hot new challenge for 2025 called "stop putting prismatic-bell's stupid zionist ass on my dashboard," where in 2025 everyone stops putting prismatic-bell's stupid zionist ass on my dashboard. strongly encourage starting early.

Didn't wanna do this but with how inconsistent my job is with giving me hours I might need help moving next year

DING DING THE NAZI'S DEAD NATIONAL HOLIDAY IT SHOULD BE I TELL YOU

tell me why the fucking MA at my appointment for pmdd asked me if I felt i would be better off "unalive" 🥲 bitch I am literally here because of suicidal ideations for the love of all fuck please fucking say suicide.

there is already so much censorship around suicide stop fuckkng adding to it. it is so unbelievably dangerous and damaging that people feel like they can't talk about their suicidal ideations. that's is treated like such a huge awful taboo thing.

stop censoring suicide. you are fucking killing us.

Ableist things non wheelchair using disabled people/ occasional wheelchair users have said to or about me as a full time powerchair user:

Not being able to walk makes you privileged over other disabled people

I’d kill myself if I couldn’t wipe my own arse

Yeah but you’re not like regular disabled so you shouldn’t expect to be accommodated

You’re so lucky to have carers with you all the time

At least I’m not like him

Why don’t you use a folding powerchair instead? Then you wouldn’t look so… disabled (answer: because I can’t sit up or breathe properly in chairs that aren’t supportive enough).

Of course they talk to you like you’re five years old… you look well… y’know

You shouldn’t be taking over people work chronic pain just because you can’t walk (said to me while I was talking about my own chronic pain)

*talks to my carer about me*

*refuses to acknowledge my presence in a group*

I just want you to know that I’d support assisted suicide for people like you.

Again, because it’s important, absolutely all of these are from disabled people.

i find the whole "i had unpleasant experiences with leftists before so now im a raging fascist" narrative incredibly funny because we have all had unpleasant experiences with leftists before. it comes free with being a leftist

ty for stealing this one much appreciated

people in the notes suggesting it was "improper" for the juror to do this or that it "introduced bias" to the court proceeding 🙄 the ice agent in question accused a moc of assaulting him / resisting arrest. how is the agent being a white supremacist not relevant. what universe are you living in

As a member of the world’s SECOND oldest profession, I assure you this is just one of many ways the justice system is systematically fucked up.

For anyone who wants to know how to fact check something you are told while on jury duty without getting fined:

First, you need to understand that the rule that jurors can’t just google things is coming from a good place. Like imagine that you are on a jury that’s considering, say, a medical malpractice lawsuit and one of your fellow jurors comes into the jury room and says to you, “I think the victim’s expert was lying because WebMD totally contradicts everything they said.”

And you might be like, “But WebMD is notoriously unreliable website and the expert you’re talking about is a researcher from Mayo Clinic.” But this person cannot be swayed.

Like, we can all agree that would be bad.

So even though these rules can contribute to unjust outcomes as in the case above (and seriously, the fact that the defense attorney didn’t fact check that is probably grounds for legal malpractice), they also prevent jurors from just looking up bullshit online and taking it more seriously than the actual experts the court has put on. And I think in the era of anti-vaxxers/QAnon/COVID denial/etc., we can all understand why it’s a bad idea to trust that people can tell fact from bullshit online.

So in light of this, how do you as a juror fact check something?

The key here is that you have to ask the court for information. Jurors can ask questions of the court during deliberations, so if something you said sounds off to you, you can ask for more information.

The key term you want to use here is “credibility.”

The job of a jury is to decide what are called “questions of fact.” Long before the trial even starts, lawyers will have hashed out all the “questions of law” --- like, what the statute of limitations is; what laws, exactly, were allegedly broken; whether the court you’re in even has jurisdiction; stuff like that. Jurors are responsible for deciding which side’s version of the facts has more credibility.

For instance, if the prosecution’s witness says X and the defense’s witness says Y, the jury is responsible for deciding which is true, X or Y. And you do this by weighing which one is more credible.

So in this case, if the juror had known to, he could have told the judge, “In order to properly assess the ICE agent’s credibility, I need more information about his tattoo. I have doubts about whether he was telling the truth about it, which would impact how credible I would find his testimony. Can the agent please provide evidence that it really is what he says it is?”

There are a lot of problems with our legal system, and I think one of the biggest is that jurors aren’t educated about what they can and can’t do. Juries have a lot of power, if (and only if) they know how to use it.

Reblogging for that last post, because frankly, “what to do as a juror” is one of those things the schools should really be teaching us. Serving on a jury is one of the most powerful rights of citizenship and everyone should be educated in how to exercise it correctly.

I think all wheelchair users should get to steal one set of kneecaps from a pedestrian with zero consequences for every 1000 hours they spend in a wheelchair. Like a punch card or something. People who walk are entirely too comfortable sharing their opinions and I think kneecap theft could change that for the better.

people way underestimate the needs of wheelchair users.

there's a lot of what I'll call walkism (bias towards pedestrians and against wheelchair users) among disabled pedestrians (people who primarily walk, assisted or not, as their means of mobility)

diminishing our needs is walkism.

people within the community see us as ableds minus legs. they see our disabilities as simple- just can't walk, it's that easy. they see us as having low accommodation needs and as having the accommodations that we do need met. they see our access barriers as being as simple as ramps and curb cuts.

Something I wish "clicked" with a lot of occasional or part time wheelchair users is that obligatory wheelchair users don't have the choice to leave their chair at home when the terrain sucks or it's wet outside or whatever. I still remember a post where someone was asking how to manage keeping their legs dry in the rain because they had to choose to "suffer" walking instead because they couldn't tolerate having wet legs. And like, while the OP was not wrong for wanting to be dry, obligatory wheelchair users just have to deal with it and either have wet legs or never leave the house in the rain. We can't choose to walk even if it hurts and is hard to navigate in a wheelchair, we *have* to use our wheelchairs if we want to do the thing. It doesn't matter how bad it hurts or how hard it is to navigate those hills, we can't decide to walk it.

I'm not saying they're not trying hard enough or giving up or whatever ableist crap people give ambulatory and occasional wheelchair users, I'm glad they use their wheelchair to live a fuller life, I'm just asking people to remember that not everyone gets to make that choice.

(Using obligatory wheelchair user instead of "non ambulatory" because sometimes people are what I call "part time pedestrians" and still mildly ambulatory, but can't leave the house or do their ADLs without a chair. They deal with a lot of the same problems completely non ambulatory wheelchair users do.)

this is a lot of what I was trying to get at with this post. I don't exclude part time and occasional wheelchair users from this post (hell, I currently am a part time wheelchair user) but a lot of this was inspired by my experience as an obligatory wheelchair user. the post is mainly referencing people who use a wheelchair at least the majority of the time (why I left that note at the end)

the experiences of part time and occasional wheelchair users are real but the needs of either are very different from those of obligatory wheelchair users.

I also think that as lower use wheelchair users gain more awareness and attention it's shifting the view of wheelchair users towards that. I know I've had many experiences now with doctors who look at me and assume I can stand on their scale or walk to their bed. I can do those things (currently) but many people cannot. these assumptions are growing more and more common among everyone.

I've had someone tell me I have "ambulatory vibes." (what the fuck does that mean?) he saw me as a young wheelchair user, had maybe noticed that I move my legs and then came to the conclusion that I had full walking ability. he at one point assumed I could climb stairs. for the record, this was another disabled person who used a cane. there's a reason I came up with the term walkism instead of just using the term ableism; disabled pedestrians are often the perpetrators of it. this person perpetrated walkism in many other ways but that's somewhat irrelevant to this reply so I'll omit it in the name of keeping things short.

lower use wheelchair users have made themselves the default in the community and are slowly making themselves the default elsewhere. because lower use wheelchair users outnumber obligatory wheelchair users so greatly it's shifting the views of wheelchair users and of our needs. people feel more entitled to deny us accommodations because they look at the predominant lower use wheelchair users and use them as justification. "well they don't need this accommodation so why do you?" -- just to be clear, this is not the fault of lower use wheelchair users; it is the fault of walkists, but this shift has made this form of walkism more aggressive.

it's a collapsing of all of our needs into the lowest support needs category. even as a part time wheelchair user it's frustrating. people collapse my needs into those of people who only need a wheelchair in the mall. I've had my psychiatrist make disparaging comments when I brought my wheelchair in to his office for the 4th or 5th time (he forgets I use a wheelchair, somehow) remarking that I "don't need it" because I am a part time user and therefore should only be using it at the mall.

the range of needs for wheelchair users is a large spectrum and people, wheelchair users and pedestrians alike, are all guilty of cutting out the needs of obligatory wheelchair users and especially high support needs obligatory wheelchair users

hopefully this makes sense, sorry this ramble got long

be like the dandelion!! unkillable! joyous!! inherently transsexual in ways others cannot fully understand!

on my redbubble!

emotional again and always about how many people this has resonated with and all the sweet comments. PLEASE if u have got a t-shirt or print or anything and u wear it or put it up ! Please! Please show me or tag me I would love to see !!!

[ ID from Alt Text: a digital drawing of a dandelion styled like a layered risograph print, with teal leaves, bright yellow flowers, and pink lineart all overlaid on a white background. the dandelion is boxed by a neon pink square with text that reads "unkillable." in all caps underneath in the same pink color / End ID ]

"we want to protect the kids!!"

— in a way that will also protect them from their parents & guardians right?

"what"

— if a parent or guardian wanted to abuse their child, would what you're trying to do make it harder for them?

"..."

— *pulls out a chart that shows 76% of abused children were victimized by a parent or legal guardian* will what you're advocating for make it easier for the majority child abusers, which is overwhelmingly parents & guardians, to get away with abuse?

"idk what this has to do with anything we just want to restrict children's freedoms more & give parents more control over them. you know. to protect them from adults who want to abuse them"

Every. Single. Time.

i find the idea of not giving AAC users access to swear words, sexual words (or perceived as sexual), etc very very very offensive. the idea of just... taking away some words from someone vocabulary sounds offensive itself.

like. you can't literally take away words from speaking people. you can't erase them from their vocabulary, you can't erase them from their mind, you can't physically shut their mouth when they use words that you dislike. no matter what the reason is and how based your dislike is. you can't take away an opportunity to say a slur from speaking people who can't reclaim it. you can't take away an opportunity to say a curse word from a child you think shouldn't say it. etc.

when people say things they shouldn't, other people communicate with them about it. i know these communications often take a wrong way (like children are just scolded off and prohibited to use some words without explanations). but these communications at least happen. (and i wish they to be meaningful and fight for it). same with AAC users. if AAC user says something that they shouldn't (like slur they can't reclaim), people should communicate with them about why it isn't appropriate and not just take away the very possibility to say this word.

sometimes i think some people just want to control what others say and only physical impossibility to do this with speaking people make them to find other ways. and when these people who want to control what everyone says get the real opportunity to do it (like remove some words from AAC users), they use it happily.

Hi