the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability

THE POINT OF A DEFENSE ATTORNEY ISN'T TO GET THEIR CLIENT OFF. IT'S TO MAKE THE STATE PROVE THEIR CASE AND DO THEIR DUE DILIGENCE.

IT'S TO PROVIDE A CHECK ON THE POWER OF THE STATE TO JUST THROW PEOPLE IN JAIL.

"The hat is customizable," he said, struggling with the velcro patch on the front. "If I need it, I have an ICE one too. I pick based off the business i walk into."

"Customizable is an important hat descriptor," I said. "what can I get you?"

"You wouldn't believe how offended people get these days," he said. "And I'm supposed to do something about it if you're offended? You chose to be offended!"

"We all have hundreds of thousands of decisions everyday," I said. I thickened my accent. "That's what my stepdad always said. But I can make one easier - we have a delicious Ethiopian roast available."

"Like if I told you you have a bull ring," he said, "because bulls have rings in their noses. Is that offensive?"

I laughed. "I've heard that before."

"It's a joke, but people get offended. Maybe you're offended."

I looked at him. I smiled. "You aren't trying to offend me though, right?"

Of course he was. I was being friendly and the friendlier I was, the faster he switched topics. He was saying anything inflammatory he could think of to see if I'd take the bait. After about 20 minutes of my redirecting and deescalating, he settled into a more normal interaction. He took up too much of my time showing me a product I'd feigned mild interest in to get him to stop talking about getting accused of inappropriate behavior at work. When we finally disengaged, he spent 10 minutes trying to catch my eye again. When he failed, he left.

There's this new breed of customer who insists on trying to incite political conversation through their clothing and, when that doesnt work, their snide little comments. If I owned my own business, maybe I would have given the guy the fight he wanted. But I work for a corporation and I love paying my bills so I deescalated.

1. there will always be someone more severely affected by their disability than you are, this does not mean you aren't disabled, or that your struggles aren't real. these disabled people are not your enemy.

2. visibly disabled people are not treated better than invisibly disabled people, there are different struggles to both.

3. visibly & severely disabled people are not lucky for being visibly disabled or severely disabled. this belief is ableist.

4. we all need to keep the more severely disabled people in mind, they are the most vulnerable & this is disability justice 101.

5. there will always be severely disabled people in public, you absolutely need to work on your discomforts about the conditions/aids/symptoms/behaviours they might have; drooling, incontinence, "odd" behaviours, visible differences, use of AAC etc. this is a you problem, not a them problem.

6. there will always be symptoms of disabilities that you don't approve of; zero social awareness, cognitive impairments, violent meltdowns, strong smells & loud noises, being nonverbal/semiverbal etc. no one can force you to like it, but you cannot be cruel to them regardless of your opinions, again, this is a you problem & not a them problem.

7. you can still be ableist even if you yourself are disabled, this isn't always internalised, it can also be outright ableism.

8. caregivers of severely disabled people often play an important role in disability spaces, try not to *immediately* discount their experiences, unless they're truly over stepping, are being factually incorrect/uneducated or ableist. (caregivers can come with unique problems in disability spaces, 100%, but they are not inherently bad)

9. severely disabled people will have experiences you do not have, it is not an attack on you when these experiences are talked about.

10. “people wouldn’t say [ableist thing] to a wheelchair user” yes they would and yes they do.

Reminder that not only is James Woods a pedophile, he is also pro genocide and would tweet things like this about Gaza all the time.

I've been seeing people resurface the 2017 story Amber Tamblyn wrote about him and just wanted to remind people that he's just an overall garbage human.

Recent scholarship suggests instead that the sharp decline came from a sort of eugenics (my description). Because colorism had an extreme effect on social mobility, Black Argentinians had a motivation to deliberately make their families lighter skinned. A good example of this is that in Argentina, if you could claim to be indigenous you would be freed from enslavement. So the lighter your children's skin was, or the more indigenous heritage they had, the more likely they were to be freed.

I'm clarifying this because I've seen Argentinians (rightfully) push back against this misinformation before, but I don't mean to use this as an excuse to whitewash the racism they commit. In my opinion, the eugenics of colorism in Argentina that lead to Black Argentinians being "mixed out" is just as evil as a deliberately putting them on the frontlines of war.

All of this is sourced from Wikipedia to be completely transparent, and it sources this article from Dr. Erika Denise Edwards.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afro-Argentines

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326012470_The_making_of_a_White_nation_The_disappearance_of_the_Black_population_in_Argentina