peace pigeon

now go in peace

american evangelicalism is based a lot on Belief in your religion as axiomatic Fact and at the same time a very buddy-buddy view of god where Jesus is like, your cool dad. Both of which are not very good for allowing the numinous and divine "mystery" to exist

So I think we assume people throughout history would default to "things I don't understand are of the devil." when very often they would instead be "things I don't understand are of God."

There's this weird idea that autistics only develop special interests in this very narrow stereotypical STEM-field domain of life, also, which is total nonsense. Of course religion autistics are a thing. Judaism, too, has a lot of room for autistics: you develop very deep spheres of knowledge, about which you argue constantly, and prayer is sung and you get to move back and forth during it rhythmically.

He can only tolerate about 2 different fabrics against his skin.

And can only eat about 5 foods for obvious food texture reasons.

He hums softly and continually.

He never looks at people.

He has a bunch of other people-related sensitivities, like the inability to tolerate a lot of sounds and nearly all perfume smells.

He has about 3 topics of conversation, which are a) tractors, b) agriculture, and c) Rottweilers.

And you know what? He has had a nice long life of being a Rural Farmer and gets along great with other old farmer dudes who want to talk dogs-tractors-farming with him. 

We know this because archeology shows over and over again a great level of care and because these traits are still present - they had to get passed on somehow.  And we know it because we too feel love for others, despite them constantly failing to live up to any ideal whatsoever.

After I realised I was autistic and started exploring what that really meant, I thought back on my life growing up with my dad, understanding him in ways nobody else understood us--even my mom--and about stories like that from his youth, and realised how obviously autistic he is, too. But my grandma loved him and put in the extra care, on top of seven other kids to keep track of, to know what he liked and accommodate his needs.

His family just made room for him. His friends just made room for him. So he could still fit. They didn't know about autism but there was just a little my-dad-shaped space in a bunch of people's lives and that was fine.

And I think about how many people are just like that, and always have been when small communities are left to their own devices. Not all of them, not ever all when it comes to people, but so many. Whether it's someone with thoughts too big for their age who must have been gifted by the divine, or someone so impressively good at one thing that they become a local community resource, or just someone who is extremely serious about unmelted cheese. They still belonged.

We were a little strange or a lot strange, but we were still someone's. And as such we have so often been beloved. Humans, on the whole, take care of what's theirs, or at least try their best; if what's theirs is a bit different then they figure out how to accommodate that in practical ways. It's just not that hard. Whether they ever cared about what autism was or not, or why we are the way we are, we have been loved. That isn't a new concept, and the proposal that it is is horrifying and telling.

There was a big push to eliminate "degrading jobs" but the strategy was to eliminate the position, then create a new position outside of the bargaining unit to do the work. So like, we wouldn't have dishwashers, but we'd have people who washed dishes that weren't eligible to be in the union.

I was like A) what the actual fuck? Dish washing isn't "degrading", it's fucking vital. B) What the actual fuck? You want to create a union just to exploit different people?

The first time someone told me that busing tables was "degrading", I was like "Oh, uhh, yeah, like it's very necessary work but under compensated for how vital it is?" and they responded "No, touching plates that other people have eaten off of is disgusting."

In bargaining, someone on the Union side suggested that we eliminate all the cashiers and exclusively use self-checkouts (they were a cashier and didn't like it). The organizer told them that the union wasn't in the habit of eliminating bargaining unit positions. (This is the same person I've talked about how said that "as a prison abolitionist" we just needed to execute most criminals.)

It got me thinking, along with Ann Russell talking about how to treat cleaners (being a cleaner herself), about how we conceptualise domestic service as particularly degrading in all its forms, when, really, why is that? Why is paying someone to do something intrinsically bad?

Like, even in a moneyless, gift economy society, there would still be people whose primary contribution to their communities would be cleaning. Some people like to clean, and are really rather good at it.

I've talked ad nauseam in the past about how British attitudes towards cleaners and other service based positions today are the descendants of Victorian attitudes. That is, both the attitudes of conservatives and many progressives of that time. The trade union movement was particularly exclusionary towards service workers.

Babies were being born to ecstatic parents the same day my government started the war with Iran. Someone's grandmother has died on every birthday any of us have ever had. I got a rejection letter from a job I really wanted the day my friends got married. All kinds of good things and bad things are happening at all levels from the micro to the macro, from severe to minor, at every single minute of every single day.

I collaborated with the Human Artistry Project to make this strip alongside other web cartoonists to make the point that “Stealing isn’t Innovation” when it comes to A.I. usage. It seems to be doing numbers on instagram and elsewhere, so you may also read it here, tumblr.

I’m sorry but that’s thinking way too small, hear me out:

We need to have Miss Piggy as Odysseus, and Kermit as Penelope.

Think about it… who’s the more fickle, prideful, warlike one in that relationship? Who is absolutely ready to go ham, at a moment’s notice?

He's the hottest guy in the MLH! He's a generational talent, a hockey prodigy, a genius tactician on the ice. rookie of the year, TWO time cup winner before he's 25. he's determined, brave, dedicated, loves with his whole heart, is an absolute freak in the sheets, loves (ilya's) dick like it was made to be in his mouth at all times, and on top of allll that, he's hot AF!

i mean, have you seen his ass in all its glory?? and his slutty little waist? or how about when he rode ilya like tomorrow would never come? have you seen him fingerbang himself to the point that /the/ ilya rozanov lost his composure, after which he crawls across the bed just so he can get his mouth closer to that dick?

i'm so, so tired of people infantilizing shane and thinking he's a cutie patootie who needs pats on the head and to be carried around in someone's pocket. nah, no, nope. people need to start putting some respect on his name!

anyway, i hope you're having a nice day. happy shane hollander thoughts to you.

PERRRIOOODDDDDDDDDDDD yes say that!!!!!! Always!!!!! He is sooooooo fucking hot I can't stand it. And his freakiness has legit inspired me to give in to mine a lot more lmao.

BAMF Shane fics are some of my all time favorites because I feel like, yeah, because his character arc is him opening up to his sexuality a bit and being more vulnerable (especially in the beginning) people tend to just....infantilize him? Like he's not a full ass jock and elite athlete? Like he's not more masc than Ilya in some ways? I love my chaotic bisexual asshole son but just because he tops doesn't mean he's not the more flamboyant one in a lot of ways (part of that is just being European instead of Canadian, but I digress). What I love about this show especially (and what some people seem to be missing somehow) is how the idea of what it means to be masculine is challenged, and how the d/s power dynamic between them doesn't actually translate to this weird heteronormative idea of who's the so-called man and the so-called woman in terms of power dynamics. They're EQUALS. That's the whole point. Both elite athletes, both top of the league, both respected by their peers. Ilya can hide behind women and being white in a way that Shane can't, but that doesn't mean Shane isn't some little bohoo baby that can't defend himself. They're PARTNERS. They both need each other at different times. Ilya is soft and gentle when Shane is feeling insecure about sex, Shane is soft and gentle in Tampa when Ilya needs emotional support, Ilya is there when Shane is freaking out about his parents. None of that is a gendered response, that's just what partners DO for each other. Topping doesn't mean man, doesn't mean more masculine. Bottoming doesn't mean woman, doesn't mean more feminine or weak. It's literally just who likes taking dick and who doesn't!! That's it!!! Also the way Ilya goes down on Shane in both the front and the back is awesome! That scene in Vegas, people who watch that and don't see how much POWER Shane was holding there....drives me nuts. Ilya couldn't take his fucking eyes off him. Shane says I need you and .1 second later Ilya is on the bed and giving Shane EXACTLY what he wants.

Who’s more sexually desirable: Scar or Thanos?

No context; no middle ground. Choose your fighter.

Based on this most excellent artwork by @kaenith