Republicans are cancer.
Abled Person: Hey man, can you hold this wad of $2,000 and this one penny for me while I open my wallet?
Disabled Person: YOU COMPLETE AND UTTER FOOL!
The United States Government:
(Watch how many people don’t get this.)
In order for disabled people to receive any sort of financial assistant for their housing, food, bills, medical supplies, etc., they cannot ever have more than $2,000 of resources to their name. Ever.
It doesn’t matter what it’s for.
You’re saving up for a new wheelchair?
For college?
To put a downpayment on a house?
Hell man, you just happen to budget for once in your life so that you can have some extra money in case something bad happens?
Your benefits immediately get cut off if you’re a cent over $2,000.
And, even worse, you usually end up having to pay back every dollar the government gave you that month.
So say you get $400. If they find out you’re twenty dollars over the resource limit, you have to give them all $400 back and you undergo an investigation of your funds to see if you will continue getting money.
“What if I spend the money that day?”
Doesn’t matter. In fact, from what I can tell, people who do this are actually put under investigation for fraud.
And yes, this system literally kills people.
Remember when “Guardians of the Galaxy” came out? one of Rocket Racoon’s creators, Bill Mantlo, suffered an accident in 1992 and has irreparable brain damage.
before the movie came out, Marvel gave him an exclusive preview screening. SOme people were upset because they felt if Marvel was really wanted to thank mantlo, they should have donated money to Mantlo’s family.
Bill Mantlo’s brother had to come out and explain: If Marvel gave them monetary aid, Bill Mantlo would lose his financial assistance.
That’s so utterly depressing.
disgusting
I have friends on welfare who won’t pick up a penny in the street because they’d risk the welfare they struggled to get for 10 years.
oh look another fucked up thing in this world. let’s just add it to the list. number 63858b
My brother has been on California State SSI for autism for the last 10 years, and he absolutely has to (no joke, HAS TO) spend all 720 bucks of his SSI every month, because if he puts it in the bank he risks losing his SSI altogether.
Sometimes, at the end of the month, he has no idea what to do with his money because the whole month went by and he still has 400-ish bucks in his account, and he fucking panics because he doesn’t want to get anywhere near 2,000.
And here’s the funnest part of the story!
One day he did a huge commission on Second Life and wound up earning 1500 bucks off of it, and he told the guy to donate it 500 bucks at a time over 3 months. The guy didn’t want to, and just donated all 1500, which put my brother at 2,036 bucks.
The state IMMEDIATELY (I’m talking less than an hour) called him up to tell him over the phone that they were canceling his SSI, because they noticed he had gone over the 2,000 buck threshold. He had to tell them that someone had made a charitable donation to him and that this was not a common occurrence in any way shape or form, and upon not believing him, my mother had to call to talk to them as his legal caretaker and say basically the same thing until they called off the cancellation of his SSI money.
He also had to cancel his renter’s assistance because it put him to 1,062 a month, so if he went 30 days without spending any money they’d cancel his SSI altogether. Like, none of us in the family have any fucking clue why that regulation is in place and it’s the stupidest shit in human history.
Please, legal side of Tumblr, tell me what positive reasoning this law has?
Happy 4th of July everyone! This is what the “nation of opportunity” looks like.
There’s something called an ABLE account that can help. If you are on SSI and were diagnosed as disabled before the age of 26 you can apply for an ABLE account that will allow you to save up to $99,000. More people need to know about this!
thank you so much for this information. i’m applying for an abled account right now
THERES A WHAT
OH GOD BLESS THE SHIT OUTTA YOU YOU HAVE NO IDEA HOW FREAKED OUT OVER THIS I WAS
I’ve been looking into SSI; I had no idea about this!
Read till the end for the important info
Reblog to literally save a disabled person’s life
This shit is why conservatives think disability is fun pampering, because they see disabled people have to come up with ways to get rid of the money and to them it looks like they must be rolling in excess.
You know, it occurs to me that the known internet phenomenon of Reddit “am I the asshole?” posts having completely misleading headers is actually a really great example of a far less known but far more common practice of extreme journalistic spin in cases where there are large monetary incentives to diminish the story in question.
Like, if you see a Reddit post titled “Am I the asshole for buying my wife a new dress?”, the post is pretty much always something totally deranged like: “I (48) really dislike the way my wife (20) dresses, because I think it’s too revealing and makes her look slutty, which was fine when we started dating five years ago, but it makes me feel like she’s going to cheat on me now that we’re married. I’ve politely asked her to get new clothes multiple times, and every time she refused because she said she liked her clothes, and didn’t want to waste money buying new ones. Yesterday I couldn’t take it anymore so I threw out a bunch of her old dresses and bought her a new one that was more modest looking. She started crying because one of the dresses I threw out had been left to her by her mom who died when she was a teen, but I couldn’t have known that it had sentimental value. She said that I should have asked, but obviously if I asked she’d have just told me not to throw out any of her clothes, including the ones that weren’t sentimental. Also, the more modest dress I bought was pretty expensive, and she never thanked me for it. Am I the asshole here, or is she being unreasonable?”
Similarly, whenever you see a headline like “Woman Wins Millions From McDonald’s Because Her Hot Coffee Was Too Hot”, if you dig a bit, you’ll almost always quickly find out that what actually happened was: A 79-year-old ordered coffee which, unbeknownst to her, was being served extremely dangerously hot, because McDonald’s was trying to have coffee that stayed warm over a long commute without spending any extra money on cups with better insulation. The coffee spilled on the old woman’s lap, giving her severe third degree burns over a huge portion of her body, including her genitals. She got to a hospital and they managed to save her life with skin grafting, but she became disabled from the accident, and her genitals and thighs were permanently disfigured. She tried to settle with McDonald’s for her medical costs, and McDonald’s refused to cover any portion of her medical expenses at all, and so she sued. At trial, the jury discovered that this same exact thing had happened seven hundred times before, and McDonald’s had still decided not to change their policy because paying out individual suits was cheaper than moderately reducing their coffee profits. As a result, the jury awarded punitive damages designed to penalize McDonald’s two days worth of their coffee profits, in addition to the woman’s medical costs.
I think it’s largely the same phenomenon, but I know a lot of people who are familiar with the first case, but don’t know to look for the second. If you see some totally outrageous “how could a person ever sue over this stupid thing?” case, you should immediately be incredibly suspicious that that’s all that actually happened, because a lot of the time, it absolutely isn’t. The people who have the most incentive to make their opponent look not only wrong, but completely crazy for having any sort of grievance at all, are often the actually unreasonable ones.
Anyway this is all to say that if I see ANY of y’all automatically siding with McDonald’s over the recent case where 4-year-old girl was severely burned by their chicken nuggets because “hurr durr dumb kid didn’t know that chicken nuggets were hot, people sue over anything lol”, I will grab that McBoot you’re licking and shove it all the way up your McFuckingAss.
lawyer fun fact! sometimes you need to sue someone before your insurance will pay for your medical bills (because your insurance would rather the other person pay for your medical bills so they don’t have to)! sometimes you need to sue because what you’d get from insurance isn’t enough to pay for all of your medical bills! sometimes you want to change a specific thing, like a dangerous practice or defective part, and that’s not going to happen if you just ask nicely!
most truly ridiculous lawsuits get screened before they’re even filed (because someone goes to an attorney and that attorney is like “yeah you don’t have a case here”) or very shortly after they’re filed (because judges can toss out cases that have zero merit). 99% of the time, if it sounds ridiculous but somehow it went all the way to someone suing and winning in a jury trial, it probably wasn’t actually as absurd as it sounds.
What could we as a species accomplish if we didn't have to labor all day in hamburger mine to afford rock and roll disk
Listen, one time we put a guy in a giant flying bomb and shot him up into outer space and brought him back alive, and then we did it again, and then we did it so many more times it became just a thing we do now and "guy who gets shot into the heavens" is like a job kids can aspire to have. We did that while doing pretty much everything else in the slowest and least efficient ways possible.
I’ve been seeing a lot of anti-Nazi ones, which is great, but I felt like we needed one to show our support for the Jewish community.
The article says that the guidelines have been updated. Instead of asking if you’re a man that’s had sex with another man in the past 3 months it asks everyone regardless of gender if they’ve had anal sex with a new partner or if they’ve had anal sex with multiple partners in the past 3 months.
This both opens up blood donation to msm in exclusive relationships or who don’t have anal sex and more accurately identifies hiv risk from people who aren’t msm. This is exactly the sort of guidelines we’ve been fighting for for years. This is a major win for both gay rights and blood donation in the US. Now a bunch of people who couldn’t donate before can donate now.
It’s happened before. A TV personality with no prior experience in government can get elected president by preaching fascism and white supremacy.
The most irresponsible thing you can do these days is look away from the worst-case scenario.” So says Rick Wilson. In the week Fox News fired Tucker Carlson, Wilson’s worst-case scenario is this: a successful Carlson campaign for the Republican presidential nomination.
[ … ]
He says: “Tucker is one of the very small number of political celebrities in this country who has the name ID, the personal wealth, the stature to actually declare and run for president and in a Republican primary run in the same track Donald Trump did: the transgressive, bad boy candidate, the one who lets you say what you want to say, think what you want to think, act how you want to act, no matter how grotesque it is.
“Among Republicans, he’s a beloved figure. He’s right now in the Republican universe a martyr – and there ain’t nothing they want more than a martyr.”
Republicans always think of themselves as martyrs. That’s because of the long history in this country of wealthy white rightwingers suffering nonstop persecution. /sarcasm
Before Trump launched in 2016, “people used to say, ‘Trump? There’s no way he’ll run. He’s a clown. He’s a reality TV guy. Nobody ever is gonna take that seriously’ … right up until he won the nomination. And then they said, ‘Oh, don’t worry, it can’t be that bad. What could possibly be as bad as you think?’ Well, everything.
“And so I think we live in a world where the most irresponsible thing you can do is look away from the worst-case scenario. I do believe that if Tucker ran for president, there is an argument to be made that he’s the one person who could beat Trump.”
Yep, if something bad can happen these days, it probably will if we don’t take it seriously.
Trump could try to preempt a Tucker run by offering him the number two spot.
“This iteration of Trump’s campaign is a lot smarter than the last one. I predict they would say, ‘Let’s bring Tucker in as VP and stop all this chaos, be done with it. You know, there are very few good options [for Trump] if Tucker gets in the race.”
Joe Biden and Kamala Harris versus Donald Trump and Tucker Carlson? It seems outlandish.
“Again, I think the worst thing we can do is imagine the worst-case scenario can never happen. Because the worst-case scenario has happened any number of times in the last eight years.”
Progressives need to quit being lackadaisical in their support for Joe Biden. He’s all that may be standing in the way of a Trump-Carlson administration.
Yup, stranger things have already happened.
get fucked this is amazing
[Image description: two tweets by @TerpTheatre. First tweet: “Event Organizer: We’re sorry, there won’t be interpreters at the event where you are presenting about Deaf things, sign language, and interpreting.
Me: No problem, I’ll present in ASL without interpreting. Hearing people will have to get by.
Event Organizer: Ummm…”
Second tweet: “I presented for 25 minutes, and opened with a couple of slides in written English that explained the situation. Told them to stay, so that they could “learn a lesson they didn’t come here for.” They all did.”
End ID. /]
Apparently. Not enough in power care enough. Power always wins no matter how wrong or corrupt — power seems to always find a way.
The fact that anti-abortion laws and anti-transgender laws are both being implemented en masse, at the *same* time, by the *same* people (who, it hardly needs to be remarked, are overwhelmingly neither women nor transgender) should be enough to convince any reasonable person that the narrative of conflict between and women's and transgender is, first and foremost, a divide-and-conquer strategy by the far right.
Your survival is our survival. Our survival is your survival. Anyone who says different is a fed.
I think there’s quite a big difference between a woman getting an abortion and a teenage girl being sterilised and having a double mastectomy.
Women’s rights and trans issues are not comparable and are often in opposition.
Fuck off, Collaborator.
It's interesting that there are people that understand that the right lies constantly about abortion but think they tell the truth about trans people.
Also, hey, let's walk with this totally bad faith argument for a second. What IS different about a teen girl choosing to get an abortion, and a teen girl choosing to get a tubal ligation and a mastectomy? Are you saying that teenage girls who know that they will never want children should be forced to preserve their fertility anyway? Are you saying that teenage girls with severe back pain or the BRCA gene need to preserve their feminine breasts and be aesthetically pleasing to others, even at the expense of their own health? I mean, they're just too young to be making medical decisions which might make them less fertile or sexual desirable, right? What if they regret it???
And hey, you know, the same worry that teen girls might regret these things is true for adult women, too. Maybe we should make them wait until they're married, in case their future husband disapproves. Maybe we should make them wait until they've had kids - what if she regrets it and wants children? what if she regrets it and wants to breast feed? what if her stupid little woman brain hasn't thought this through and correctly pinned her entire self-worth and value as a person on her ability to act as a sex object and baby incubator? what then???
Trans men aren't women, and infantilizing them as poor helpless girls is obviously transphobic. But in addition to that, even if we were to buy into the central transphobic premise here, the conclusions would still be sexist as hell. Let's say that there are no trans men. Let's pretend for the sake of argument that trans men simply don't exist. Infantilizing teen girls out of being able to make their own medical decisions isn't feminist either.
If you're categorically against teen girls being able to choose to get a tubal ligation and a mastectomy, I have an awful lot of trouble believing that you're actually pro-choice. Pro-choice doesn't mean "women should have bodily autonomy just as long as they do the things I want". Pro-choice means pro-fucking-choice. You can't sing female empowerment and bodily autonomy out of one side of your mouth, while sticking your tongue out to lick the boot of the patriarchy on the other.
THIS
that ahistorical bullshit about "public schools existing to churn out perfect workers?" is in fact ahistorical bullshit
public schools were HARD-WON by people who didn't want working-class children to be railroaded into the same hardships their parents had known via lack of education (and therefore lack of opportunities for higher-paying jobs)
yes they have their issues. but they are absolutely NOT designed to be tools of capitalism
You ever invite your coworker to watch you give birth just to spite a racist
Okay howmst the fuck has a ship doctor in the far future never handled a birth without the father present? Are sperm donors and gay couples and trans women no longer a thing in the bajillionth century CE?? :/
I while understand the frustration with erasure sometimes it helps to look at things through the cultural context of when something was made. Star Trek the Next Generation was made in 1987, this particular episode I believe aired in 1988 a time when a future where the husband was always present for the birth would have been amazing to many of the people watching the show as men had only been allowed to be present for the birth of their children for 10/15ish years at that point in the US.
Women (and many men) fought for decades with hospitals to even have men allowed in the delivery room during the early stages of labor, which can last for several hours, and hospitals only began to give in to their requests in the 1960s but even then they would be kicked out of the room by hospital staff before the actual birth took place. So many of the couples watching the show would have had to go through labor without having/being allowed to support their spouse regardless of their wishes. Having the child’s father present for the birth only began to happen in the 1970s and 1980s. Which means most people watching this show either went through birth without the support of their spouse, were not allowed to support their spouse during the birth of their child, or their own mother’s went through that during their birth.
A future where the husbands were always present for the birth was still a little crazy to consider in the late 1980s. A good kind of crazy for the people living in that time, it showed a future where the wishes of the couple were finally consistently listened to by medical professionals as a result of the actions of people during their or their parent’s lifetimes. And it does that by also subverting it in allowing Data to step into the role of the father when the father was unknown and/or unwilling/unable to fill that role (I’ll be honest my knowledge of Next Gen is a bit spotty and I have not seen this whole episode, just a piece of it at family Thanksgiving). The woman’s desires as to how she would give birth are listened to and respected, something that still doesn’t happen in many hospitals now and would have been seen as even more revolutionary then. So while it isn’t perfect I think this scene was actually fairly impressive for its time and cultural context and shows a future that many people of that time would have seen as ideal.
I think this kind of contextual understanding and analysis is really important because things that look antiquated now were revolutionary then. I remember reading that the mini skirts in Star Trek TOS were legot just in fashion (about 64’ ish), one of the actresses (the one that played Rand) requested they be in the show and both her and Nichelle Nichols said they didn’t see them as demeaning but liberating in that time and context. Where as NOW it looks like ‘sexy male gaze’ but then it wasn’t.
Miniskirts are comfortable and easy to move in - unlike longer bulkier skirts, which had previously been required for “modesty.” And unlike the approach of “we’ll just put them in pants,” miniskirts made a statement that women crew-members weren’t being treated like men. Miniskirts were a way to say “I can be an attractive woman, wear comfortable clothes, and still look professional and do a serious job.”
The clothing for that message today would be different.
This is also why the bridge crew of TOS may seem “tokenistic” today. When it came out, the Cold War was in full swing and “Soviets” were maligned and hated, Black people could not count on their right to vote being honored, and mixed-race people (like Spock) were called horrible things like “half-breed” and “zebra.” A white man was in charge of the ship, but Gene Roddenberry was fully aware that a chunk of the viewership read him as queer, and did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DISCOURAGE THAT READING, at a time when “homosexual activity” was illegal in the United States!
By today’s standards, “one of everything? How tokenistic.” In 1966? “A Black woman, a Russian, a man from multiple cultures, and a man who loves differently, all top of their fields, all working together and finding common ground to learn, grow, and help where they can? What a wonderful future!”
Also I’m sorry but like. A show also featuring a Japanese man who isn’t a stereotype but part of the crew, having a Scottish character be a part of the central cast (idk if I need to get into why this is important, but considering how England has continuously tried to erase Scottish culture and identity, and the stereotype of Scots as bumbling bumpkins, etc, its kind of nice to see a Scotsman who’s the best of the best at his job).
Moreover, a lot of kids watched this show. MLK himself contacted Nichelle Nichols and asked her to stay on the show when she was considering leaving, because “you don’t have a Black role, you have an equal role,” and there wasnt many Black role models on tv. I can only imagine how Black kids, Asian kids, and mixed race or mixed culture kids felt seeing people like them on tv. Hell, seeing Uhura on screen is what inspired Whoopi Goldberg as a little girl.
Also, yeah, its easy to look back and say ‘damn, fathers weren’t there in the delivery room? What assholes’ but no like they legitimately were not allowed in there.
Tiny correction: while George Takei is Japanese, and while Sulu thus looks like what we in the 20th-21st century consider to be an ethnically Japanese man, Hikaru Sulu was Pan-Asian by design. His last name is not Japanese. And Roddenberry designed him like that intentionally, because while there was a lot of anti-Japanese sentiment in the US at the time (I mean, hell… George Takei himself spent years in Japanese internment camps during WW2), there was also a lot of other anti-Asian sentiments, and Roddenberry intentionally put ALL of it on the character of Sulu.
Like, all the years of anti-Chinese racism in the US? Sulu. Anti-Japanese sentiments left over after WW2? Sulu. Korean War in 1950-52? Sulu. The Vietnam War, with Johnson in 1965 (a year before TOS started airing) choosing to start sending American troops into the conflict? Sulu.
Sulu was Roddenberry’s desperate attempt to show all Asian people as inherently worthy, inherently human, and yeah, he probably put kind of too much on Sulu’s shoulders, but it was the 1960s and Roddenberry fucking cared about representation, so he did what he could.
Just, you know… a little bit more historical Star Trek context
Also to hammer this home?
Scotty was third in line for the captain’s chair. The only non-Kirk who had the con more then him was Spock.
He was smart, he was a *ranked* crewmen, he was a gentleman, he wasn’t a skirt chaser, and he was capitol L loyal. The only time he got into a fight was when someone both went after his Captain, AND his Ship.
And he was Scottish.
That’s so above and beyond the typical Scottish stereotype even TO THIS DAY.
Dr Polaski was coded as something of an arse just so they could make their valid points about equality and bigotry using her as a foil. Yes it was kind of clumsy from a modern perspective, but it was also kind of groundbreaking (not least because you didn’t usually get arses being played by women)
I am hard-coded to put this on any post that mentions MLK and Nichelle Nichols.
Also, it’s very worth noting that the “token minority character” label doesn’t apply in any way to these characters.
Tokens are there to present the appearance of diversity. Whereas Roddenberry created a diverse cast in an era where there wasn’t even a need for the appearance of diversity. Roddenberry didn’t put these characters in because he wanted to look diverse– he put them in to BE DIVERSE.
So I’ve been enjoying the Disney vs. DeSantis memes as much as anyone, but like. I do feel like a lot of people who had normal childhoods are missing some context to all this.
I was raised in the Bible Belt in a fairly fundie environment. My parents were reasonably cool about some things, compared to the rest of my family, but they certainly had their issues. But they did let me watch Disney movies, which turned out to be a point of major contention between them and my other relatives.
See, I think some people think this weird fight between Disney and fundies is new. It is very not new. I know that Disney’s attempts at inclusion in their media have been the source of a lot of mockery, but what a lot of people don’t understand is that as far as actual company policy goes, Disney has actually been an industry leader for queer rights. They’ve had policies assuring equal healthcare and partner benefits for queer employees since the early 90s.
I’m not sure how many people reading this right now remember the early 90s, but that was very much not industry standard. It was a big deal when Disney announced that non-married queer partners would be getting the same benefits as the married heterosexual ones.
Like — it went further than just saying that any unmarried partners would be eligible for spousal benefits. It straight-up said that non-same-sex partners would still need to be married to receive spousal benefits, but because same-sex partners couldn’t do that, proof that they lived together as an established couple would be enough.
In other words, it put long-term same-sex partners on a higher level than opposite-sex partners who just weren’t married yet. It put them on the exact same level as heterosexual married partners.
They weren’t the first company ever to do this, but they were super early. And they were certainly the first mainstream “family-friendly” company to do it.
Conservatives lost their damn minds.
Protests, boycotts, sermons, the whole nine yards. I can’t tell you how many books about the evils of Disney my grandmother tried to get my parents to read when I was a kid.
When we later moved to Florida, I realized just how many queer people work at Disney — because historically speaking, it’s been a company that has guaranteed them safety, non-discrimination, and equal rights. That’s when I became aware of their unofficial “Gay Days” and how Christians would show up from all over the country to protest them every year. Apparently my grandmother had been upset about these days for years, but my parents had just kind of ignored her.
Out of curiosity, I ended up reading one of the books my grandmother kept leaving at our house. And friends — it’s amazing how similar that (terrible, poorly written) rhetoric was to what people are saying these days. Disney hires gay pedophiles who want to abuse your children. Disney is trying to normalize Satanism in our beautiful, Christian America.
Just tons of conspiracy theories in there that ranged from “a few bad things happened that weren’t actually Disney’s fault, but they did happen” to “Pocahontas is an evil movie, not because it distorts history and misrepresents indigenous life, but because it might teach children respect for nature. Which, as we all know, would cause them all to become Wiccans who believe in climate change.”
Like — please, take it from someone who knows. This weird fight between fundies and Disney is not new. This is not Disney’s first (gay) rodeo. These people have always believed that Disney is full of evil gays who are trying to groom and sexually abuse children.
The main difference now is that these beliefs are becoming mainstream. It’s not just conservative pastors who are talking about this. It’s not just church groups showing up to boycott Gay Day. Disney is starting to (reluctantly) say the quiet part out loud, and so are the Republicans. Disney is publicly supporting queer rights and announcing company-supported queer events and the Republican Party is publicly calling them pedophiles and enacting politically driven revenge.
This is important, because while this fight has always been important in the history of queer rights, it is now being magnified. The precedent that a fight like this could set is staggering. For better or for worse, we live in a corporation-driven country. I don’t like it any more than you do, and I’m not about to defend most of Disney’s business practices. But we do live in a nation where rights are largely tied to corporate approval, and the fact that we might be entering an age where even the most powerful corporations in the country are being banned from speaking out in favor of rights for marginalized people… that’s genuinely scary.
Like… I’ll just ask you this. Where do you think we’d be now, in 2023, if Disney had been prevented from promising its employees equal benefits in 1994? That was almost thirty years ago, and look how far things have come. When I looked up news articles for this post from that era, even then journalists, activists, and fundie church leaders were all talking about how a company of Disney’s prominence throwing their weight behind this movement could lead to the normalization of equal protections in this country.
The idea of it scared and thrilled people in equal parts even then. It still scares and thrills them now.
I keep seeing people say “I need them both to lose!” and I get it, I do. Disney has for sure done a lot of shit over the years. But I am begging you as a queer exvangelical to understand that no. You need Disney to win. You need Disney to wipe the fucking floor with these people.
Right now, this isn’t just a fight between a giant corporation and Ron DeSantis. This is a fight about the right of corporations to support marginalized groups. It’s a fight that ensures that companies like Disney still can offer benefits that a discriminatory government does not provide. It ensures that businesses much smaller than Disney can support activism.
Hell, it ensures that you can support activism.
The fight between weird Christian conspiracy theorists and Disney is not new, because the fight to prevent any tiny victory for marginalized groups is not new. The fight against the normalization of othered groups is not new.
That’s what they’re most afraid of. That each incremental victory will start to make marginalized groups feel safer, that each incremental victory will start to turn the tide of public opinion, that each incremental victory will eventually lead to sweeping law reform.
They’re afraid that they won’t be able to legally discriminate against us anymore.
So guys! Please. This fight, while hilarious, is also so fucking important. I am begging you to understand how old this fight is. These people always play the long game. They did it with Roe and they’re doing it with Disney.
We have! To keep! Pushing back!
Someone reblogged this saying they'd never heard any of this before and they didn't even know how to begin verifying it, so let me help!
Here's a 1995 article from the NYT about Disney putting this policy into effect after promising to do so in 1994.
Here's a wikipedia page about Disney's unofficial Gay Days and how they've been protested by Christian groups.
I tried to find the book I read, but honestly so many different weird evangelical anti-Disney books came up when I was googling that I can't be sure which one it was. 🙃
I can't help you with sources other than the fact that I too am an exvangelical kid whose parents went on-and-off banning Disney movies from the house as I was growing up. ("On" when the pastor got on a tear about the evils and how the movies had gay propaganda in it and ~witchcraft~ and my mom would obediently remove anything from my reach that had the concept of "magic" in it - and then "Off" when the pastor hadn't said anything for a while and my mom got sentimental about how much she loved Winnie the Pooh and The Aristocats.)
I remember the first "Gay Days" and how they put up signs around the park saying that it was unofficial and not affiliated with Disney, and how that didn't stop the evangelicals from foaming at the mouth, and the groups had to change it to "Friendship Days" to keep from getting gay-bashed... and I also remember how the last time I went to Gay Days (2019) they had fucking Pride merch in the stores with signs saying that proceeds from the sales went to GLSEN to prevent gay kids from being bullied at school.
Disney has done a LOT to normalize queerness in the mainstream - and I know it's a joke, blah blah, first canon Disney queers being a new minor character every year, but outside of the movies, in the real world where real people live, it has done a LOT.
And yeah. You want Disney to wipe the floor with these dudes. Because as evil as some of their business practices are (capitalism sucks, man, and there's no getting around that) - I HAVE to emphasize that they have been curating a safe space for real-life queer people for decades. And we want that to win.
The enemy of my enemy may not be my friend, but they're sure as hell a gigantic mouse-shaped meat shield, and right now we need the enemy out of bullets.
Corporations in FL and TX are watching this. Red state governors are watching this. A victory for Disney means more companies pushing back. A victory for Florida means an absolute avalanche of restrictions on LGBTQ+ people, corporate support of reproductive rights, etc.
We NEED Disney to win.
kill the cop inside your head. kill the cop inside your head. stop trying to police everyone around you. kill the cop inside your head. punitive measures / punishments are not the solution to society. kill the cop inside your head.
This morning, Buckingham Palace staff found Charles III in his bed chambers alive and well. My heart goes out to all the people of Britain who will be suffering due to this senseless tragedy
Is anyone else ever a little baffled by the cis women who consider women’s restrooms and locker rooms these safe havens from abuse and sexual harassment?
Like I feel like there are two options here:
1. They did not have mean girls in their school
2. They were the mean girls in their school and didn’t realize all the shit they were doing to the other girls in the locker room was absolutely sexual harassment and sometimes assault
I would only nuance this with two other possibilities that work in tandem with these:
3. They’re probably skinny and able-bodied with no significant scarring on their bodies
4. They didn’t grow boobs as a preteen
i really think the saying there's no ethical consumption under capitalism has become a phrase to excuse giving money to avoidable awful companies rather than a reality check. like if you're poor there's a good chance you have no choice but to shop from brands with less than ideal practices solely bc you can't afford to buy everything ethically sourced (not to mention in certain areas it's next to impossible to find those goods in general) but when it comes to chikfila that is an optional place to eat that is incredibly mask off with anti lgbt policies....... not quite the clapback to just say there's no ethical consumption under capitalism. like YEAH but you could just rip off their sauce recipe from online 🥴
I would like to remind people that Chick-fil-A has recently been contributing to anti-transgender laws. This is recent. Do not eat here.
"There is no truly ethical consumption under Capitalism" & "There is particularly unethical consumption under Capitalism" are statements that can both be true simultaneously.
some people think writers are so eloquent and good with words, but the reality is that we can sit there with our fingers on the keyboard going, “what’s the word for non-sunlight lighting? Like, fake lighting?” and for ten minutes, all our brain will supply is “unofficial”, and we know that’s not the right word, but it’s the only word we can come up with…until finally it’s like our face got smashed into a brick wall and we remember the word we want is “artificial”.
I couldn't remember the word "doorknob" ten minutes ago.
ok but the onelook thesaurus will save your life, i literally could not live without this website
REBLOG TO SAVE A WRITER'S LIFE
this is a total nightmare and the only solution is vote get them out of office then continue to prosecute them
I've said it before and I'll say it again I think the reason there's a lot of like sexism and bioessentialism even among like internet gays and transes is bc we stopped posting a lot of feminism 101 and gender theory 101 like we did in early Tumblr. But it's kind of maligned now bc 1) that was the era that resulted in the like 'SJW' culture we find kinda cringe now 2) those of us who have been around the whole time already know it so it feels like a repeat. But there are a bunch of ppl starting to swing left, kids growing up and joining discourse, and ppl just like. Frankly kinda losing the plot. That means you've got a lot of people hopping into this shit with 0 foundation and then reinventing cissexism because they haven't actually grappled with gender and feminism on a core level yet, just awkwardly trying to slot into a convo or culture 5 miles ahead of them w no one trying to catch them up.. I'm not really sure how to combat it tho bc writing like 'educational' posts isnt really rewarded anymore the way that quippy infighting and devils advocating and making fun of ppl is




























