Help Carrie attain life saving surgery before it’s too late!

thenegrospeaksofrivers:

translesbiantheo:

Carrie is almost half way to her goal to get the £100k she needs for life saving surgery, but if she doesn’t reach her goal by September 1st then her surgery will be cancelled, and given the extremity of her condition it’s likely she’ll die before it can be re-arranged.

If you’re able to help financially, then you can do so at her GoFundMe. But if you don’t have money to spare there’s still a lot you can do to help prevent Carrie dying from an easily preventable death.

Reblog this post! Obvious and easy but for some reason posts I’ve made for Carrie seem to have much less luck than any other donation posts I’ve ever made. 

If you play Fallout 4, then you can help with an extra effort that is being made on Tuesday the 14th. Carrie’s Fund is organising a

Fallout 4 Flash Mob with the hope of spreading awareness and also getting the attention of Bethesda. Disabled and chronically ill folks are a huge customer base for games companies, and Carrie’s Fund is hoping that Bethesda might help advertise their need or help directly. 

Do fund raisers of your own! I know that’s a lot to ask but Carrie’s wife is essentially unable to spend any time campaigning now as Carrie’s condition deteriorates and her care needs become more complex. (If you do raise a substantial sum then please contact the campaign for the best way to get the money to them – they lose a portion to fees if it’s done through GoFundMe). Her situation is desperate and this is her last chance.

Please, please reblog this. 

Posts for Carrie seem to do badly and she is running out of time.

If you’re able, please donate or reblog. She has lost an incredible amount of functionality in just a few more months and is very literally on death’s door. If you can share on other social media, that would be amazing, too. At times, I work myself sick with anxiousness because I think she won’t make it, but I have seen strangers on the internet achieve incredible things. Please, please help.

anarchlynx:

orion-rising:

Always be vague. Say I think they’re in today or not until later. If they press say it’s company policy not to give out the schedule. Most companies do have this and even if they don’t how would a stranger know. Don’t give out specifics, they can get people injured or even killed.

At my last job someone came up and asked when “Sarah” was working next. I didn’t tell him and then texted her a description, turns out he was an abusive ex who had been stalking her. Don’t do this shit please.

as the replies to the original tweet said, don’t even acknowledge they work here. they could’ve been going round all the local shops trying to find the one they work at, don’t confirm it for them so they can just stalk the shop until the victim comes in or out. pretend you can’t recognise the description and/or name, and then inform your colleague. chances are it’ll be someone they don’t want to see or don’t properly know. otherwise why wouldn’t they simply have texted them?

That also includes anyone coming in asking about a coworker. No matter how nonthreatening they might seem. Unless the coworker has expressly said that telling this person that information is OK.

Abusive family members can use the same tactics. And there are any number of other reasons the person may not want even that much info given out about them.

kipplekipple:

avilociraptor:

wittyy-name:

I was just thinking about how some people in fandom love to police the way authors represent bilingual characters. And one of the biggest arguments I’ve seen is “I hate when they switch languages randomly in sentences” and “I hate when they just start speaking in another language and say, haha oops sorry I was talking to my mom

Because like… I was just sitting and talking to my gf in english. They were simultaneously messaging their brother in english. They were playing world of warcraft, which is in english. Then we were quiet for five seconds, they had one thought in danish, and just started talking to me in danish, when they know I don’t speak danish.

If my friend Bolla is talking to her mom or sister when she messages me, she’ll message me in danish without thinking about it. 

When Sora and Theo get startled or mad playing video games on a call with me, they abruptly switch into danish without thinking about it. 

They’ll forget words in english ((the same way english speakers forget english words)), but remember it in danish, and have to switch into danish for another one of them to translate for me. 

I’m not bilingual, but the bilingual experience seems wild and sporadic to me, and not nearly as cut and dry as a lot of fandom police try to make it. Also, like everything else, the bilingual experience is different and unique to everyone, so like… chill. People are just trying to give representation. Meet them with guidance rather than hate.

Yeah all of this.

I’m no longer functionally bilingual but I was until I was about 7, and I know I don’t think like straight English speakers.

My brain is usually a cocophany of different sounds. Little flits of language where a word is half one language, half another, and linked to a picture.

I tell people I think in pictures but I kind of don’t. I think in tactile sounds and sometimes it comes out my mouth in one big garbled mess.

My phone is set to Dutch, but I live in the UK. I’ll Google for stuff and click on the first Wikipedia link I see, and I literally won’t realise it’s in Dutch for a while, sometimes not after copying/pasting a passage to someone who doesn’t speak Dutch.

One time I was reading a book and found a hilarious paragraph. I read it aloud to the person I was dating at the time, who waited politely for me to be done before informing me that it wasn’t in English.

gingerautie:

generallyjennaleigh:

🌼🌸💫fascism💫🌸🌼

My guess here is that this is due to the ongoing problem of lack of mental health care for children in the UK. 

The shortage of childrens’ mental health beds is so bad that police cells are regularly used to make up the shortfall. 

The police are not remotely equipped to deal with suicidal seven year olds, and they don’t want to either, because they know it’s not the right environment. So they’re doing shit like this to try to “help” they kids that get thrown at them. And the worst thing is that I think this is a genuine attempt.

And apparently this is now happening regularly enough that they have a special cell. 

And I’m pretty sure that it’s the mental health issues and should be in hospital kids they’re doing this for, because I don’t think they’d give a shit about the obviously “criminal” kids  like this.

tser:

justnoodlefishthings:

creepyandunloveable:

justnoodlefishthings:

iris-has-a-hippie-blog:

justnoodlefishthings:

good morning don’t fucking use essential oils around your pets especially birds and reptiles and cats spraying your pet with diluted lavender isn’t going to antioxidize them or whatever stupid bullshit you pulled off a holistic website

There are SOME essential oils that are safe for pets but many that can and WILL injure or kill your pet. Do your damn research just like you would for yourself

There are NO essential oils safe for your pets.

I did my research. I am a biochemist.

Essential oils are concentrated extracts, which are highly volatile. Their fumes are full of phenols, monoterpene hydrocarbons, phenylpropanes, and ketones. These compounds are toxic and can cause serious illness and death through extended exposure.

Let’s take a popular one: lavender oil. The active ingredient in essential lavender oil is linaool. Linaool is a cytotoxin, it destroys cell membranes. Inhaled and placed on skin, it can cause permanent damage.

“but what if you dilute it?”

Dilution won’t work. Long time exposure of a diluted toxin will result in the same damage as short term exposure of a concentrated one. Ingesting small amounts of radioactive material over time will give me the same cancer a gamma burst would. And if you dilute it extensively, you’re basically removing any effect you desired of the oil.

There’s no reason to use essential oils around pets. They make calming supplements that aren’t volatile and toxic. They make calming pheramone diffusers. If your animal is destructive (like a plucking parrot) then they’re understimulated and bored. Spritzing your pet with dangerous oils aren’t a substitute for reassessing and changing husbandry.

I’ve used lavender countless times on my cats Sebastian. He has huge paws and lots of fur so he’s susceptible to yeast infections between his little toe beans, and lavender helps speed up the healing process and ease the swelling a bit. I’ve also used lavender for burns on my dogs paw pads.

image

first of all, if you have a problem with me @ me next time instead of hiding in your tags 

Second of all, did you like… actually read what I wrote? Because I literally stated that lavender oil has a toxic component that can cause cell damage over time. Did you conveniently skip over that part?

You are slowly poisoning your pets 
but 
(Autoxidation of linalyl acetate, the main component of lavender oil, creates potent contact allergens.)
go
(Cytotoxicity of lavender oil and its major components to human skin cells.)
off
(Toxicity to vapor exposure and topical application of essential oils and monoterpenes on Musca domestica (Diptera: Muscidae).
I
(Essential Oil and Liquid Potpourri Poisoning in Cats
)
guess
(Essential Oil and Liquid Potpourri Poisoning in Dogs)

Lavender is toxic to cats, period. Even in its non-ultraconcentrated natural state. 

I have seen MULTIPLE internet sites listing essential oils that are studied and known to be toxic to cats and dogs as “safe”. There are many, many bad sources out there. If you do your research, make sure you’re actually basing your information on scientifically verified, peer-reviewed information, not tertiary sources and anecdotal information.

Do not use essential oils on your pets or around your pets.

If your pet has chronic paw infections, take it to the vet. Your vet can address the root cause (lots of fur and big paws shouldn’t inherently cause yeast infections and I’d really suggest looking at the cat’s diet and other lifestyle issues) and provide more effective, safer treatments.

Essential oils are incredibly toxic for reptiles, birds, and small animals as well. Reptiles and birds are especially susceptible to the fumes (VOCs). This includes essential oil diffusers, which I’ve often seen touted as “safer” than candles. They are not safer and still release dangerous VOCs.

clatterbane:

Related to one post from a little while ago, I was reminded of a quote from something I reread recently.

From Every Day Is a Good Day, edited by Wilma Mankiller. With this specific quote coming from her intro to chapter 6:

The women at this gathering speak of love in grand, sweeping terms that embrace the natural world, family, clan, community, and nation. Love is not limited to immediate family or to a romantic partner. It is not doled out in small increments to a socially prescribed person or group of people. It is all encompassing.

LaDonna Harris speaks eloquently about the high value she places on her relationships with others, which she describes as “not letting go of people,” even her adversaries. A Cherokee traditionalist echoes this sentiment and speaks of the need to “live and care for one another in such as a way as to ensure that there will be no reason to let go of others.”…

The larger society’s endless conversation about whether gay and lesbian couples should be accepted and granted rights to marriage, adoption, and other rights was nonexistent among these women. They place a very high premium on respect: respect for oneself, for others, for all living things. It is highly disrespectful to label another human being and define them based primarily on their sexual preferences. These women care more about the human decency and dignity of people, and whether they are a contributing part of the community, than about their adult relationships with others.

(And that would be with some longer term different ideas about what constitutes a valuable contribution to society, yeah.)

I included the longer part before the bit directly discussing labels, mostly for additional context.

But yeah, I have also encountered some people who wanted to assume that a statement like that is exactly the same as the “don’t let yourself be defined by X!” discussed earlier. Very possibly because that invalidating, othering approach is most of what they have encountered up close.

(Very much like the difference between people honestly trying to understand and relate to someone else’s experiences, and the dismissive deliberately not getting it “Oh, everyone does that! And you are making me very uncomfortable by even talking about this, jfc leave it already if you don’t want to totally alienate everyone around you. Weirdo” versions. Not at all the same scenario, but I do get the idea that a lot of people are mostly used to encountering the dismissive kind.)

When, yeah, that “don’t let yourself be defined by X!” behavior is one indication of exactly the types of disrespectful “boxes are more important than actual people” attitude being objected to there.

I mean, similar is part of why I have gotten more and more personally resentful of feeling pressured to choose from a certain assortment of boxes. And a good bit of the reason it’s hard to even try to talk about some of this stuff, even if you do make it very clear that the last thing you want to do is dictate how anyone else needs to be navigating or even relate to any of it. That’s still not what some people will hear.

I can understand why certain approaches do appeal to some other people. Not that it would even matter if I didn’t understand at all, because it’s their lives and experiences to make sense of and manage the best they can! The same approach is not going to make sense for everyone, though. It just won’t. And that doesn’t mean anyone is necessarily wrong.

Plus, pegs. It’s hard to even start talking about some things when you are coming at them from a sufficiently different perspective that you’re not necessarily even talking about what a lot of people would assume based on some surface similarities. More complicated when those things are also heavily enough politicized that pretty much everyone involved has been hurt in some way(s).

Not just thinking about the main subject of that quote here, but that’s definitely one aspect where it’s relevant.

Reminded of this again, with some framework that just doesn’t make much sense to me in the first place.

autismserenity:

rosa-buachaille:

autismserenity:

only-1-a:

Me: Quite possibly aro leaning

Also me: The biggest romantic sap

right??

what I’ve been thinking of as romance, as being a huge romantic sap, is making grand gestures of, basically, “look! I know what you love and I want to do special things for you around that!”

like, my partner always says that I am the greatest at giving gifts, because I deploy that skill. I’m like, “look! I know what will make you super happy, and I’m gonna make it happen, in proportion to how important you are to me!”

but like also, I’m realizing that it’s not actually about romantic relationships for me, because it’s just like… I want to show my love of any kind for people by being super thoughtful and celebrate whatever amount of emotional closeness we have… and I want the same from people… and it’s totally regardless of what KIND of relationship it is… it’s just that for my partner, it’s going to be the greatest that I can make it….

Soooooooooo that might kind of be the OPPOSITE of what people actually mean by being romantic??

also I kind of think that the reason it’s so hard to figure this stuff out is that society in general doesn’t fucking know either.

This might be something where Love Languages theory might help; I’m not a huge fan of it generally, but I do recognise that many people find it useful.

But other than that, I think the last paragraph is spot on. 

Mainstream culture keeps trying to quantify the acceptable level of intensity, when it comes to wanting people in your life and showing them affection.  And one of the ways it does that is by labelling greater levels of intensity as “romantic” rather than platonic.  Which just doesn’t work.

I’m an intense person.  I wouldn’t have described myself like that, but I have to face the fact that that’s how others experience me.  When I develop any kind of feelings for someone, I’m really into them.  Including in what I now find out may be a particularly autistic way of wanting someone, wherein they become one of my special interests.

And firstly, a lot of people seem only able to understand that at all by calling it romantic, even though there’s no reason to think that automatically. 

And secondly, I’ve always had people on my case pressuring me to say that I’d be uncomfortable if I were the one on the receiving end of it.  And I just wouldn’t.  In fact, if someone did have feelings, but they didn’t manifest in a similarly “intense” [normal, to me] way to mine, I wouldn’t feel wanted.  I want the same back that I give, and that is not remotely unreasonable.

My biggest problem with that has been parsing it from the concept of “lovebombing”, which is interest that’s fake as hell, and [luckily] has always felt fake as hell, to me. 

But people not getting their heads around the idea that I could be wanting someone that way without it being an unhealthy romantic obsession comes a close second.

(fyi y’all that was tagged “i’m grey-aro – for reference”)

First of all: same. Intense, with special interests in people, and that’s my “love language” if you like – I want others to do things that show they really know me, as well as wanting others to express their affection for me through platonic physical affection.

And second;

The thing about how our (amatonormative) society keeps trying to say “you must be X amount of romantic to ride,” and then defining it incoherently (like “we mean really big and obvious and intense about your passion! yeah, that’s… probably a measurable thing!!”)….

That makes my brain go, “but what is it then? What is it tho? What is being romantic? What is it? It’s not a thing, is it? This binary is completely indefinable and indefensible! Then how am I supposed to know if I’m The Thing!?!”…

and then I realized OF COURSE IT FUCKING IS. BECAUSE ALL THE OTHER ONES ARE TOO.

Like, how the fuck can I sit here being nonbinary, knowing perfectly well that the gender binary is a lie… that male and female are not opposites, and they’re p much impossible to define except as vague clouds of feelings, styles, physical traits, and ways of being in the world.

People can still BE men or women or bigender or genderfluid or agender or demi or third-gender or something else entirely.

It’s just that you can’t draw a box around what any of those things are, and tell other people, “this is exactly what this gender is, and feels like, and looks like.”

Probably because genders don’t EXACTLY exist. Because alongside them, there’s a very visible, tangible, strong system, that very much exists, that makes up what the genders are in a given culture+era, and uses that as a major part of the entire system of oppression and abuse. (the kyriarchy.)

So no matter what gender actually is, or what genders there are, the whole idea of them is dragged down, and enormously warped by, the system of oppression that uses them. Like if gender was a mattress, and oppression was an elephant sitting on it.

So of course “aromantic vs alloromantic” is really hard to define, and to describe, and to discuss.

Because not only is there this elephant crushing it, but it’s not even supposed to be thought of as even being a binary (much less as a spectrum, or as multiple options).

We’re not even supposed to be able to see the mattress. Only the elephant.

I’m Not Okay with Felicity Jones Playing Ruth Bader Ginsburg in Her New Biopic

infodump-playhouse:

jewishcomeradebot:

cookie-sheet-toboggan:

jewish-privilege:

…Imagine my reaction when I opened up the trailer for On the Basis of Sex last week and saw Felicity Jones grace the screen. British Felicity Jones, with her fine features and her awkward American accent, beautiful, perfectly manicured, and erasing any trace of Ginsburg’s roots.

But I think what hurts more about watching Jones portray the first female, Jewish Supreme Court Justice is how little they physically look alike. Justice Ginsburg has strong, identifiably Ashkenazi Jewish features. She looks Jewish. Missing from Felicity Jones is any trace of RBG’s large Jewish nose. In its place is a delicate, slightly upturned nose. One that conforms more closely with White Western Christian standards of beauty. Frankly, the absence of RBG’s schnoz is bumming me out.

…This issue is more than skin deep. Judaism is a huge part of Justice Ginsburg’s identity now, but it also provides another dimension to her early career. While it’s definitely true that when RBG went to law school, it was uncommon for women to attend, and when she challenged legal precedent she was a young woman disrupting what has historically been a boys’ club, it was also unusual to be a Jew in these contexts at the time.

When Ruth Bader Ginsburg entered law school, many top universities still had “Jewish quotas.” Not many Jews were practicing law, and not many historically had done so. So it was not just that she was a woman disrupting these norms and defying conventions in the legal field, she was a Jewish woman in a professional field that did not have many Jews or women. She was a double anomaly. She is doubly impressive.

And yet, any trace of her Jewish identity — from her accent to her face — is erased in the casting of Felicity Jones in the role. This should be pissing people off. Prosthetic makeup is used all the time to transform actors into their roles in biopics. Prosthetics were used to make Nicole Kidman into Virginia Woolf in The Hours and Meryl Streep into Margaret Thatcher in The Iron Lady. So why is it missing here? Why are we allowing a key component of this icon’s identity to be erased? Why do we need a young Ruth Bader Ginsburg — who, it should be noted, was a total babe but really that’s beside the point — to be conventionally beautiful?

The way I see it, this is really problematic for two reasons. First of all, the irony of altering the appearance of a historic figure in order to make her more conventionally attractive in a movie about her combating sexual discrimination is almost too rich to put into words.

Second of all, representation is important.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg grew up with identifiably Ashkenazi Jewish features at a time when it was not easy being Jewish in her professional field or in society in general. When RBG’s character is robbed of these features, the story loses something. We all lose something. Something important and integral to Ginsburg’s, and America’s, struggle.

And beyond the story, we lose something else. As a girl growing up with a big Jewish nose, I hated my nose because I thought that was what I was supposed to do. I thought my nose was actually incompatible with delicate femininity. How wonderful it would have been to have more examples of that in popular media, to know that it could be otherwise. And how wonderful it would be now to see the story of a young Ruth Bader Ginsburg: hard-headed, trail-blazing, beautiful, and Jewish.

Read Anna Miriam’s full piece at Alma.

idk what age exactly they’re going for but i could see mayim bialik as a young ginsburg. also, the fact that bialik is a highly educated jewish-american woman too makes her seem like a good fit.

I’ve seen Jenny Slate suggested and I’m just going to let the pictures of Jenny and a young Ruth speak for themselves.

But yes, Mayim Bialik would absolutely have been a really good choice as well.

listen I have big Mayim Bialik feelings too, not least from growing up around the Blossom era. But the amount of energy she’s maybe-unintentionally given to anti-vaxx misinformation, as both a celebrity and a damn scientist, is horrifying to my autistic ass.

I’m Not Okay with Felicity Jones Playing Ruth Bader Ginsburg in Her New Biopic

asekuwhale:

trailerparkk:

A real autism feel: Being able to express yourself better by typing/writing rather than words, but psychiatrist appointments and casual conversations require you to talk and thus not being able to really express yourself

I can see my words therefore I know them.

But speaking, speaking I do not know them or what they do.