I'm so used to being surrounded by kind and thoughtful neurodivergent people at this point that I've forgotten that sometimes neurodivergency can make us assholes in very specific ways and even though yes there's nothing wrong with us for being "different" and we shouldn't feel ashamed of who we are etc etc it's still kind of also our job to try and not actively hurt other people and then just excuse it with "well I'm autistic/have bpd/xyz so you can't be mad" or "if you don't like me treating you bad you're making me feel like I can't be my true self around you" or something like. I feel like it's very obvious to me because I have The Disorder That Makes Everyone Think You're Shitty so I'm always very aware of trying not to be, but others. not so much I think
43 notes
·
View notes
Andrew and Neil on the amazing race
They were signed up the same season that they start playing on the same team to 'rehab their rivalry' to the public. Kevin saying it's a bad idea is 90% of why they agreed to it.
(Maybe the Moriyamas are willing to cut Neil some monetary slack % if he wins and gives all the money to one of Ichirou's charities also so they're determined to do that. Still, it's mostly Kevin saying it's stupid that makes them agree.)
The FBI are freaking out that Neil's running all over the entire world but also Browning cannot deny that Andrew and Neil have excellent on-camera chemistry.
They get orange as their team color and Andrew bemoans it because he thought he was done having to look at this particular eye-searing color but Neil vibrates with excitement.
Andrew is unbeatable at any and all trivia questions challenges, Neil can, will and has eaten anything.
There is one leg where the reward for coming in first is a delicious vegetarian meal and Neil intentionally gets them in second place because he will eat bull testicle no problem but will not eat that. Andrew's mild irritation over this is absolutely edited to look like a huge fight since it's the literal only inter-personal drama the team has the entire season. They absolutely start shit with other teams and do ZERO alliances and just continue to whiz right through the competition without any.
Andrew drives and can whiz through any technically difficult challenge, Neil gets them through any and all direction related issues through his foreign language abilities and also for some of the countries he's like "oh that's like two streets over. It's ice cream in the front and weapons shop in the back." He says this shit to the camera and no one knows if he's joking (he's not).
Andrew curls up in Neil's lap on quite a few flights just because he's having a bad time with that. Neil always just starts saying / doing things that just cannot be shown on TV to protect his privacy.
If Neil has to close his eyes and Andrew takes him by the hand as they go through a house of mirrors labyrinth challenge then no one says anything about it.
They win by a landslide the host comes up, "So how do you feel about Neil now?" Andrew just looks at Neil, "I hate every inch of him." he says and they walk off hand in hand to the great confusion of literally everyone.
Edit: Thanks @the-inner-musings-of-a-worm for the idea once again!
225 notes
·
View notes
Being reminded once again that a lot of people have fucking sleeper cell agent triggers that make them instantly fail to see the human being in front of them, regardless of any personal history they have or any rapport. instantly, that person is an Enemy that cannot be reasoned with. Permanent fight or flight.
And that instead of this being seen as, you know, a rather maladaptive attitude to bring to your relationships that will permanently strip you of the capacity to experience full love and companionship, there is a dominant strain of thinking that this is a reasonable, righteous, moral good.
That a "boundary" looks like building an impenetrable wall that nobody can see but you; That conversation, negotiation, and collaboration aren't just avoided--They're treated with contempt. The very notion of trying to understand why another human being that you care about may suddenly act in an unpleasant or even monstrous way is spat upon and trampled underfoot. Complete abandonment is considered a first line of defense rather than a last resort.
I think we all need to do our best to get over this kind of thinking. And I don't mean that we should be push-overs; In actuality, moving away from this kind of rigid "boundary" often means advocating for yourself and fighting for what you think is right. I think we all deserve friends and allies who can compassionately challenge us when we adopt ways of thinking and behaving that hurt others without immediately assuming the worst.
46 notes
·
View notes
This is such a tangent btw but on the topic of guilt tripping and reblogs... I remember a few years back there were some terrible fires in Greece (and again this year, entire island villages are gone now) and at that time I had family who were caught in them. I can't describe the desperation I felt with these horrible things happening to my family and loved ones in my country. And I remember being frustrated and desperate with how no one around me in America really seemed to give a shit. I remember blogging asking people to PLEASE care please share something please reblog this link for mutual aid please think about the stories and fires etc etc etc. And the thing is I was very much in a state of grief myself, maybe not every word or action was perfectly reasonable, because I don't realistically expect everyone everywhere to care about every tragedy in the world. You can't. Emotionally it's just not possible, especially with all the stuff going on in the states rn too. Yeah it's a lot. It's not like I blog about every tragedy that ever happens either. I understand.
HOWEVER what I also remember was at this time there were a couple mutuals very clearly making vagueposts along the lines of "remember not everyone has the energy to care about everything in the world uwu" while I was posting about family who died and family who were drifting in the ocean for hours as their homes and loved ones burned. Listen. You have to understand sometimes that when a person in grief and frustration with things going on in their countries and communities impacts them very personally beg you to care... It's coming from a place of needing to see that care in the world in general. They're not holding a gun to your head Specifically saying you have to reblog the posts, if you don't have the energy just ignore it.
You don't have to go out of your way saying "um actually I can't care about the horrible stuff you and your family and your country are experiencing rn. I'm too busy focusing on my own stuff so can you be quiet or more reasonable with your grief thanks." Like. Just keep it to yourself then??? Have some fucking sympathy for other people and understand that maybe it's not always logical. The same way you don't have the emotional energy to think about every tragedy in the world, people who've been impacted by them often don't have the emotional energy to handle that alone and may seek somekinda community or solidarity. Idk. It's not about forcing shit on you sometimes it's not about you
99 notes
·
View notes
the average person doesn't expect you to be a perfect ethical consumer, that's not possible for the vast majority of us. but what youre saying is it's better to do nothing at all and choose the worst possible options (sweat shops, overseas shipping waste, idea/product theft, all wrapped up in SHEIN) than to put even the tiniest effort in where you can.
[they are referring to this post]
What I said was "some people are doing literally everything they can to survive and have no extra bandwidth to spend extra time and money on their purchases, and it is cruel and therefore un-punk to gatekeep punkness and add additional shame to these people's lives based on that fact."
I think it's still a good thing to try to ethically consume; I literally never said it wasn't. I had never even heard of SHEIN before. Rather, I am much more concerned about what I saw as arbitrary gatekeeping based on ability and income.
And frankly how dare you claim that I am supporting sweatshops and abuse by saying that this additional work you are demanding (in this case, presumably, vetting every clothing company you buy from) is not always possible for people. It is not a light accusation to accuse me of supporting abuse.
"How dare you say we piss on the poor", Etc. 🙄 this isn't Twitter. You are determined to enforce moral purity, but you are failing to see the nuance.
Because when I say "no extra bandwidth," I mean no extra bandwidth. This is not the "car shows it's on E but actually secretly it has a lot of gas left" situation that abled people constantly assume disabled people mean when they say they are at their limit.
This is "at a certain point, people will hit a wall in terms of money and time and energy, and any energy spent after that comes directly out of their life force."
So the argument "okay but just spend a little more time money and energy actually" is not a valid one.
And the argument "if you are not able to do this specific task, then it means you're not doing anything else to make the world a better place" doesn't exactly impress me either. You said yourself that it is impossible to be a perfectly ethical consumer for most people.
How do you know what else people are doing to resist oppression? How many hours per week until your standards are met?What if someone works 3 jobs? Does that mean it's harder to be a good person if you're poor?? Why do you get to decide what specific avenue of bettering the world is the most morally repugnant or acceptable? What kind of proof of goodness and effort would make you satisfied enough to lay off on the shame?? Who are you helping??
Clothing is a fundamental human need, and some of us have to buy cheap fucking clothes quickly. Billionaires are buying their seventh yacht this month. The people who own fast fashion companies are abusing their workers and putting local affordable clothing stores out of business - and this applies for basically every company with price points that low because governments are failing to regulate corporations to enforce basic human rights.
I have $300 to spend on a new wardrobe as my old clothes have fallen apart or become too small. Do you have a way for me to get a new winter coat, 3 flannels, 10 shirts, 3 dress shirts, new sandals, 10 pairs of pants, 5 bras, 12 pairs of socks, and 10 pairs of underwear within that budget and also definitely 100% ethically sourced, with free returns in case it doesn't fit? Or will I simply have to use the cheap stores?
I have about an hour to spend on this per week. Should I continue to wear small and tattered clothing until I have the time, money, and energy to meet your standards? Did you know there are more empty homes in this country than homeless people? If I decide to splurge on only 100% ethically-produced products, and I can't make rent, and I become homeless, are YOU going to be there for me?? Or are you busy litigating the endless tiny shames of poverty in your own community?
So I ask you again, are you sure this is where you want to direct your punk energy? Because energy and time, as it turns out, are limited resources. And I would never expect you to secretly have more than you claim to have.
85 notes
·
View notes