Lore fact: The Muppet Joker ( untagged ) has just released new, “evil pronouns.” Only we were told what those were, and we are not telling you.
For your safety.
WHO TOLD YOU ABOUT MY SECRET EVIL PRONOUNS????

No title available

oozey mess

ellievsbear
One Nice Bug Per Day

Andulka
trying on a metaphor
Today's Document

No title available
RMH
noise dept.
cherry valley forever
will byers stan first human second
d e v o n
DEAR READER
we're not kids anymore.
occasionally subtle
taylor price
art blog(derogatory)
styofa doing anything

JBB: An Artblog!
seen from China
seen from Germany

seen from Singapore
seen from Switzerland

seen from Germany
seen from Guinea
seen from Albania

seen from United States

seen from Malaysia
seen from Italy
seen from Spain

seen from Mexico

seen from Canada

seen from United States

seen from Singapore
seen from United States
seen from Ireland
seen from United Kingdom
seen from T1

seen from Malaysia
@totallytephra
Lore fact: The Muppet Joker ( untagged ) has just released new, “evil pronouns.” Only we were told what those were, and we are not telling you.
For your safety.
WHO TOLD YOU ABOUT MY SECRET EVIL PRONOUNS????
I made a thing because I keep seeing people refer to other people they don’t know this way
I'm not really a fan of 'Protect the dolls' becoming the new media slogan for trans rights. 'Trans men are men trans women are women' had it problems absolutely, centering cis people for our validity and either leaving out or clumsy including nonbinary people with a slapped on 'nonbinary people are...also alive'. But I just watched some red carpet interviews and, while I don't give two shits what an actor I've never heard of from a show I don't watch things about me, I do find it interesting and a little concerning that the majority of people when asked what message they would give to the Trans community on Trans day of visibility just said protect the dolls or acknowledged their fashion, hair, makeup, music genre, ect won't exist without trans women. It feels like trans mascs are only seen as people designed to protect trans women and trans women only exist to be beautiful and fragile. When bathroom bans were first becoming really popular a few years ago I would see posts from white cis passing able bodied post op trans men in women's bathrooms to try and be some kind of got ya to conservatives completely ignoring how many trans men and mascs are harmed, assaulted, and killed by these laws. And I don't like the cis savior idea that trans women need cis people to protect them either. Idk I just think that like trans men need protection too, And trans women deserve love and respect even when they are not fabulous, And trans people don't need cis people to save us.
snapshot from one of Oscar’s memorial paintings i did last year!
i love u wikipedia. i love u internet archive. i love u pirate bay. i love u all other pirating sites. i love u tubi. i love u vpns. i love u digital media. i love u libraries. i love u archival communities. i love u developers and researchers. i love u
I feel like she has a fundamental misunderstanding of multiple things here
Claiming that Indigenous people have "indigenous privilege" is certainly one of the worst takes I've ever heard.
sorry gotta get my ‘friend that’s too woke’ on but I don’t think the solution to misogyny is more misogyny. like by all means rip into republican/right wing women but your critiques should be about how they’re evil soulless people not ‘haha they’re ugly/visibly aged. they don’t know how to put on make up!’ like i don’t fucking know man I don’t think any woman at all should be required to wear makeup or be made fun of for not wearing it ‘properly’ also let’s stop doing the ‘not conventionally attractive = morally bad’ thing. that last part especially be kicking y’all asses.
Today's Sea Lions Are: What A Beautiful Marriage
“why are you smiling at your phone” my friebs are in there :)
Yet another new study debunked the basis for the anti-trans sports bans. It was never about sports but for creating legal avenues for exclusion and abjection. This is one of the largest analyses ever conducted, involving 52 studies and 6,485 trans people. Read the study here.
youtubers should do reverse sponsorships. just interrupt the narrative of the video to shit-talk some random company for 1-2 minutes.
May you please bless me with some cardinals? Thank you! :)
OH YOU WANT CARDINALS???!!!
Vermilion Cardinal (Cardinalis phoeniceus), male, family Cardinalidae, order Passeriformes, La Guajira, Colombia
photograph by Greg Lavaty
Vermilion Cardinals (Cardinalis phoeniceus), L - male, R - female, family Cardinalidae, order Passeriformes, Colombia
photograph via: Tayrona Birding
Northern Cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), male, family Cardinalidae, order Passeriformes, ONT, Canada
photograph by Albert Abadicio
Northern Cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), female, family Cardinalidae, order Passeriformes, NB, USA
photograph by Mat Custer
Pyrrhuloxia aka Desert Cardinal (Cardinalis sinuatus), male, family Cardinalidae, order Passeriformes, Soustwestern U.S.
Photograph by John Eppler
Pyrrhuloxia (Cardinalis sinuatus), male, and Northern Cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), male, family Cardinalidae, order Passeriformes, Texas, USA
Photograph by Jeff Clow
if you’re an out trans person and you out another trans person because you assume they’re okay with being out too you’re putting them in danger. Don’t do this.
Has anyone else heard this?
Twice now I've been told this "thought experiment" about genetic engineering, which involves a deaf couple wanting to use genetic engineering (which exists within the hypothetical) to make sure they have a deaf baby.
Now I think this is wrong, because I believe all genetic engineering is wrong, but what really rubs me the wrong way is the phrasing.
It turns the problem of genetic engineering away from what it actually is (the latest plan in a long history of eugenics) and makes it about a completely fictional scenario where disabled people want to spread their disability; I'm not saying that could never happen, but it has never happened, and honestly I find it insulting.
I assume the idea is to get people to see problems in genetic engineering (though really I don't know, and if you have any idea why it's phrased like this instead of a more realistic scenario, let me know, I won't bite), but instead it distracts from the real problems if genetic engineering is possible: people forcibly removing undesirable traits and disabilities from the population. Instead it weirdly fearmongers about a fictional problem.
I've seen first hand how this approach is harmful, as I once sitting in a talk about biology, and at the end of the lecture, as a "fun activity", the speaker decided to bring up this exact thought experiment, so we could all have a lovely light-hearted debate about eugenics.
I found this very upsetting. It's not that I think these things shouldn't be discussed, but out of the blue and with no respect of the weight of the topic is not the way to go about it.
When I tried, repeatedly and as calmy as I could, to explain how I thought all genetic engineering was wrong, both the speaker and other student seemed confused. One student, fully said that although they obviously thought that intentionally giving a child a disability was wrong, they saw no problem with "harmless" genetic engineering, for example, changing eye colour. Hello! That is literally nazi eugenics. But because there wasn't the time and it wasn't my place, I was unable to clearly explain why I thought this was so wrong.
Also in the teachers example, the deaf couple were lesbians who were using IVF. Y'know, just so we can demonise as many minorities as possible.
btw, this is the video that reminded me of this whole situation:
I don't think it's a bad video perse, but the way these kinds of topics are so often just brought up, with a lack of respect, nuance, and time for proper discussion, just pisses me off.
content note: this post talks about eugenics, incarceration and institutionalization, and violent ableism
tangent from that post because i didn't want to start writing an essay on someone else's post and this is about a conversation i had irl this month, not intended as a reply to that post. but i actually feel very complicated about the idea of whether or not we should be pushing for more "accessibility" in jails and prisons and psych wards and institutions. i put that word in quotes because i don't think there is ever a way that being incarcerated is actually accessible to our bodies and minds; it is a disabling experience on so many levels. i'm not going to list out all the reasons why on this post; i've made so many posts talking explicitly about the harms of institutionalization before and i don't want to do that again right now. Talila Lewis has given several interviews about ableism, incarceration, and disability that are really worth reading and go more in depth into what that violence looks like. Liat Ben Moshe has also given another interview about disability and incarceration that goes over many of the same topics. given that these places are intense sites of violence towards disabled people, it feels difficult for me to claim that they could ever truly be accessible in any meaningful sense of the word.
what's also true right now is that institutions and prisons are incredibly inaccessible for physically disabled people in particular. i've been arrested with a wheelchair, i've been institutionalized with a feeding tube on top of that as well, i've been held on medical floors for psych treatment before, and i know very well exactly how bad it is. i've watched myself and so many other physically disabled people almost die in these places because of sheer neglect. i have physically disabled neighbors who were killed in these places. it is so dangerous for physically disabled people who are locked up in these places, yet at the same time, often psych wards are so inaccessible that physically disabled people just can't even be admitted because wards refuse to take people with mobility aids, medical devices, specific types of medication or care needs, if you have some kinds of terminal illness, and on and on and on.
what's also true is that when these places are so inaccessible that many physically disabled people are excluded and unable to even access them in the first place, it doesn't mean that we then somehow access other types of care instead. it just means that we're also discarded and left to die. this also is a really similar dynamic for a ton of other marginalized groups that get excluded from psych care--many of my comrades who are people of color have also experienced this same type of denial of care. initially i think that can seem like a confusing contradiction--how is it that psych wards are locking up some people up against their will but refusing to take in other people? but when you start thinking about the underlying logic at the core of these systems, it makes sense.
psych wards operate under this idea that madness must be cured by any means possible, up to and including eradication. institutions are a way of disappearing madness from the world--hiding us away so that we don't disturb a sane society, and not letting us free again until we either die in there or are able to appear like we've sufficiently eradicated madness from our mind. preventing physically disabled people from accessing inpatient treatment is operating under the same assumptions--except that this particularly violent convergence of ableism is happy to just let us die, both because it eradicates madness from the world and because they view our lives as unworthy of living in the first place. eugenics is still alive and well in the united states and it's still fucking killing us; both inside institutions and outside of them.
i would never tell someone that they're privileged for getting institutionalized--i think that would be a cruel thing to say to someone who has just survived a lot of violent ableism. and at the same time, our current systems of mental health care are set up in a way where not being able to access inpatient care can be a deadly logistical nightmare. there are some partial hospitalization programs that have such a long waiting list that you can only really get in if you just got an urgent referral because you're getting discharged from inpatient care--how the fuck are physically disabled people supposed to access those programs? if you need meal support for your eating disorder 6 times a day and the only places that offer that are residential treatment in a house with stairs, what the fuck are you supposed to do? if noncarceral outpatient forms of treatment like therapy, support groups, PHP programs, peer support funding, etc etc etc are often prioritizing people who have recently been discharged from inpatient care, how are you supposed to access any type of mental health care at all? (to be clear i know that not all forms of outpatient care operate in this way, but a lot of state run/low cost programs that accept Medicaid/Medicare operate in that way, and i've seen it cause enough barriers that i know this is a very real problem.)
so when i think about what it would take to actually ensure that physically disabled people can access mental healthcare, there's a lot that comes up for me. on one hand, so much of my work is about tearing down institutions and ensuring that no one is forced into these places to face that type of violence. on the other hand, so many physically disabled people need care right now, and we have to figure out some way of making that happen given the current systems we have in place. i will never be okay with just discarding physically disabled people as collateral damage, and any world that we're building needs to be one that embraces disability from the beginning.
i keep thinking about the concept of non-reformist reforms that gets talked about a lot in the prison abolition movement. the idea behind non-reformist reforms is that usually, reforms work to reinforce the status quo. they're usually talked about in liberal language of "improvement" and "human rights", but when it comes down to it, they're still giving more power to harmful institutions and reinforcing state power. an example of a reformist reform is building a new jail that is bigger and has "nicer" services. or when the cops in my city tried to get funding for more wheelchair accessible cop vans. these are reformist reforms because when it comes down to it, it's still giving more money and legitimacy to the prison system and increasing the capacity to keep people locked up--even when people talk about it using language about welfare for prisoners, that's not actually what's happening. having more wheelchair accessible cop vans would be dangerous for the disabled people in my city--it's helped us out a LOT that it's so difficult for the cops to arrest multiple wheelchair users at once.
non-reformist reforms are the opposite of that--they're reforms that work to dismantle systems, redistribute power, and set the stage for more even more dramatic transformations. They're sort of an answer to the question of "what do we do right now if we can't go out and burn down all the prisons overnight?" Examples of a nonreformist reform are defunding prisons, getting rid of paid administrative leave for cops, shutting down old prisons and not building new ones, etc. they're steps we can take right now that don't fully abolish prisons, but still work to dismantle them, rather than making it easier for the system to keep going.
so, when we apply this to the psych system, what are some nonreformist reforms that could help make sure that all disabled people are having their needs met right now? Some ideas I'm having include fixing the problem of PHP/outpatient care requiring referrals from inpatient, increasing the amount of Medicaid/Medicare funding for outpatient mental health care, building physically accessible peer respites that allow caregivers to stay with you if needed, increasing SSI/SSDI to an actually liveable rate, creating more disability specific mental health resources, support groups, care webs, and a million other things we'd probably need to actually get our needs met. non-reformist reforms for people in psych wards right now might look like ensuring everyone has 24/7 access to phones and internet, ensuring that disabled people have access to mobility aids in these spaces, making sure that there's accessible nutrition for people with dietary restrictions and/or feeding tubes, and more.
when i see people saying that we need to ensure that psych wards or prisons are made accessible it makes me feel nervous. i worry that the changes required to do that wouldn't actually provide care to disabled people, i worry it would just make it easier for increasing numbers of disabled people to get locked up and harmed all while people claimed it was a success story of "inclusion." i worry that it would just continue to cement carceral treatment as the only option for existing as a disabled person, and that it would make it harder for us to live in our communities, with the services and adaptations we need. when i think about abolition, i'm always thinking about what can we do right now, what do disabled people who are incarcerated and institutionalized need right now, what can we do right now to ensure that everyone is surviving and getting their needs met. i'm not willing to ignore or discard my incarcerated disabled comrades in the moment because of my dreams for an abolitionist future, i'm always going to support our organizing in these places as we try to survive them.
overall i guess what i'm saying is that i think making inpatient psych care accessible would require dismantling and fundamentally destroying the whole system. I can't imagine a way of doing that within the current system that wouldn't just continue to harm disabled people. and that as a psych abolitionist i think that means we have a responsibility to each other right now to fight for that, to understand that physically disabled people not being able to access mental health care is an incredibly urgent need. I refuse to treat my MadDisabled comrades as disposable: our lives are valuable and worth fighting for.
i'm also going to link to the HEARD organization on this post. They're one of the few abolitionist organizations that does direct advocacy and support for deaf and disabled people in prisons. if you or one of your disabled community members ever gets incarcerated in jail/prison, they have a lot of resources. donate to support their work if you can.
@badaxefamily you suggested the japanese beetle! I have just discovered that Bugs Are Hard To Draw. As in, it's easy to draw a beetle, that you can recognise as a generic beetle in general, but if you have to distinctly make it a specific species of beetle, that's recognisable as such, that's a whole other thing.
Also fun fact: There are plenty of very good quality reference pictures of these ittle fellows. However, most of them are of them shagging.
...something's not right here.
I TRIED TO WRITE INSECT
*nibbles post*
Just fucking eat the whole thing, lil buddy. I don't want it anymore.
*eats entire post*
*pap pap* thanks mate.