no more hierarchy

The Mythical Disabled Person Who’s So Much More Disabled Than You

Speaking out about your experience of disability can be an uncomfortable thing. I often find myself beset with the question, ‘am I disabled enough to advocate as a disabled person?’ ‘Am I qualified to speak here?’ ‘Maybe I’m a fraud. I was diagnosed so long ago, maybe I’m making excuses and not trying hard enough?’ And, the ever-annoying, ‘What about the Mythical Disabled Person Who’s So Much More Disabled Than Me?’

Just as disabled people face pressure to attain an abled ideal, we’re also often haunted by the Mythical Disabled Person Who’s So Much More Disabled Than You. You’re not that disabled, stop whining, just think about someone else who has all your difficulties plus this other one that you don’t have! Shut up about your amputation, what about the quadriplegics of the world! You should be grateful. It could be worse. Don’t ask for accommodations, that’s for REAL disabled people who are So Much More Disabled Than You. Don’t look into the disability benefit, that’s for Properly Disabled People Who Are So Much More Disabled Than You. Don’t park in the disability space, that’s for REAL PROPER disabled people! Yes I know you can’t walk further than 5 metres but YOU JUST NEED TO TRY HARDER.

These messages come from the outside, then, all too often, become our inner talk. We’re indoctrinated with an ‘ability hierarchy’. There are the abled people above you, people similar to you, and below you are the People More Disabled Than You. You figure you’re supposed to spend your life trying to become like the abled people above you, and in this eternal quest you’re supposed to think about how much easier you have it than the People More Disabled Than You and then feel guilty about every struggle you ever have. 

The problem is, this ability hierarchy has no basis in the lived realities of disabled people. It’s used against us in ways that harm us. Because we are all wedged in the awkward middle, where we don’t sail through the world like the normal folks but we’re made to  feel like any assistance, empathy or compassion should be reserved for the Real Disabled People Who Are So Much More Disabled. 

The ability hierarchy makes us feel ashamed to ask for services and accommodations that we need and qualify for. It alienates us from each other. And, like so many other disability myths, it frames disability as an inherent negative. You’re expected to feel grateful you’re not More Disabled. And since you’re not More Disabled, surely Normality is within reach? Maybe you’re not trying hard enough. Just THINK of the MYTHICAL DISABLED PERSON who’s SO MUCH MORE DISABLED THAN YOU!!! You should feel LUCKY!!!! 

The Mythical Disabled Person Who’s So Much More Disabled Than You actually doesn’t exist. There’s always going to be someone facing more challenges. Or different challenges. There is always the possibility of another difficulty cropping up. For every disabled person on the planet, there is that Mythical Disabled Person So Much More Disabled Than Them. It’s really just a myth used to dismiss the needs of disabled people. What right do you have to speak up about your needs, in light of this Mythical Disabled Person Who’s So Much More Disabled Than You? What right have you to argue that disability should be more accepted? What authority do you have? You’re not the Mythical Disabled Person Who’s So Much More Disabled Than You, so you’re just speaking from a place of whining. 

There is no real ‘ability hierarchy’-disability is diverse and complex. You might be able to get up on stage in front of thousands of people to tell jokes but have a panic attack over a cinnamon cookie (hi, that would be me). Your difficulties might not be easily condensed and summed up. There may be days when you’re completely ‘normal’ and days you’re completely not. None of this invalidates your struggles. Instead of thinking in terms of ‘more disabled’ or ‘less disabled’, try to think in terms of meeting people’s needs, taking them seriously, and banishing the stigma of disability. No disabled person is ever going to win this game-it’s time we all stopped playing.

“What is it like on Sounion?” On a sunny yet chilly afternoon of an early, hesitating Spring that seemed to wish to reverse to Winter, Alvar had blasted the question on Tobio. 

It was the first time they were to talk earnestly. For months, Tobio had been trying to judge whether The Little Lord’s interest in everything Greek was not just another code that men like them would develop to fractionally declare their sexuality – in terms that only equals would comprehend.

But Alvar’s curiosity – in a most strenuous journey through Greece Tobio had taken with his family as a teenager – seemed genuine. While the young nobleman could tell mythological tales in details, and Tobio reputed the Greek gods to be no more than a confusing hierarchy of gossip and cruelty, Alvar had never set foot on the ‘crucible of civilization’, as he called the country himself, and thus wanted to hear Tobio’s travel experiences in Hellenic lands. 

Could you feel the spray of the ocean while standing on the Temple of Poseidon? Did you watch the sunsetWhere there clouds floating by? Was it warm, and did the cicadas sang as it got warmer? Did you feel the earth tremble as the waves crashed down below? – at Alvar’s heartfelt questions, Tobio tried his best responding to impress his new friend. 

Though, in fact, he had only felt boredom while looking at the dilapidated columns, an unmatched excitement flooded Tobio while looking at the young nobleman who so sincerely seemed to love those fallen bricks.  


<   previous        next  >

anonymous asked:

What do you think is the reason why Rize never interacted or befriended other women? I know that Rize was a restless spirit and that friendship with anyone for that matter would have been difficult to maintain in the long run, but Rize has never had any relations, not even on a superficial basis, with women of any kind, which I found quite odd. Do you think there is a deeper reason for that and is she able to befriend anyone for that matter?

I think it’s because Ishida isn’t really that interested in exploring the relationships between women in his manga. The only significant female female relationships revolve around Touka who is the main female character, and that would be Yoriko and Touka, and Touka and Hinami. The rest of the females all have their most signficant relationships with men. 

If I had to guess why it’s because the manga is more about the masculine hierarchy subtextually, and that’s the way Ishida chose to write about it. 

Also Rize is a minor character she doesn’t have a lot of strong relationships with other characters period. There’s Rize and Kaneki, Rize and Banjou, Rize and Furuta, Rize and Shachi, and Rize and Tuskiyama in the past a little bit, and that’s it. 

I don’t think Rize would ever be able to befriend anyone though, because that’s not in her interests. She just finds other people too boring to get personally invested in. 

This also probably has a lot more to do with Washuu conditioning, and Rize wanting to be entirely free from all restraints (personal relationships are a form of restraint) but we probably won’t know that for sure until Rize finally gets a turn to be the central narrator of her story instead of us seeing her story from the perspective of a male character. 

thedosian-cockatrice  asked:

I noticed that your Clan Surana wears jewelry! Is there any cultural significance to these, or are they simply decorations? What about their vallaslin? You said blood magic is common to the clan; does it alter their way of applying the vallaslin any, or is the inking process the same as any other clan's? (Assuming Bioware even let us know what those processes are...)

Jewellery is worn as decoration, albeit the higher your position in the clan hierarchy, the more gold you wear. The Keeper is consistently adorned with bone, gold cloth and the chains, but the hunters take any jewellery they might have off during the hunt, and hunt all but naked as half of their hunting takes place in the water and anything that might get them caught in the roots or otherwise slow them down is unnecessary.

According to bioware, vallaslin pretty much is blood magic, no? Why else is it called ‘blood writing’ and used to magically control slaves way back in the Elvhenan days?

The applying process is much the same as it is elsewhere - a secret passed from a keeper mage to a keeper mage.

Where’s that fuck-awesome meta post about mages and keepers in Dalish clans…. it has some excellent shit there.

2

Doodles from an RP with @weirdly-amazing . Also, I have the urge to make this into anOTHER ask blog, but I realized jeanryde already did something rly similar and so I would feel like a copycat. 

 In the Rp, Alfred is a 23 year old rouge vampire, physically 21 (I changed it to 19 for the ID bc canon aph things) who eventually becomes Arthur’s Supernatural aid.

 Arthur is a hunter who is hunting a coven of Vampires and awkwardly takes Alfred as his Aid. 

Both are extremely attracted to each other, but as the rules say; A Para aid and a Hunter must strictly be platonic, and as we all know Arthur is a stickler for the rules. Alfred could care less.

(The Para universe is not related to SPN, it obviously takes the same creatures and etc but follows a more strict hierarchy, similar to Ministry of Magic) 

The Symbolic Use of Special Effects in Snowpiercer

written by K.K 

*CONTAINS SPOILERS*

The use of special effects in film has long been a highly debated area in the film industry. Resentment for special effects largely stems from the idea that it distracts the audience from the narrative of the film and thus threatens the realism that the film presents. Therefore, digital technologies makes filmic images fraudulent by imposing the artificial on the real.

Snowpiercer is a 2013 science fiction film by South Korean director Boog Joon Ho. The film follows a self-sustaining train that circulates the Earth yearlong at a constant high speed. It was created and developed to withstand the extreme temperatures that inflict the Earth in this apocalyptic world. The last of humanity is situated on this train as the consequence of the Earth entering a world-wide ice age. This was caused by an experimental substance that was launched into the atmosphere 17 years ago in the hope to neutralise the Earth’s climate that had been destroyed by environmental damaged. Interestingly, the train embodies an even stricter and more apparent classist hierarchy that had been modelled from pre-apocalyptic times. The first few carriages of the train are for the 1% that managed to secure their spot through hefty initial payments. The end few carriages are reserved for the ‘free loaders’. They are required to give up their labour, skills, children and livelihood for the running and maintenance of the train. Upward mobility is strictly prohibited. The plot follows the uprising of the end carriage and their attempts to force their way to the first carriage. 

Upon first glance, Snowpiercer appears to be only about class struggles and the perils of capitalism. However, Snowpiercer also tackles notions of simulation, hyperreality and the relationship between the real and the artificial as defined by Baudrillard (1994). As a modern science fiction film, it also physically showcases a range of technologically advanced special effect features.

As a large quantity of the film is set inside the train, Snowpiercer displays incredibly advanced CGI to produce a seamless image of a constantly moving train. It is only half way through the film that the viewer catches a glimpse of the outside world through a window in the middle carriages. This glimpse is dramatised in two ways. As the story follows the members of the last carriage, the viewer is placed to directly experience the visual images of these characters. As the last carriage members push their way through the tight security driven nature of the carriages, a sudden drop in music occurs when they suddenly come across windows. The dusky tones of the dank, diseased driven and morbid last carriages in the first half of the film is contrasted with the icy and bright tones of the outside world. The dramatisation of this serves not only to visually and sensually please the viewer but also highlight the real and the artificial. For many of the characters in the film, they have not seen the outside or ‘real’ world for 17 years. Other characters do not even know the outside world as they were born on the train. The importance of this fact is emphasised through the constant referral to ‘train babies’ and the portrayal of their naivety. One such train baby character exclaims, “In the whole wide train?” in response to an adult bribing him for his protein snack. The train is a metaphor for the hyperreal. The realism of the hyperreal is only put into question when the characters are able to distinguish between the real and the artificial - the view of the outside world and the inside of the train. As this scene suggests, the real is realised only through the juxtaposition of the artificial. In this way the real is produced only through a pre-existed hyperreality.

Notions of the real and the artificial are explored further through the film. The aim of the tail carriage passengers is to reach the first carriage and demand equality within the train. They have no intentions of entering the ‘outside world’. The train, the copy of their pre-apocalyptic world, is their hyperreality. Their mission is very much linear. This is emphasised literally as their physical journey through the train is also linear. However, two characters, father and daughter, push past the linear mentality of all the passengers by seeking to exit the train, thereby exiting the artificial reality the creator of the train had produced and reinforced. 

The final scene is the biggest twist in the film; the train eventually fails and is destroyed by the upheaval caused by the passengers. Through a series of frantic events, the film ends with two train babies escaping the rumble of the train as the sole survivors. The daughter of the security technician and a little boy who was forcibly removed from the last carriage in order to physically provide his body to upkeep the movement of the train, are the survivors. To their shock, they entered the ‘real’ world and are not killed by the atmosphere and intense cold as described by the adults on the train. The ice is melting, the Earth has renewed. This twist in the film takes an interesting spin on the real and the artificial. Is the train really the artificial? Is the outside world really the real? The outside world does not resemble what it once was, nor do the two surviving characters have any knowledge of the outside world. As train babies, the real world to them was the supposed hyperreal. The real and the artificial do not have distinct set boundaries, they are undefinable.

image

As suggested above, Snowpiercer embodies the concept of the real and the artificial in its narrative. Interestingly, digital technologies are used to create special effects to aid the narrative. Both the outside world and the inside world uses CGI to enhance the images captured on camera. Therefore visually, both the real and the artificial are indistinguishable in terms of visual manipulation, thus symbolising that the real and the artificial are too indistinguishable. It is interesting to note however, that much of the outside world, as seen through the windows in the train, have been totally computerised. This encourages the viewer to challenge preconceived notions of the real and the artificial. The special effects in Snowpiercer do not detract from the narrative of the film, but in turn strengthens it.

Bong Joon Ho’s, Snowpiercer, cleverly showcases the way digital technologies have enabled filmmakers to explore powerful new forms of images through special effects. Most importantly, the rise of digital technologies and the subsequent debate surrounding the jeopardy of the ‘purity’ of film has enabled filmmakers, like Bong Joon Ho, to create powerful and artistic commentary on the notions of the real and the artificial.

Gravity Falls AU:

Ford goes to Gravity Falls, and, instead of researching the monsters, he goes there to kill them. He eventually gets Fiddleford to help him with a memory erasing gun, creating the Society of the Blind Eye, only it’s more powerful and efficient. It’s more of a hierarchy, with people higher in the ranks not being allowed to use the gun as much. This allows for better enforcement of rules and better suppresion of memories; if anyone comes to town looking for information on it’s more interesting backstory, half the population doesn’t know what you’re talking about and the other half is out to get you for it.

So Ford goes out and kills monsters, sparing some every now and then as allies, but ready to kill them if they step out of line or aren’t of any more use. He does this because he believes that anomalies do nothing but harm. His 11th and 12th fingers, for example, only brought him and his brother pain and suffering throughout their childhood. Ford eventually finds out about Bill, and has his dream meeting. They end up working on a device that extracts anomalous abilities rather than a portal; Ford wants to harness magic.

One day, after this machine is built, Ford takes down a pack of Blink Dogs, a monster based on D&D. They’re basically dogs that can teleport at will. The pack leader just so happened to be an especially powerful blink dog who could teleport not only from place to place, but dimension to dimension. This dog had a younger brother dog who could do the same, but Ford chose this one to battle. The dog ended up teleporting him to another dimension, and they ended up having an interdimensional battle that ended up with Ford chasing it down through multiple dimensions.

Ford still has the Journals, but he hides them in different places in the forest so that a brain-washed citizen wouldn’t stumble upon them. Unfortunately, Journal 2 fell to ground as Ford was interdimensionally teleported by the Blink Dog, so Gideon ended up finding it. The Gleefuls bribed the SotBE into letting them keep their memories.

Stan ends up coming to Gravity Falls and saving Ford about on schedule by killing the other Blink Dog and using the anomaly machine to pull Ford back to his dimension.

When Dipper and Mabel come to Gravity Falls, the monsters in the forest are less plentiful, and more paranoid, and especially xenophobic towards humans. The SotBE are out to get them, and McGucket is kinda like a cult leader. He still has about half of his mind left….

Anyways, that’s all I’ve got. I should probably write some fanfics, but this is public property.

2017:

no more ego! no more artistic hierarchy! no more pretending that anyone is worth less than you are! no more using your anxiety as an excuse to not form relationships with people that like and respect you! no time to act like you have some sort of dominance over others! no time to not bring up the people that you’ve surrounded yourself with! no more sucking up to people because you think they’re better than you! no time for false care! this is a nuclear age! the very verge of atomic destruction! the sun is going to devour the biosphere so what in gods name makes you feel like you are more than just a speck of dust on a freshly birthed blade of grass! prepare to die and stop making your peers feel worthless!

Happy Valentine’s Day, @dystolilo

Stiles would like to register a complaint with his high school guidance counselors. Because they lied about what college was going to be like. All through high school, teachers and counselors and adults all professed that college was going to be great. It’s going to be so much better than high school.

Well they lied.

College is torture.

Okay fine, not all of it is torture. There are some aspects that are pretty awesome compared to high school. Like, you don’t sit in one building with the same people day in and day out. You get to go to class a couple times a day, spending maybe 4 hours of your day in a classroom. And then you’re free to do other things.

Other things like take a nap.

And in college Stiles doesn’t have to deal with a lot of the things he dealt with in high school. No more social hierarchy controlling who is a friend with whom. No more Harris out to get him in some twisted revenge because of who Stiles’ dad is. No more close-minded, homophobic bullies messing with him for his tendencies to flirt with good looking girls and guys. No more dinners alone because his dad picked up a late shift to cover for a deputy.

For the last three years Stiles has mostly enjoyed college. Getting to take classes he enjoys. Getting to study things he’s actually interested in. Having the freedom to try new things, like dating whoever he wants to. Enjoying the companionship and comradery of his brothers in his fraternity.

But it’s not all sunshine and daisies, despite the California weather. There are 8am classes that are only offered at 8am so there’s no avoiding them. There’s late nights doing homework he procrastinated and anxiety driven study sessions for tests he forgot about. There’s learning to manage his time after one too many missed assignments. There’s finding internships and trying to network at career fairs because in less than a year he’s going to be a part of the real world, looking for a job just like everyone else.

The torture comes in all forms. Anxiety over the future. Stress over the work due in the present. Hangovers from poor decision making in the past.

But Derek Hale is the sweetest kind of torture.

Keep reading

Can we take a second to talk about
 this  & &  discuss  the  implications? 

Okay, you kill someone, you get their power, yes? So, does that mean that Lexa killed the former commander, to become Commander herself? Like yes, I know that, in season two, she said that ‘the commander’s spirit chose her’, but what if that statement wasn’t alluding toward reincarnation, but more of an hierarchy, almost. 

Let’s examine that: What do we know?

Firstly, from an interview with ADC, we know that Lexa is training the next generation of warriors/leaders, one of which will become the next commander. In this interview, she states, and I quote ‘she (lexa) has to distance herself from them (the kids) because she knows that, the moment she weakens, everything falls.’ (x)

So, what if this is similar to a ‘potential slayer’ (via buffy tvs) kind of thing, in which each new, potential commander is taken and trained for the day that they might become commander, once the current commander dies? But, with a twist: When/if the current commander begins to show signs of not doing their job properly, it’s the duty/responsibility of one of the ‘potential commanders’ to kill her, gain her power, and take her place. 

Now, Commanders are supposed to be pretty powerful, right? I mean, this is a culture that only respects/follows strength, so killing them wouldn’t be an easy thing —- which is where the ‘Commander’s Spirit’ thing comes in. It’s safe to say that only another powerful person (say, perhaps, the next commander) would have the skill/strength to kill the current, in which case, they ‘absorb’ the true strength of the commander, aka the ‘commander’s spirit’.

We also know that Nia, the Ice Queen, wants to kill both Lexa and Clarke, gain both their power, and, in effect, rule the clans. This plan, however, wouldn’t really work all that well if, as soon as Nia killed Lexa, Lexa’s spirit simply found another kid or teenager or whatever, to become commander. It’d kinda all be for nothing, right? And she’d just have to keep killing whomever the Commander’s spirit chose for absolutely no reason —- it’d be one big cycle of pointless

UNLESS, in killing Lexa, NIA gained the Commander’s spirit (and, by that logic, Clarke’s as well).

But then comes the question of, what if the Commander is killed by an animal (the pauna, for instance) or disease, wound in battle, whatever the case may be? What happens to the Commander’s spirit, then? Well, I have a theory for that, as well. Let’s say, Lexa is killed by a disease (GOD FORBID). Then, her little flock of potential commanders (or, anyone else that wants to be commander) would, in effect, duke it out, thunder-dome style, in a series of exhibition matches —- the last one standing (or, in this case, the most powerful) ‘gains’ the commander’s spirit. 

It seems kinda far-fetched, I know, but think about the trailers we’ve seen. Lexa is fighting in a thunder-dome style match —- I’M assuming her position was challenged, and she’s defending it —- in the first episode of season three, we hear Indra say that ‘leaving on the mountain has weakened Lexa’….or, something of that effect. So, based on my theory, it would make sense that Lexa was fighting a challenger that wants her position, potentially even one of the ‘potential commanders’. (it seems like she’s fighting Roan, but really, we know absolutely NOTHING about him, so it’s a possibility.)

I mean, we don’t know much about former commanders, nor do we know much about how Lexa, herself became commander, beyond how old she was && it’s safe to say that we don’t know all the much about Grounder culture, either. 

Sep 19, 2012: [X]

From the archives.

youtube

Still a great beginner to Anarchism video. Might be a bit long and dry for the newbies so I’ll abridge it for you here in bullet points. If you want more detail I suggest watching the video or even messaging me or anyone I suggest.  

  • Anarchists believe that hierarchies, including but not limited to the state (nations) and capitalism (economic system fueled by profits), should be demolished if they cannot be proven to be justified or necessary. 
  • Is the state justified or necessary? Wouldn’t brutes rise to power if we get rid of the state and choose anarchy? It’s important to make the distinction that a stateless society is not necessarily the same as an anarchist society. 
  • The state produces more hierarchies and it does not cancel out other vertical relationships in society. The state is a centralized institution with a monopoly on violence. It is a large concentration of power that attracts people who want to exercise that power. You cannot use the state as  a tool to reduce hierarchies because it is ran by people who love hierarchies.
  • Politicians love power. They support war because war gives them an opportunity to exercise that collected power for the sake of getting more power. War gives politicians the power to plunder resources from other countries. To pass laws that wouldn’t be acceptable in a time of peace. To profit off of arms dealings with allies and enemies alike.
  • In an anarchist society where capitalism and the state are abolished, decentralized (no centered position of power) freely associated (people choosing to contribute to everything) worker collectives (think labor unions where the bossless workers directly own the means of production) would directly carry out decision making based on consensus democracy. This structure is engineered in such a way that brutes cannot rise to power. 
  • Is capitalism more or less hierarchical than anarchism? More. Much much more. 
  • Those that own private property have authority over those who have nothing to sell but themselves. Here’s an important distinction: Private property means the land, tools, and resources that are directly used for producing something. Personal property means your house, your car, your Xbox, your toothbrush, or something that you use regularly in life. Anarchists are solely interested in collectivizing (the workers directly managing) the means of production. We do not care about seizing and collectivizing your toothbrush.  
  • Capitalism endorses the wage labor system with a boss-worker relationship where for every $8 you make an hour, your boss makes a killing with every sale. This relationship is clearly hierarchical and exploitative. 
  • Anarchists want to abolish the wage system and private property to replace it with worker self-management (no bosses lurking over you!) and free associations (join and work with whatever you want!).
  • In capitalism, competition is a requirement for achieving better goods and services where there is always a winner and a loser. In anarchism, cooperation is the requirement where no one loses as they would in capitalism. 


  • But don’t people need a leader of some kind? Since states create leaders, wouldn’t statism be preferable to anarchism? Not necessarily. 
  • The state isn’t an institution which satisfies the individual’s need for leadership. People are subordinate to the state regardless of whether they vote. The people are not autonomous with the presence of the state. We cannot peacefully terminate our relationship to the state at any time. Statism isn’t benign leadership, it’s stressful domination. 
  • An anarchist society definitely could satisfy the need for leadership. Anarchists do not reject every single authority out there in the world. We reject the authorities that are unjust, unnecessary, coercive, and parasitic. 
  • Wanna learn how to paint? Go see a painter! Your shoes are ripped? Go see a shoe maker! Need an education? Find a teacher! As long as the relationship is voluntary, you’re autonomous, and you can terminate it at any time, we support it!


  • The most common objection to anarchism is “but if there are no rules or laws, chaos would spring forth and it’ll be like the Purge!”
  • Anarchists are against rulers. We are not against rules. Rules are statements that are represented by certain criteria. We are, however, against laws that are unethical or immoral. We prefer to focus on what’s right or wrong defined by us, the individuals, not what’s legal or illegal defined by the state. We want the power to directly decide what we want, not trust someone to impose their will and what they think is right or wrong upon all of us.