Tag: widgets

With one reblog from earlier getting more notes, I couldn’t help but think about how I still keep getting surprised at some pretty big differences in perspective.

Also reminded again of this one guy I knew when I was in high school and college, and really hoping things have gotten easier there.

Buck was personally a pretty committed vegetarian–and also hunting buddies with a friend’s partner. While he was living mostly off potatoes, peanut butter, and whatever he could grow? He was also hunting and fishing (besides doing most of the gardening) for his family, with both his parents the “broken down by shitty jobs” kind of disabled by that point.

Not always hunting in season, either, BTW. Partly because they were some of the only people I knew without electricity a lot of the time. So, they couldn’t easily just freeze his limit of deer for the rest of the year like most other people relying heavily on hunting.

They were struggling about the hardest of anybody I’ve known, and that’s saying something. Hopefully at least one of his parents eventually got approved for disability benefits, but they were pretty much stuck in limbo at that point. I don’t remember if Buck was the only or just the oldest kid, but he was pretty much keeping the family going in his late teens/early 20s. Not at all a good situation, but he stepped up to a point that nobody should have ever needed to.

Anyway, I had to think about that again. And also some of the likely reactions from people who just have no frame of reference to get basically any of it.

Back around to the multiple kinds of segregation in the US encouraging that. Plus, of course, widgets.

novafuzzcheeks:

pervocracy:

While I’m at it, I’m really not happy with the way Tumblr is restoring “the innocence of youth” culture to 1990s-purity-ring levels.

It’s somehow transmuted a few good principles–adults shouldn’t have sex with underage people, underage people shouldn’t take part in porn, very young children shouldn’t be exposed to explicit sexuality–into bullshit like:

– All fiction involving underage sexuality, even non-sensationalized written descriptions of the kind of sexual relationships teenagers often have with each other, is child porn

– Sex education that talks about dealing with STIs and pregnancy and rape is okay, but teaching teenagers about sexual pleasure is gross and anyone who does it is probably a pedophile

– People under 18 all find sexuality frightening or offputting and don’t want to be exposed to it (I’m sure some feel that way, but if you think this is a universal or majority thing, wow, you must’ve gone to a very different high school than I did)

– Even acknowledging the existence of underage sexuality is suspicious, why would you be talking about this if you weren’t some kind of pedophile

It’s tough to talk about this because it immediately puts you in the company of people who really are being creepy about it, but I think it’s important to push back against these things.  Young people have sexualities, they aren’t “innocent” and many of them don’t want to be, and it is possible to acknowledge these facts without exploiting them.

My introduction to sex was finding a porn tape at age 11 in the vcr. That is NOT how you want kids to learn about sex. We really need comprehensive sex education for kids and teens, and to be realistic about human sexuality. We need to teach that it’s alright to have a sex drive, and it’s alright to not want sex. We need to teach how to be safe and happy if they DO want sex, so they don’t do shit that will traumatize them well into their late 20′s. I desperately wish someone would have REALLY taught me about sex, healthy, safe, happy sex, when I was young. Because all my education from 11-16 came from porn, and I was hypersexual as fuck and made a lot of bad decisions because I had nothing to go off of. Please stop pretending all teens aren’t sexual and start being realistic. 

No binary & non-binary

queeranarchism:

Them: Binaries like man and woman are wrong, human existence is a lot more diverse than that! There is so much more to who we can be!

Me: YEEEEEEEEES!

Them: We need words for non-binary experiences, we need to describe how we experience unique forms of oppression for existing outside these boundaries.

Me: YEEEEEEEEES!

Them: We need to have clear fixed definitions and boundaries for this third space. You are either inside or outside. You either totally experience this oppression or you totally don’t. You are either one of Us or one of Them and that position is unchanging.

Me: Wait. no. back up. Back to the part where we were creating space for a more complex fluid understanding of the human experience?

Them: Also, let’s divide non-binary experiences into afab and amab as if your birth defines your whole lived experience forever. Let’s get non-binary markers on our passports. Let’s campaign for the state to use they pronouns for non-binary cops and soldiers. Let’s get companies to recognize non-binary consumers. Let’s gets non-binary people into political power …

Me: Ok, fuck this shit, I’m outta here.

A little more context (and expansion) for that Barbara Mann quote I posted earlier. Also the other quote from that talk which came up earlier and prompted me to look at the transcript again.

(Source through those links. There’s more of interest in that talk.)

I don’t have a lot of spoons to comment right now. But, what she’s talking about here is relevant to way too much.

Including some of my frustrations dealing with some people who are coming at things from some very different base assumptions, in a variety of contexts.

Also had to think about that rather disturbing bizarro assertion from a while back that “inclusionist ideas are much more abstract and harder to understand” 🤔

Anyway, long quote time:

And one of the things that tells us is that the One Good Mind of consensus actually requires the active participation of everybody in the community, that it can’t be done without active participation by all. So, everybody matters, everybody counts. And I remember my mother specifically saying, “Don’t leave anyone out, don’t leave anyone out”. And if anything was ever counted up and somebody was left out, you started counting again, from the very beginning. Why? Because somebody was left out. And that’s not acceptable, because exclusivism destroys community. It’s the first and best way to destroy community. Inclusivism, on the other hand, is very important to creating community; it hears absolutely every comment, it hears everything that’s going on, and it hears it in the voices that raised the issue. That’s pretty important.

I think one of the most damaging misunderstanding of Good Mindedness is something that, something that Heidi was just talking about, is the assumption that because everyone is equal, everyone possesses equal amounts of wisdom and talent–and, therefore, everyone should share equal amounts of power. OK, well this is a prescription for disaster if I ever heard one. [laughs] Because people simply do not have the same type or amount of talent or wisdom; everybody has a different thing. That’s why, in the words before all else, we acknowledge the special things that each one is bringing. If everybody was bringing the same thing, there’d be no need for those words. It’s basically patriarchal monotheism that thinks that everybody looks alike. You know, seen one seen ‘em all. That’s a patriarchal idea.

Instead, everyone has a limited amount of wisdom, and a limited amount of talent, and the idea is to make it all work together for the good of everybody. No one person is going to be able to do this alone. And each spirit has a limited amount of knowledge; that goes for human beings, that goes for any of these spirits. For example, if you want to know about corn, what do you do? Well, you go ask Sister Corn, that’s what you do. She sure knows a lot about being corn, she knows more than you and I do. She knows more about being corn than Sister Squash does. But, guess what: if you ask her about Brother Tobacco, she might know a little bit about him, but she doesn’t really know about Brother Tobacco. If you want to know about him, you’d better go and ask him.

And one of the important points spiritually about this is that there’s nothing that’s all-knowing. There’s no all-knowing spirit anywhere. Everything is a collective attempt, we all dump it into the center and see what we’ve got when we’re done collecting up all of what we have…

So, there’s no omniscience… [P]eople have frailties, they have failings, and that’s understood and recognized without any prejudice. It’s just something you’re going to work around. So, no one council arrogates the right to dictate to anybody else, it just is not going to happen, it better not happen… [B]asically claiming more wisdom than you have is actually a crime. It’s actually a crime against the people. And all that’s going to happen is that it’s going to create havoc in its wake.

the-thrill-be-damned:

pacificrim:

gaygothur:

frogmp3:

hornycritical:

In case you haven’t been on Twitter lately the most recent discourse is that a vegan consoled a crying child and gave her money for ice cream, and another vegan made a callout because she didn’t tell the child to buy vegan ice cream.

i lost it at this reply

okay so you know how i was just talking about what a purity politics/purity culture mindset is?

it’s this. this dude right here

Ideas for gun control

kellyclowers:

jenniferrpovey:

bigwordsandsharpedges:

jenniferrpovey:

dragonrider662:

jenniferrpovey:

whatdoallthesewordsmean:

It’s a long read, and these aren’t my own thoughts, but the guy who wrote this, I think is on the right track for getting “assault rifles” off the streets and enacting more pro-active gun control all around..

For my anti-gun friends, how does this sound?

First, for people convicted of domestic violence, even a misdemeanor, how about a lifetime prohibition on firearms possession?

Furthermore, a government license should be required for anyone who wants to manufacture, import, or sell firearms. The license should be mandatory not only for formal businesses, but also for individuals who make repetitive transactions for the purpose of profit. This would cover people at gun shows who put up signs declaring themselves to be “unlicensed dealers.” Anyone who engages in the firearms business without a federal license should be punished by up to five years imprisonment and a $250,000 fine.

Manufacturers, importers, and dealers who are granted a federal license should have to keep meticulous records of every transaction. Their records and inventory should be subject to warrantless, random inspections by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). If a license-holder goes out of business, all the records of past sales should be delivered to the ATF.

Before a gun store can sell a firearm to an ordinary citizen, the citizen should have to get government approval. This should apply not only to storefront sales, but also if the retailer rents a table at a gun show. As for the Internet, retailers can be allowed to advertise there, but the actual transfer of a firearm should only be allowed at the retailer’s place of business.
The purchaser should be required to answer dozens of questions certifying his or her background information. It is important that the government know the purchaser’s race, and whether or not she is Hispanic. Before the sale is consummated, the Federal Bureau of Investigation or a state counterpart ought to be contacted for a background check on the purchaser.

Any customer who purchases two or more handguns in a week should be automatically flagged and reported to the federal government and to local law enforcement.
Every handgun manufacturer should require handgun buyers to purchase a safe storage device for every handgun. Even if the buyer owns a gun safe, the buyer should always be forced to buy a separate locking device.

Of course, licensed manufacturers should have to put a serial number on every firearm. If someone alters or obliterates a serial number, the person should face five years imprisonment.

Felons should be forever prohibited from owning guns. They should never be allowed to hold a gun in their hands for even a few seconds. The lifetime prohibition should include non-violent felons who have been law-abiding for decades; anyone who was convicted of marijuana possession in 1971 should be presumed to be a continuing menace to society.

A lifetime prohibition should also apply to anyone who has ever been committed to a mental institution. Mental illness is not necessarily permanent, but the ban should be.

Patients prescribed medical marijuana should be banned, even in states where such use is legal. In fact, all medical marijuana cardholders should be automatically banned, regardless of whether they are current users.

Current federal gun laws provide a statutory procedure for prohibited persons to petition the ATF for a restoration of rights. For example, ATF would have discretion to restore the Second Amendment rights of a non-violent felon who has been law-abiding for many years. Congress should enact appropriations riders to prevent ATF from considering such petitions.

Only persons over 21 should be able to purchase a handgun at a gun store. That 18-to-20-year-olds defend our country with automatic weapons overseas does not mean that they can be trusted with handguns within our country. A similar law should bar rifle or shotgun purchases by persons who are under 18.

Assault rifles must be virtually banned. These, according to the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency, are “short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power.” For example, the Russian AK-47 or the American M-16 rifles. No civilian should be able to transfer or possess any assault rifle that was not already in circulation by 1986.
Any of the older assault rifles in citizen hands should be registered with the government. If someone wants to acquire one, both the buyer and seller should have to file an application with the ATF. The tax for a transfer should be $200, to discourage ownership. In the application, the ATF should require fingerprints and two recent photographs. Local law enforcement should be notified. The FBI should conduct a background investigation, and the registration process should take months.

If the purchaser is permitted to acquire the assault rifle, she should be required to maintain records proving that the rifle is registered, and notify the government of any change in address. To take the assault rifle out of state, the owner should need written permission from ATF in advance.

Assault rifles are one type of automatic firearm, but there are many other types of automatics. All of them should be controlled just as strictly as assault rifles. A violation of the stringent laws on these guns should be a felony with up to 10 years imprisonment—and much longer in cases of multiple violations.

So, why does the purchaser’s race matter?

And why is drunken use of firearms cool, but God help you if you got high once in 1972?

One of my proposals is that firing ranges should be required to ban alcohol. And firing ranges that have exotic/military grade weapons (By which I mean actual full automatic weapons, grenade launchers, etc) should be required to card and deny admission to anyone under 18. (Everyone’s forgotten about the incident in Arizona where somebody got killed because a young, lightweight child was allowed to shoot a weapon she didn’t have the body mass to control yet.

I am honestly circulating this because I can’t tell if it’s serious or sarcastic. Not allowing non-violent felons to get their gun rights back if they behave? Not allowing anyone who has ever used medical marijuana to have guns? (As worded, it would also prevent people who have been providing their kids with medical marijuana). Lifetime ban if you’ve ever been committed? All of those read to me as heavy sarcasm, not real suggestions. Or as if this was sarcastic and the OP is circulating it as if it was real. The “that 18-20-year-olds defend our country with weapons overseas” line really reads like sarcasm to me. And the race line.

But the OP seems to be circulating it as if it was serious…

Ha! Cannabis remains a Schedule 1 controlled substance, legally on par with heroin and methamphetamine. Using it at any point is a felony-level crime, and felons are permanently barred from possessing guns, let alone owning them. The supremacy clause ensures that medical marijuana is not recognized at the federal level, and it only goes un-prosecuted due to the immense costs of prosecuting entire states. 

The race line exists in real life on real gun-purchase paperwork, It was included for continuity with the existing law, so the ATF can keep doing what they have already been doing. 

As a matter of fact, every single one of OP’s suggestions has already passed into law and already gone into effect. It’s a list of existing gun laws. 

Huh. Then we might actually already be over-regulated.

And under-enforced.

Guns are definitely not over-regulated. Under-enforced, sure

I would say more, regulated in frequently nonsensical ways as security theatre.

And in ways which tend to target members of already marginalized groups, rather than the folks actively causing most of the problems.

OK, I really am exhausted and running very low on wording spoons right now. But, I still have to make one observation that jumped out at me about this post and the weird assumptions about how things work some people are working from.

“Per Capita Total World GDP” (or whatever the exact phrasing was), which starts picking up after 1500 or so. Where the “world” a lot of people would be thinking of didn’t know whole other continents existed until…around 1500 🤔 Never mind sensibly estimating GDP.

(And of course the usual run of assumptions are still generally not based off much knowledge about social and economic conditions across those “new” areas before ca. 1500. When they started getting plundered for resources.)

Assuming everyone everywhere has always inevitably run with that type of unequal scarcity-based approach to available resources–and inevitably will!–just doesn’t make any sense.

Just one illustration of one of the many many wtf-inducing things about some common economic/social assumptions underpinning whole popular schools of political/economic thought. Not very well expressed, because wording spoons.

But, the “world GDP” graphs kinda stuck out.

kelpforestdweller:

if you are able bodied and have a car, do you only use it for distances you couldn’t physically walk? what if you can walk 20 miles in a day? no car if it’s within 20 miles, you gotta walk cuz after all, you CAN, right?

i have literally been told i don’t need my wheelchair by an abled person who owns a car in the center of a highly walkable metropolis with ample, 24 hour public transportation. i can walk around the house. sometimes a few blocks. weirdly, i want the ability to go more than a few blocks past my house.

i have read that most wheelchair users can stand or walk at least a little. i don’t know if this is true but it tallies with my anecdotal experience. what i do know is that i am nervous to stand from my chair in public. i try to do it when i need to because i hope it will help some people learn, but i always know some will judge me. and i always feel compelled to ham it up by moving slowly and stiffly with a face like I’m in pain even if I’m not, so they’ll understand im still disabled even if i can stand up for a minute.

people have a false concept of disability as an obvious and binary condition. “disabled” means a wheelchair user who can’t stand or walk at all, ever (never mind all the other types of disabilities). and then people judge and abuse us for making our ways through the world as best we can.

this is bullshit. this is hypocrisy. you understand that some people can walk further than others. you know this. your athletic cousin who ran a marathon last year can probably walk farther than you. you can walk farther than someone less fit than you. it’s so obvious and simple, but what is a gray scale for everyone else is suddenly cartoonishly black and white once a wheelchair is involved.