flicker

Love that the blood is represented.

Period poops finally getting their horrible, horrible time to shine.

Bastinado. Chef’s kiss.

“Programmed to respond to over 700 questions, none of which include chicken fingers.” - Sergeant Vatred

I have an amazing anecdote about a friend who was working hospice who had an ancient lady tell her about how she (the old lady) killed her first husband for being an abusive dick.

She laughed the whole time.

It was later proven true.

That’s what brought me here. What even is this pic? It’s nightmare inducing.

Thank you!

It’s a response I developed explaining to people why men aren’t allowed to work alone with women in my field. I often throw in, “If you were a predator, what kind of job would you look for?”

People with developmental and intellectual disabilities are five times as likely to face this abuse as their neurologically typical peers, because many of them can’t report that abuse as effectively.

It’s my experience that the few men of the world who find this stricture upsetting do so because either they are pretending to be one of the “good” ones in order to get close enough to abuse someone, or because they believe themselves incapable of abuse and chafe at being paint with the same brush. To them I always ask; which is more important to you, that you aren’t being seen as a potential predator, or that we have a system designed to keep as many people as possible, as safe as possible? Because we can’t have both.

It’s a numbers game. I have to deal with the same thing in my field- men are not allowed to provide one-on-one hygiene care (bathing, toileting, cleaning waste) for female adults with developmental and intellectual disabilities.

Since we’re talking about children instead of my field, 96% of people who sexually abuse children are male. Even factoring in that female perpetrators might be underreported, that is a stark number, so when people say they err on the side of caution, I’m sure you can see why only using female staff for this job would seem safer.

Are there perfectly healthy, nurturing men who pay the price? Of course. But not as many of them as potential sexual predators it seems.

I wanna meet Blackburn in a Dennys parking lot at 3AM.

Just to talk, of course.

I’ve been assured by several friends that they will happily eat my portion, as long as I participate in the hunt.

Which is the sort of community-based, inclusive solution I like best.

I’ve been singing this a lot lately.

Misread this as Concerned Ape and became… Concerned. And also mad I didn’t know there was a convention.

There’s a lot to be said about it but anyone with a brain will agree to this, and simply this;

Good.

Don’t qualify it. Don’t turn it into yet another stale argument that will invariably link some grifter’s asinine manifesto. Everyone from every side can agree that this is a good thing. Let it be enough.

No, “retarded.”

When people want to call someone dumb so they call them retarded. I work with adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities and very much dislike both “dementia” and the word “retarded” being weaponized for the same reason.

This “dementia” bit needs to die. Call him old or stupid but pathologizing to something as severe as dementia hits me the same way as if you called him “retarded.”

They’re trying to do a “gotcha.” What they mean is, “Are even the dead children responsible for the situation they were in?”

It’s a fallacy; appeal to emotion. Obviously the dead children aren’t reading this, or hearing the words that “all of us are complicit.” Instead of thinking as a rational person would that the audience being addressed by those words are the people to who that phrase would apply, they did a rapid-fire, emotion-based response because they want to feel right and superior, instead of taking the mature, nuanced approach.

“Due process” is fair treatment through the judicial system. When we discuss making laws regarding how people should be treated, those laws become the process that is due. I reject the idea what we can’t discuss changing the law because “that’s the way the law is.”

Additionally, broadening the point to “property” doesn’t at all somehow change the premise. “It’s about property rights!” It’s about the rights to the property of firearms.

And you did what the other person did! Y’all keep completely ignoring what I’m asking, to try and make some other point!

I started typing up an answer to your hypothetical but then I realized you didn’t at all address my question. I’d love an answer to the content of my comment instead of an answer designed to try change my mind without addressing the premise or in any way engaging what I said.

The problem I have with this is the cost.

The cost of living in a world where someone can strip you of your right to currently possess a firearm by accusing you of violence, is that you get to not have access to a firearm, currently.

The cost of living in a world that doesn’t restrict a person’s right to access a firearm via a claim of violence, is that people die to firearms by those in possession of a firearm.

I haven’t really seen a good argument as to why someone’s right to have the ability to always, at all times, and forever be allowed access to a firearm that makes it more valuable than a human life.

I’ve seen a lot of fantastic arguments for ownership of firearms, lemme tell ya. And I support them. But if we are paying for those privileges with human lives, we need to quantify the value of a firearm, versus the value of a human life. I can’t (I’m being serious, I really can’t) figure out exactly how many human lives we should be willing to “pay” in order to continue to have those freedoms.