XenoRat

As someone who used to take Adderall for narcolepsy reasons, stimulants are known to sometimes cause symptoms of psychosis (at least in people who have a family history of psychosis). I never knew about this before I went on Adderall – I only had one distant relative who was schizophrenic and I never thought it was important to tell my doctors that.

Adderall made me have strong delusions for years that at the time I believed were completely true. I didn’t have hallucinations but it’s just as likely that someone could have hallucinations on Adderall. OOP didn’t see a ghost; they were having hallucinations.

Boy am i glad that the con has a facebook page so i can post this photo:

I see a lot of folks upset that NG will financially benefit from residual and other compensation surrounding his involvement in the adaptation of Sandman and Good Omens (and he will.) But the answer isn’t “rage at the fans who are so emotionally attached to his blorbos because they grieve differently, and then somehow NG will be financially punished.” That’s lower-class/middle-class thinking. NG is too rich and financially diversified to really be hurt by little boycott or a couple of show cancellations (though said cancellations can cause life-changing poverty to the little guys who signed contracts and turned down other opportunities before all of this came out. And boy does NG love women in poverty 🤮)

So if you want to substantially reduce the wealth of someone at NGs financial level—you need to do it with professional services fees.

Details below the cut:

We know he's paying for an expensive reputation scrubber. So we give them more (and more difficult) stuff to scrub.

If you are going to buy Good Omens merch or books, my suggestion is to look for products like these. Better yet, buy second hand or from fans who want to sell those books direct after everything breached.

Don't give more money to NG but if you enjoy the series and would like to keep enjoying it despite One Dude, the Other Dude is still very solid and I absolutely recommend starting Discworld.

To put this in perspective, the last time an American subgroup migrated at these rates was the Great Migration, in which roughly 6 million Southern Black people fled Jim Crow violence and repression. This occurred over a period of decades, in the face of political repression, systematic violence, and legal apartheid.

In its fastest decade, the 1940s, 1.5 million left the South—against a Southern Black population of roughly 10 million. Black America fled Jim Crow at about 1.5% a year, at a time when baseline inter-state mobility was higher than it was today.

On one hand, selecting for disability and disorder absolutely is eugenics and should not be encouraged.

On the other hand, we already select for some disabilities and disorders in order to protect the kids who would have them! Tay-Sachs is the obvious example; we do not want these children to die horribly so we try to make sure they're not conceived in the first place.

On the other hand, a potential parent selecting for disability is concerning because not all disabilities show up in the womb, and some are acquired. Do we want to encourage people to become parents if they're already wanting to walk away from any difficulty?

On the other hand, there are disabilities and there are disabilities. What if a potential parent is like "listen, ADHD I can handle, but the disability you're talking about is so severe I don't think I could handle it"? Is that eugenics, or recognizing one's own limits?

On the other hand, if we could ask the fetus "here's what you'll deal with; do you want to live?" would it say yes or no? Some quadriplegics love living. Some amputees who lost part of a leg will say they wish they'd died instead. Every disabled person will have a different answer, including two who have near-identical disabilities and life circumstances. Hell, I'm disabled and whether I'm saying "it doesn't bother me" or "I wish I was anyone else" comes down to the day.

On the other hand, does it make a difference if the answer to "why do you want an abortion" is "I don't want a baby" or "I don't want a baby I perceive as defective"? Do we judge one but not the other? Why?

I could go on like this for hours. I don't think OP is right and I also don't think they're wrong. I'm not sure there is a "right" answer. I definitely don't think there's a one-size-fits-all answer. Life is THE most annoying bitch on earth that way sometimes. And insofar as there is an answer, I actually think it lies with creating support, not restricting abortion. Would you still say "abort" if you had an extra $10k a year? What about someone to watch the kiddo on Saturdays so you could have some decompression time? Is there a load-bearing straw we can remove to spare the camel's back, or is the camel simply not capable of hauling this particular shipment of straw?

saying "oh but if we deny pregnant people healhcare make abortion easy to get people will abort disabled babies and that's eugenics!" do we maybe not think that there are more effective ways to help disabled people. just maybe.