypothetical situations. Lots and lots of real disabled people have suffered for the entertainment of fakeclaimers.

The harm from fakeclaiming real disabled people is much, much worse than the harm from taking the few fakers there are seriously. I would rather help a hundred disabled people when one person among them is actually faking it than fakeclaim a hundred fakers when one person among them is actually disabled.

Yes, there are people who fake disabilities, and yes, that's awful and harmful. But accusing people of faking it has never done anything good for anyone, while it has harmed a lot of disabled people who needed support but were ridiculed instead. There is no net positive to fakeclaiming. All it does is serve to stigmatize, mock, and encourage the neglect of disabled people. It's sickening.

I mean this all the time. Even if they do something you assumed they shouldn't be able to do (part-time AAC users, ambulatory wheelchair users, and other people whose disabilities aren't constantly visible exist). Even if you think their accommodations are excessive or unnecessary. Even if you think they have "too many" conditions. Even if it's DID or schizophrenia or any other disability that you're uncomfy acknowledging. Even if they have dyed hair or neopronouns or anything else you've decided is "attention-seeking behavior."

The moment I hear the phrase, "they're probably faking it," leave your lips, I know not to trust you. Because you want disabled people to earn their rights, their support, their ability to live, by first meeting your arbitrary standards for what disabled people must look like.

[fred-the-dinosaur]

whenever I have been visibly disabled enough to need a seat on public transport, the ONLY people who have ever offered me their seat were other disabled people

[roibindallbhride]

I've been accused of faking My Blindness a few times in My life so far. It doesn't happen often, but it does happen occasionally. The first time I was accused of faking My Blindness was by a Cop who was attempting to Fine the Party House I was living with My friends at the time for neglecting to mow to lawn. This Cop accused Me of not being Blind because I was giving two other Blind People sighted guide at the time. Granted, I had far more vision back then compaired to what I have now, but that's not the point.

I once saw a Cop fine and tow one of My best friend's older brother's car for a minor issue. He towed the Car because he thought the two Blind People in it, the two friends I mentioned giving sighted guide, were heavy Addicts because Their eyes were glossy. Excuse You Officer, Their eyes are glassy because Their eyes are Prosthetic.

I once watched a now ex-friend take ten years to get on Disabilities because the court kept denying Him on the account They thought He was faking His Blindness. They thought He was faking His Blindness because He refused to "look" or "act" like a Blind Person should from Their prospective. Said Friend was a high partial for the majority of His Teens, Twenties, and early Thirties, and refused to use His cane unless He absolutely had to. So They used that to accuse Him of faking His Blindness and denying Him benefits until He found a Shark of a Lawyer that totally obliterated the Judge in question.

[pangur-and-grim]

the problem with getting kidnapped by jigsaw is that I'd probably get impatient and start going for it before the instructions played, and then if I learned I was doing it wrong I'd be too stubborn to change my methodology. so I'd be waving around my severed hand like "look, I did it" while he's just like "the key was in the dog. you had to eat the smelly dog to get the key."

[pangur-and-grim]

[odyver]

alright I've got to do some quick math to explain attitudes towards AI to my boss.

we're looking to create an AI policy, and when we were talking about this, my boss (older millennial) was genuinely shocked to hear that younger people do not (seem) to view AI positively (a la the recent commencement speakers being booed)

please rb for larger sample size!

Question 1/3

What is your age, and do you feel AI is a net positive or net negative in our lives today?

under 18, AI is a net positive

under 18, AI is a net negative

18-29, AI is a net positive

18-29, AI is a net negative

30-45, AI is a net positive

30-45, AI is a net negative

46-60, AI is a net positive

46-60, AI is a net negative

over 60, AI is a net postive

over 60, AI is a net negative

Remaining time: 2 days 17 hours

[odyver]

Question 2/3

How often do you visit or interact with museums/archives (whether in person or online)?

Frequently (multiple times per month)

Often (multiple times per year)

Occasionally (a couple times per year)

Rarely (once every couple of years)

Never :(

Remaining time: 2 days 17 hours

[odyver]

Question 3/3

If you saw a museum was using AI in exhibits, marketing, research, etc., would you be more or less inclined to visit that museum?

under 18, more inclined

under 18, less inclined

18-29, more inclined

18-29, less inclined

30-45, more inclined

30-45, less inclined

46-60, more inclined

46-60, less inclined

over 60, more inclined

over 60, less inclined

Remaining time: 2 days 18 hours

Thank you for helping with this data collection. Please rb for as big a sample as possible!

🫶

[sillystigmata]

Help me

[sycamorality]

op disabled reblogs but i really wanted this post on my blog again

[scamguy]

i would like to officially thank sesame for its seeds, its oil, and of course its street

[beefcake007]

While we’re talking about censorship, I need everyone to stop playing this little amnesia game where we pretend not to remember what internet and fandom has looked like for the past 20 years. Weird and taboo porn has always existed, it used to be a LOT easier to access, and you won’t die if you look at it. We simply cannot continue placating the crazy mob of people who are scared of sex and love overstating harm, they’ll call you a pedophile literally no matter what, and they’ll roll around in their cognitive dissonance like a hog in mud when you point out that the other group calling you a freak and a pedo are the conservative alt right. Fucking exhausting being a fag and a pervert in 2025.

[therewithinthestars]

tadc finale spoilers!!!

fandom is not for me anymore, people saw jax's backstory and saying he didn't have any reason and did what he did for the love if the game??? what?? have we watched the same movie i'm. he was literally abused??? and closeted? obviously that doesn't excuse his actions but to say he didn't have reason what

[fizzlewizard404]

Raggedy Roan