When you need to put captions on the tv, and cant hear what people are saying because the pain is “too loud”
When you need to close your eyes, or look away because it physically hurts to see, or youre too tired to use your eyes right now. Or the pain is “too bright”.
When you cant be touched, brushed against, wear clothes or blankets because the pain makes you too sensitive, and “even air can hurt”
When you cant enjoy eating or the taste of things because you cant ignore the pain and fatigue that comes with chewing/swallowing/after affects of eating/picking up and putting down utensils. So pain literally makes food “hard to taste/hard to eat”
When smelling things immediately make you sick, migraine, make the pain worse because inhaling and exhaling are actually too much and the smell makes you overstimulated and thus makes it so “youre in too much pain to handle that smell”
We need to talk more about how pain affects our senses, these arent anything to be ashamed of. If you suffer from this, im sorry but i want you to know what youre going through isnt fake, it is very very real. And it sucks.
Your valid, your struggle is valid, i believe you and i believe in you.
Hey if everyone could reblog this!!! Someone on your TL may be able to help make a donation
#KLBstrong
Here’s some information for anyone wanting to make a donation
If you would like more information about the procedure or how you can help you can send an email to KLBstrong2018@gmail.com they will be able to answer any questions you have!!
A new study shows that the ability to distinguish truth from lies is diminished in people with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) – putting them at greater risk of being manipulated.
Researchers, led by Professor David Williams of the University of Kent, found that lie detection ability is ‘significantly diminished’ in those with a full ASD diagnosis. It is also related to how many ASD traits people in the general population have – the more traits, the poorer the deception detection ability.
I WONDER IF THIS HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE FACT THAT COMMON AUTISTIC TRAITS (LIKE, HMM, NOT MAKING EYE CONTACT) ARE FREQUENTLY CONFLATED WITH HALLMARKS OF LYING
Maybe not.. the argument isn’t that autistics are often accused of lying because we accidentally give off “tells” that allistic people think signify lying, it’s that we can’t tell who’s lying.
Which, firstly, allistics are bad at this too, and the more confident they are that they can tell truth from lies, the more likely they will be hoodwinked. Secondly, yeah, we can be easily manipulated because we can’t accurately detect other people’s emotions, which means blatant lying that any allistic could catch will slip by us. But, on the same token, we are less likely to accept that X is true because our tribe says it is, which means we are less susceptible to believing lies that all our friends believe just because our friends believe it. So the lies that most often catch allistics are less likely to affect us. We’re also less likely to be influenced by emotional signals associated with charisma that can convince allistic people “this is a person I should trust and listen to” when that person is lying, because we can’t read those emotional signals.
I wish i could find this one article written in I believe the 90’s that went under the radar on abortion. The author said that the “life” arguments are basically useless on either side and what actually matters is that humans shouldn’t have a right to use other human bodies as a resource without consent no matter how alive or sentient they are, even if they’re on the brink of death you have the right to deny them access to you. It probably was too radical for pro-choice activists back in those days but like…that’s the most robust arguement lol so we need 2 being that back and dead the pontifications and splitting hairs about “life” in my honest onion
I found it. Actually, it was written in the 70’s. She was way ahead of the curve.
The article is ‘A Defense of Abortion’ by Judith Jarvis Thomson. Essential reading!
If you cannot demand that a person donate their organs to keep you alive, you have no right to legislate that an embryo gets to use a woman’s body to keep itself alive without the woman’s consent.
Thought you might like this- similar to stuff I’ve seen you say
Indeed
Just explained this to my mom yesterday
Maybe I’m weird, but this is SO much more convincing to me than “a fetus is not a person.” Bitch I have no fucking clue what a person is.
Especially: no idea how to define one in ways that exclude fetuses without also excluding severely disabled born humans.
Fuck ableism.
But “whatever persons are, my uterus is mine and I get to be a dick about it?”
Yes, that.
I’ve always thought the life and person things were like angels dancing on the head of a pin.
To me, it’s – nobody gets a right to live in my womb because it’s my womb. I have no duty to serve as a walking incubator just because I can do so. And it’s even more urgent because I likely wouldn’t survive pregnancy. But even if I could. Nobody has a right to live inside of me.
And I get in trouble all the time for using the wrong words. Like if I say baby instead of fetus somehow I must be a pro-lifer in disguise. Especially if I’m arguing about eugenic or selective abortion of disabled people. Which should still be legal, but doesn’t make it a good thing any more than selective abortion of girls is a good thing. But somehow it’s okay to talk about it in terms of sexism (and people will grasp you’re not being pro-life) but not ableism.
And sometimes I just scratch my head.
Like people say a fetus isn’t human.
What is it, a chicken?
Like, it’s a tiny undeveloped human, but as far as I know species is determined somewhere around or before conception depending on how you count it…
And I think a lot of those arguments – I understand the personhood one has legal consequencs but I’m talking about in the eyes of ordinary people discussing it – are really about making people more comfortable with abortion by distancing humanity, individuality, etc. from the fetus.
(Generally when someone has a miscarriage, people say “She lost the baby,” not “She lost a bundle of cells.”)
I think it’s far more honest to say. This is a living human. Abortion kills this living human. But this living human doesn’t have a right to space inside another living human. So that human being’s preferences about this living arrangement are more important.
I’ve been saying this for years, people don’t like it. But I think it’s a firmer foundation to stand on as well as more accurate to why it’s important. And it doesn’t require doing mental gymnastics and getting all your words right.
So that’s why I’m pro-choice: Because I have the absolute right to control what and who goes on inside my body. And that shouldn’t frigging be controversial.
Already poison ivy’s growth and potency has doubled since the 1960s, and it could double again once CO2 levels reach the 560 ppm mark, Mr. Ziska said. As a result, Americans might have to scratch their way into a climate-altered future.
“The chemistry of the oil itself changes in such a way that it more likely will produce a rash when you come in contact with it,” he said. “In the last 50 years, the growth rate of poison ivy plant already has doubled, increasing the risk of being exposed to urushiol.”
I wish i could find this one article written in I believe the 90’s that went under the radar on abortion. The author said that the “life” arguments are basically useless on either side and what actually matters is that humans shouldn’t have a right to use other human bodies as a resource without consent no matter how alive or sentient they are, even if they’re on the brink of death you have the right to deny them access to you. It probably was too radical for pro-choice activists back in those days but like…that’s the most robust arguement lol so we need 2 being that back and dead the pontifications and splitting hairs about “life” in my honest onion
I found it. Actually, it was written in the 70’s. She was way ahead of the curve.
The article is ‘A Defense of Abortion’ by Judith Jarvis Thomson. Essential reading!
If you cannot demand that a person donate their organs to keep you alive, you have no right to legislate that an embryo gets to use a woman’s body to keep itself alive without the woman’s consent.
the infamous free speech xkcd – you know the one, the one that gets pulled out every fucking time some troll on the internet attempts to rules-lawyer their way out of a ban because they have free speech- that XKCD has one big flaw when applied to anything bigger than a close-knit internet community.
there comes a point where it’s technically legal to say something, but in practice, if you say that thing, your life is over. you will not be able to get or keep a job. you will not be welcome anywhere that ‘respectable’ people spend time. anyone who tries to defend you will get written off as a fringe nutjob- a person to be ignored or avoided. you will likely get doxxed, get rape/murder threats, and/or be at risk of literal violence. if there’s anyone who agrees with you and has the power to help you, they are probably in another state/country/continent, and they will probably think that some of the other things you think are just as awful as the toxic thing you just said because they’re from another country.
While this often overlaps with “it’s illegal to say this thing”, it doesn’t always. This is especially true in the USA, because we have strong protections of your legal right to say nonsense, but it can happen in other places too.
…and lest you think that this is a good thing because racists/misogynists/homophobes/etc. ought to be afraid to say things, let me remind you that there are plenty of places where saying “no, gay people are not sinners/degenerates/pedophiles” or “birth control is a human right and will not fill your OMG WOMB with dead fetuses” still falls into the “only technically legal” category. This can happen with any unpopular opinion, no matter how right or wrong.
The problem here is that there comes a point where enough people deciding “you’re an asshole/degenerate/bigot” and showing you the door means you can’t speak freely. Even if you’re not going to be thrown in jail for saying what you’re saying- the forces of social convention can ruin someone’s life just as effectively as the forces of THE LAW.
Freedom of association is just as important as freedom of speech, and you can’t effectively have freedom of association if assholes keep invading your space. I get that this is a really atomised phenomenon and that the solution might well be worse than the problem. And there are times when the only moral thing to do is to use the forces of social convention to shut people up- I’d say any group of people that advocates for DEATH TO ALL [X] does not deserve a platform.
But… I dunno, I feel like a lot of people who say things like “I am not a government so I can shut you down, it’s not an infringement on free speech” are not thinking about how social conventions are a weapon. They are not thinking about how de facto free speech is just as important as de jure free speech, and they are not thinking about how saying de facto free speech is unimportant could come back to bite them in the arse.
If you can’t express an idea in public, you aren’t really free to express that idea. If you can’t express an idea in public without your life being ruined, you aren’t really free to express that idea. And while there are a very small handful of cases where that’s warranted, most of the time it’s not.
Oh my GOD you managed to articulate the thing.
I despise that comic.
Also I am not speaking for anyone but myself here but this is also why I really dislike “my civil rights are not up for debate,” too.
Accepting that civil rights matter without needing to argue about it is a good state of affairs! Of course it is! And I sympathize with people who are closeted and don’t want to debate whether homosexuality is immoral in class, which is what I think they actually mean.
But the thing is? There is always a group whose civil rights ARE treated as up for debate. (Right now it’s “illegal immigrants” EVEN IF THEY ARE REFUGEES.)
As something they can lose, if they haven’t already. As something they have to prove themselves to get
If you’re not in that group, if you’re in the group that gets to say “I can’t believe you even said that,” you’re higher up on the ladder than you actually realize. You’re a rung higher, and have at least a little power to shame people who say “yeah but.”
I don’t like “my civil rights are not up for debate” because it ignores that somebody’s always are… and that you could easily be somebody again.
Be Prepared.
Pass on the debate when you need to for your sanity, but know how to have it.
Because someday, you might not get to take that pass.
And because some of your fellow humans already can’t.
This is exactly why I really really really want the left to take debate back. Debate, done properly, is powerful and wonderful. And yet most leftists seem to have decided that, since a group of jerks who can’t even debate properly by even the most basic standards, have started ambush-insulting people under the guise of “debate” we should abandon it wholesale.
That’s it. That’s the thing. That’s the thing that ruined this hellsite and maybe also America.
Urocyon's Jaunts 2.0 
You must be logged in to post a comment.