Something I want to note about homeless shelters-in many districts in the US homeless people have no rights to nondiscrimination in shelters and discrimination is rampant.
Some courts will insist that homeless shelters don’t count as housing or as public accommodations and don’t apply the non-discrimination laws that would affect even something like an ordinary restaurant (though those are grossly under-enforced in general). There are shelters who have received public money that have been legally allowed to discriminate in regards to things like gender, race, sexuality, trans status, religion, and disability.
Even if homeless people had the sort of resources to sue for equal access in court, which they don’t in reality have in any substantial way at all, there are large swaths of the US where they would just be told the law doesn’t apply to them.
Homeless shelters are a major area of discrimination in the US. It’s not uncommon for LGBT people, POC (especially Black people), disabled people, non-Christians, drug users, women, mothers who are homeless with their children, teenage boys/teenage male assigned at birth kids trying to be housed with their mothers and siblings (this usually happens to children of color far more than white children), domestic abuse victims, immigrants, leftists, people who speak English as a second language or have limited English, and many others to face pretty intense discrimination in accessing even the extremely limited amount of homeless shelters that do exist. And the law absolutely fails them in a myriad of ways over and over again.
If I as a queer trans person tried to access a shelter, including ones that take public funds, and they just flat out told me they don’t serve LGBT people it’s not even clearly illegal in the US, just as it wouldn’t be clearly illegal for them to refuse to make the building one I could physically use as a disabled person. While I haven’t lived in a shelter, I’ve heard numerous horror stories from people I knew personally, and the closest shelter to where I live (which is still over an hour drive away, which, how would I even get there?) is one that refuses to serve people like me.
While there are some very good shelter workers out there and some programs that really are respectful and caring to the people they are supposed to serve, abuse, paternalistic control, theocratic bullshit, and discrimination are extremely common. And the social and legal systems typically choose to support and enable that abuse. This system is no substitute for a real robust public emergency housing program, let alone a full housing or adequate public housing system.
My dad says Zoo's are becoming politically incorrect. I've seen both arguments but I wanna hear your opinion on it: do you think Zoo's are a good idea?
Well, let’s see if I can keep this response short.
First, I’m guessing that by ‘politically correct’ you mean ‘ethically sound.’ So, is keeping animals in zoos an ethical thing to do? As with many things, there is no easy or even single answer to that question.
Without a doubt, there are bad zoos- private or roadside zoos, zoos that keep their animals in abhorrent conditions, zoos that allow visitors to engage in unsafe things like cub-petting schemes. It is obvious that these types of zoos are unethical and exploitative.
(Hint: something like this is never a good sign.)
On the other hand, what constitutes a ‘good’ zoo? In the best captive conditions currently available, is it okay to keep an animal locked up? Some say no, no matter what; some say what we have now isn’t good enough. Others say yes- the best zoos are able to provide their captives with good lives.
This of course brings us to just what a ‘good’ life is. Those who say that animals should never ever be placed in captivity usually value a sense of freedom above all else. Even in perfect captive conditions, an animal will not be free, wild, or ‘natural.’
However, we must acknowledge that ‘freedom’ is a concept created and defined by humans. A human locked in a prison knows the difference between captivity and freedom, and is able to conceptualize that certain ‘rights’ that they have are being violated. But for animals, this may be too complex to perceive. How far back do you have to move a fence before a kudu decides that he is wild again? The idea that animals sense when they are ‘free’ versus ‘not free’ is, to me, not realistic.
Animals do, however, benefit from the ability to be free to make choices, such as what they eat, where they will go, who they will interact with, and so on. Undeniably, captivity presents animals with fewer choices of these kinds than they would have in the wild. The best zoos are now implementing programs to accommodate these choices, particularly with highly intelligent animals such as elephants and apes.
One such example: the “O Line” at the Smithsonian National Zoo allows orangutans to choose one of two buildings to stay in during the day. Other animals, such as the otters, can choose whether or not to be on exhibit via spaces in their enclosure that are sheltered from the public. Scatter feeding and foraging enrichment is yet another way that zoos allow animals to choose what food they want to eat.
Still, despite these improvements, there will always be limitations of choice in captive environments compared to wild ones by the very definition of ‘captivity.’ Furthermore, while many strides have been taken to update enclosures with choices in mind, the fact remains that the implementation of behavioral science in zoos lags behind the research due to the costs, and often due to the stress of the animals themselves when trying to adjust to new schedules and norms (even if they are theoretically better ones).
A forty-year old captive elephant will have lived through decades of zoo reform, and we can’t erase those negative experiences from her mind.
One danger of comparing captive animals to their wild counterparts is assuming that captive environments should mirror the wild ones as closely as possible. But what the wild even is is not well-defined. ‘Wild’ deer roam my suburban neighborhood: should that habitat be replicated in their zoo enclosure? Wild environments include predators, diseases, and natural disasters: is it better that those be implemented in zoos as well?
In actuality, an animal born in captivity likely has no sense of what its natural environment should look like. Certainly it has natural instincts and inclinations- a tiger likes to urine-mark vertical objects and a gibbon likes to climb- but neither of them specifically needs a tree to do this with- a post or rope swing would also work. The ‘naturalistic’ look of many zoo enclosures is actually for the benefit of the visitors, not the animals. In fact, a lush, well-planted habitat could still be an abysmal one for an animal if all of its needs aren’t being met.
This brings us to one of the most important aspects of zoos: the visitors. Theoretically, one of the major purposes of good zoos is to educate and inspire the public about animals, particularly in regards to their conservation. But do zoos actually do this?
The answer is yes… to a small extent. People given surveys upon entering and leaving a zoo exhibit generally do know slightly more about the animals than they used to, but this depends a lot on how educated they were to begin with. While many visitors express an increased desire to engage in conservation efforts after leaving a zoo, not many of them have actually followed up on it when surveyed again a few weeks later. Still, most zoo visitors seem to leave the zoo with several positive if perhaps short-term effects: interest in conservation, appreciation for animals, and the desire to learn more. If a visitor experiences a “connection” with an animal during their visit, these effects are greatly increased.
However, certain types of animal “connections” and interactions can also produce a negative effect on zoo visitors. This reflects what I said earlier about the naturalistic design of habitats being more for the visitors than the animals. Individuals who view animals performing non-natural behaviors (such as a chimpanzee wearing clothes and acting ‘human,’ or a tiger coming up to be petted) are less likely to express an increased interest in their conservation, and even less likely to donate money towards it. Generally, our own perception of freedom and wildness matters much more than the individual animal’s.
The fact of the matter is that, worldwide, zoos spend about $350 million dollars on wildlife conservation each year. That is a tremendous amount of money, and it comes from visitors and donations. What amount of discomfort on the part of captive animals is worth that money being devoted to their wild counterparts? It’s hard to say.
This is a very, VERY general overview of some of the ethical issues surrounding zoos; to go over it all, I’d need to write a book. But hopefully, it got you thinking a little bit about what your own opinion on all this is. (I didn’t explicitly state mine on purpose, though it’s probably fairly clear.)
Here’s an idea. Instead of completely banning children from electronic devices in an age when every real life activity and adult necessity depends increasingly heavily on phone and Internet access, give them realistic guidelines and teach them stranger danger like you would with going in public.
Sheltering makes people more vulnerable to blindly walking into the situations you are trying to protect them from.
Victoria: Will cook something to take your mind off your anxiety or at least distract you for a second. And if food doesn’t work, she’ll try to cheer you up through goofy and silly means, by making you laugh.
Amber:*ignore the captions pls* She’s surprisingly very serious. Instead of joking around and acting her silly self, she’s very serious whenever your anxiety gets the better of you.
“I know there’s no magic words to ease your anxiety but I’ll always be here for you. Take deep breaths and don’t pressure yourself. If you’re not ready to do this, then you’re not, there’s nothing wrong with that. Do you want to get ice cream instead?”
Luna: Tries her best to encourage (not pressure!!!) you to conquer your anxiety. With baby steps, she’ll be your shoulder to lean on during situations that make you anxious. Whether it’s calling someone, going to the checkout or speaking in public; she’ll be there to encourage and cheer you on. But also reassure you if you’re not yet ready to overcome this situation.
Sulli: She’s a very calming soul, just her presence relaxes you when you’re feeling anxious. She’ll remove you from that situation, take you to the comfort of your home and play relaxing music.
“Would you like some tea? Or do you want to talk about how you feel? I’m always ready to listen to you. Always.”
Krystal: Protects but also attacks, when necessary. Whenever your anxiety gets to you, she grows extra protective and shelters you from the public gaze. And if anyone tries to force you into a situation that makes you anxious (e.g giving a speech) she’ll put that person in their place.
I never got why people think “not all men” is “taking attention away from women’s issues” In fact, whenever men bring up that they have it bad too, they tend to get silenced by feminists who throw this argument back at them claiming “we’re not talking about all men, it’s just too many men!”
You do realize that only a minority of men are actually bad people right? Oh wait you also don’t want to realize that a small amount of women do bad things too because they’re oh so perfect somehow.
If anything, feminists are the ones trying to take what little attention we have away from men’s issues because they hate the idea that men have it bad too. (making sure there aren’t any male shelters, invading any public speech events about male issues, etc) Like seriously, we’re just trying to have a conversation, why is only one gender allowed to talk about their issues but the other isn’t while they’re doing that?
You feminists really should stop worrying about anyone taking your attention from struggles that women have. It gets all the attention, and we’re not trying to take that away from you. All I ask is that you stop doing what you think we’re doing.
This is Rosie. She’s a 10 year old tabby cat who we adopted from the shelter 3 days ago.
Since then, the amount of people who have asked “why didn’t you look for a kitten?” or “are you sure you want to adopt such an old animal?” or “adopting her is a waste, you should look for a younger cat!” is unreal.
Did you know that cats have an average lifespan of 13-17 years but can live to well over the age of 20? Or that senior pets who are considered the ‘least adoptable pet’ can take on average of 4 times longer than the average adoptable pet to find a home? Or that senior pets are the first to be euthanized because our society is obsessed with the cute baby puppies and kitties, only to grow bored with them as they get older, and then give them back to the shelter so they can not be chosen against the little kitty they once were and then be put down? Not a single person who asked me any of those questions knew any of that information.
I could go on about how senior animals have already developed their personalities so what you see is what you get or that they have a better temperament and better manners than their younger counterparts or that they’re usually already trained so you have to do less work once you bring them home and your carpets will suffer less. But I’ll stick with the one major point I want to get across.
SENIOR ANIMALS NEED HOMES TOO.
JUST BECAUSE THEY ENDED UP AT A SHELTER AT AN OLD AGE DOES NOT MEAN THERE WAS ANYTHING WRONG WITH THEM.
ADOPT SENIOR ANIMALS.
This little angel was given up by her owners after 10 years, left in a box on the shelter’s doorstep with a note saying they didn’t want her anymore because she was too fat and they tried to make her lose weight and couldn’t. And so she sat in the shelter for 112 days. Missing the only family she’d ever known, in a room full of strange cats, and constantly being poked and prodded by strangers all day long. And I am not a cat person whatsoever, I’ll make that clear right now. I’ve been bitten and hissed at by almost every cat I’ve ever come in contact with. But the second I saw Rosie at the shelter, I was drawn to her and before I knew it, she stole my heart right outta my chest. Since then, every day she warms up to us more and more, forever purring like a little tugboat and chirping away at us, her true personality starting to peek through little by little.
Rosie deserves a happy life, surrounded by people who love her and a dog who tolerates her (their relationship is a work in progress 😅), just as much as any kitten does. She may be old but she’s certainly not broken and even if she only makes it to the 13 instead of the 17, at least her last few years will be spent in her home, with a family, and not a homeless shelter.
So moral of the story, adopt. Go out to your local animal shelter and adopt. If you can’t adopt, donate, volunteer, or sign up to participate in their read to the animals activities or whatever your shelter does. But if you can, don’t just stick to the tiny, cute ones. Older babies need homes too and they are just as precious and lovable as the tiny ones and I promise you that it’ll be one of the best decisions you ever make.
One Year Performance 1981-1982 (Outdoor Piece). Tehching Hsieh (謝德慶). Performance Art.
Tehching Hsieh (b. 1950) is a Taiwanese-American performance artist known for his series of one-year performance pieces that took place between 1978 and 1986. For his third one-year piece, from September 26, 1981 to September 26, 1982, Hsieh lived outdoors in New York City armed with only a backpack and a sleeping bag, and did not allow himself to enter any buildings or other kinds of shelter, including public transportation. During this time, Hsieh meticulously documented his movements around the city, provoking questions about homelessness, invisibility, and public/private spheres within urban space. On one occasion, Hsieh was arrested for an altercation with another man, and had to spend fifteen hours under shelter. However, on both of his court dates, the judges allowed Hsieh to remain outside of the building to preserve the integrity of his art. Hsieh’s performance piece also happened to coincide with one of the coldest winters in NYC history.
Tehching Hsieh’s One Year Performance 1980-1981 (Time Clock Piece) was previously featured by sinθ here.
Here in the US most TV shows end for perfectly valid reasons whether we agree with them or not. Producing a show is not cheap by any means and if the show isn’t performing well or making enough money to offset the cost of producing it it’s gonna get cut. And it sucks. Viewers think it’s hard on them when they’re favorite show gets cut are only experiencing a tenth of what the people who depend on those shows as their livelihood are feeling.
So when a show is doing really well Studios would do almost anything to keep that wagon train going because it is going to help fund the next might fail project. If a show does happen to end while it’s still on top it’s usually because either the creators know when to say when or the show’s leading person doesn’t want to go on and without them, the show would certainly fail.
However, I imagine the Norwegian entertainment industry doesn’t quite work that way. For one thing, while our teenaged actors are more exposed than your everyday teen is they’re still fairly well sheltered from the general public. Whereas the Skam teens are out there exposed for anyone to come and see. That can’t be easy no matter how much they may act like it is.
Imagine if you will one day you wake up and instead of maybe a couple of hundred people knowing who you are a couple of million do. I understand that Julie and the people over at NRK have done their best to shield the actors but the bigger the show got the more unrealistic that goal became. But shoutout to them for trying.
For Skam to go out now when it has become a worldwide sensation it has to be either because Julie doesn’t have any stories left to tell (which I highly doubt considering all she’s trying to ram into the final season) or the show has become too big and it is tumbling wildly out of their control.
Whatever the reason may be I will be sad to see it go. But I’m glad I had the opportunity to experience it while I had the chance.
A filmstrip presentation produced in 1960 by the U.S. Office of Civil and Defense Mobilization for use in the “Home Preparedness Workshops” held in local communities. Target audience was the average American housewife and homemaker of the period. This is number 2 in a series of 5 filmstrips made by the OCDM for use in the Home Preparedness Workshop.
The Sorrowful Dawn الفجر الحزين is an Iraqifilm that was produced shortly after the events of Al Amiriya Air-Raid-Shelter bombing in Baghdad. The one-hour film portrays the lives of Iraqis from different social, economic, and religious backgrounds as they cope with the events preceding the attack on Al Amiriya Shelter by the U.S Air Force, mainly relating to those who took shelter in “Public Shelter 25” in Al Amiriya district.
Al Amiriyah shelter was bombed on 13th of February 1991 by the United States Airforce. During operation Desert Storm, the U.S Airforce deliberately and belligerently targeted the underground shelter leaving more than 400 people dead, the vast majority were women and children.
The film is directed by one of Iraq’s most famous directors Salah Karam صلاح كرم, who has directed films and shows like “The Wolves of the Night” and “Men of Shadow”. Real scenes from the events of the bombing are employed throughout the film providing a great deal of authenticity to the story. In addition to the beautiful and emotionally charging background music by Naseer Shamma نصير شمة, the film features a group of Iraq’s elite actors and actresses such as Yussef Al Ani يوسف العاني, Asiya Kamal آسيا كمال, Hadel Kamel هديل كامل, and Bahjat Al Juboori بهجت الجبوري.
People camp and sleep on the beach in Bormes-les-Mimosas, southern France, at sunrise on July 27, 2017 where they took refuge after being evacuated from their campsite due to the fire. Thousands of tourists fled to the safety of public shelters after a fire broke out overnight in the village of Bormes-les-Mimosas, on the Cote d'Azur, and swept towards the area’s campsites. Local residents joined firefighters in southern France on July 26, 2017 to battle blazes that have forced over 10,000 people to flee and left chunks of coastal forest a blackened mess. ANNE-CHRISTINE POUJOULAT / AFP