Are people off tikok aware of the lady who is dying of cancer and signed off all her rights to her latest single to her 7 year old son in the hopes that she'll have some amount of money to leave behind for him and initially her song was taking off and getting a lot of streams until someone pointed out that she follows the IDF on instagram so now people are debating over whether or not it's morally correct to stream her song even though the money exclusively goes to her son what stage of capitalism is this
106 notes
·
View notes
Watch the American Climate Leadership Awards 2024 now: https://youtu.be/bWiW4Rp8vF0?feature=shared
The American Climate Leadership Awards 2024 broadcast recording is now available on ecoAmerica's YouTube channel for viewers to be inspired by active climate leaders. Watch to find out which finalist received the $50,000 grand prize! Hosted by Vanessa Hauc and featuring Bill McKibben and Katharine Hayhoe!
3K notes
·
View notes
Hey guys! Just your friendly neighborhood cancer haver here to remind you that cancer is not a moral punishment and that its actually messed up to suggest that Prince Charles is being punished or some shit!
66 notes
·
View notes
I think that one of the reasons why people misinterpret Wylan's character and arc, among others, is because they misinterpret the relationship between him and Kaz. This post has kind of mitosised off from the BFWP (Big Fucking Wylan Post) I'm writing because it's a bit of a different focus and constitutes its own post.
A lot of people talk about Wylan's character and development as though it's meant to match Kaz's - starting out as a nice kid who the city forces to become amoral, indifferent to violence, and well-versed in crime. These qualities are usually talked about with a weird reverence as an irrefutable symbol of "badassery", as though it's always a positive development for any character regardless of the story's narrative, which annoys me but is not the topic of this post. That's part of the BFWP's job.
Following Kaz's exact development is not the point of Wylan's character. The point is that Kaz and Wylan narrative foils - very similar in many ways, but with a fundamental difference that creates the "broken mirror" effect/shows how they could have turned out if they'd chosen differently. I think that difference is how they respond when they climb out of the harbor after their respective betrayals. Narratively, Ketterdam represents a very harsh system that presents the people struggling there with very few options. You can either choose to ditch decency, play by the Barrel's rules, and live, or you can hold on to decency and die.
When Kaz returns to the streets after Jordie's death, he chooses the first option. He copes with what happened through ideas of revenge, and to survive long enough to see it he quickly turns to thievery and violence. He thinks to himself after he robs a kid for money and food that it was much easier to survive when you've left decency behind. He survived through violence, creating the Dirtyhands persona around himself for protection.
When Wylan has to fend for himself, he choses the second option. He finds "honest work" at the tannery, where they exploit workers and expose them to toxins. He wonders if he'll live long enough to use his savings to leave the city, or if the chemicals would kill him first. He was smart enough to steal and survive, but he chose decency, and with it, he chose death. There are a number of reasons why he chose differently than Kaz despite their similarities - his older age and thus more developed moral code, having no one to avenge but himself when he believed himself worthless, his more privileged upbringing, and his relatively low drive to live. Alone, he would have died.
Then Kaz steps in. Kaz's role in all the crow's lives is that, intentionally or not, his ruthless rule of the Barrel creates a sort of haven that allows them to survive where they would have died had they stayed alone. Wylan is a really clear example of this, and though Kaz's intentions were at least partly self-serving, his involvement both kept Wylan from dying of exposure or street violence as well as prevented him from needing to do the more terrible things that it takes to survive in the Barrel. Throughout the books, we see Kaz kind of taking the brunt of enacting violence in Wylan's place - traumatizing Smeet's daughter, killing the clerk on the lighthouse. Wylan could get by making explosives in the workshop rather than having to shoot or stab or beat the life out of people. And at the end of the series, Kaz sees to it that he never will have to. Of course Wylan did bad stuff to survive when working with the Dregs, it's the Barrel. But the extent is greatly lessened because of Kaz's involvement.
Wylan's arc was never about becoming comfortable with violence, or becoming just like Kaz - the way people characterize him as some sort of ruthless murder mastermind is inaccurate and redundant with Kaz's character. He isn't nonchalant or celebratory about crime or death or violence by the end of the book. He doesn't HAVE to become like Kaz, because Kaz himself gave him the space to continue being decent, intentionally or otherwise. Understanding that dynamic is important to understanding what Wylan is like as a character and as a person. If you assume Wylan's trajectory is to become "Kaz 2.0", then you're going to mischaracterize him. I've seen posts about how Kaz was the Jordie that he didn't have to Wylan, and I think that makes a lot more sense. Because Kaz is willing to do the horrible things in his stead, Wylan has the third option otherwise impossible in the Barrel - maintaining his decency and surviving.
277 notes
·
View notes
The worst part is when I forget.
The worst part is when she's underfoot or sneaks into the kitchen and I scold her and then I remember.
The worst part is when I forget.
The worst part is when she turns her head and I remember her eye is messed up because her lymph nodes are pushing on the nerve in her neck, and I remember.
Time is running out.
God, this sucks so much. It sucks so, so much.
75 notes
·
View notes
is it normal for cattle to get lung abscesses
But yes. It’s normal for an animal to develop if they were aspirated during their infantile stage, such as is true for calves when they contract pneumonia. It’s a condition you will literally never know about until a cow dies suddenly. It cannot be predicted or prevented beyond shrugging and hoping an animal you buy has never had pneumonia.
How about you stop trying to capitalize on a tragedy to push your agenda, you miserable demon.
23 notes
·
View notes
having Malevolent Thots once more and tbh I ADORE trans!Arthur headcanons as much as the next guy being A Trans myself but for one reason above most others because it makes me giggle to think about
that reason is John, with his very limited/spotty at best understanding of humans and human biology seeing a dick and balls on a naked cis man for the first time and Arthur doesnt know what the fuck is happening when John fucking SHRIEKS "EEEOOOUUGH WHAT THE FUCK IS THAT THING HANGING OFF THAT MAN??!?!?"
96 notes
·
View notes
This is some really powerful, persuasive writing.
Like many people, I once classified mental and physical diseases as quite distinct from each other. In my mind, a key difference involved their cause and cure. My perception was that mental illnesses were generally caused by social and familial distress, and that they could be cured with medication and/or therapy. The reality is that mental illnesses can be, for some, a lifelong burden. They have genetic factors too. And social and familial distress can cause physical illnesses just as they can cause mental illness.
When we recognize that mental and physical illnesses are not so cleanly divided, we can also question the usefulness of that “divide” for deciding on someone’s right to die. Should a person experiencing a temporary mental health episode be considered a euthanasia candidate? Everyone would agree the answer is no. Just like someone experiencing a bad case of mononucleosis shouldn’t be given the right to a medically assisted death, nor should someone experiencing an episode of depression.
But should someone’s right to die be explicitly about their diagnosis? When someone’s suffering is intolerable and without an end in sight, that should be enough of a reason to consider their right to a peaceful death, on a case-by-case basis. We should listen to people in that situation when they ask for more rights, no matter the cause of their illness, as a cause may not be able to be neatly untangled.
Stigmatizing some types of diagnoses—and seeing some terrible chronic conditions as worthy of the right to die and not others—is a form of collective victim-blaming. Social psychologist Melvin Lerner can give us insight there. He hypothesized in the 1970s that victim-blaming is driven by the “blamer’s” desire for an illusion of safety. When we imagine that someone’s misfortune is caused by their own folly, we can strike that misfortune from our own list of personal concerns. Consider how that plays into the ways we stigmatize some illnesses. Blaming the patient alleviates our anxiety about that particular sickness. Hence, mental illnesses get stigmatized because many people wish to imagine themselves immune. As noted by O’Sullivan, psychosomatic conditions attract the intense victim-blaming because they challenge the very framework separating mental and physical illnesses. This challenges our illusion of invulnerability in a significant way.
I learned to see beyond that as I went through this story with my family. My big sister’s illness was not her fault. It was an illness as real as any other, and beyond her control regardless of whether it was mental or physical in origin. It was likely caused by social trauma, but it proved untreatable. And her suffering was terrible.
9 notes
·
View notes
my grandma with cancer just talked about how she got like 6 huge bottles of shower gel for christmas and she was like “it’ll take me years to finish these😊😊” and i said “your set for the rest of your life!”
i can’t look at her in the eyes anymore
9 notes
·
View notes
this morning my granddad passed away. it still feels kind of strange. before we got the call we were even making plans to visit him in the hospital and all that... he's been suffering and fighting cancer for over a year and progressively deteriorated. to watch the bubbly, and carefree old man he was ─ always laughing, joking, and doing the most even for strangers ─ turn into a shadow of himself... just skin and bones, not even being able to talk or dance to his favourite musician was just heartbreaking. it's comforting to think he's somewhere where he can do the things he enjoys most again, and that he knows we all loved him so much.
17 notes
·
View notes