#You can't be ableist against the abled | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

diamondperfumes · 8 months

Text

I like and see the appeal of "Dany, Jon, and Young Griff" as the three heads of the dragon/"new Targaryen trio." I can't help but think, however, that people who are reluctant to acknowledge that the real three heads are likely Dany, Jon, and Tyrion, are simply being ableist.

It makes sense that the three heads are Dany, Jon, and Tyrion, centered around Dany (she is Aegon the Conqueror Reborn; this prophecy centers around her, whether you like it or not).

All three have dealt with an undying threat using fire (the Undying, aptly named; a wight; a stone man).

All three have connections to dragons (Dany the strongest connection, one I don't need to elaborate on, hence being the center of the trio; Jon, who wishes for a dragon "or three," who speaks of a dragon warming things up at the Wall; Tyrion, who adores dragons, who yearned for one as a child and even dreamed of them, who is an expert on dragonology).

All three have had concrete, extensive ruling arcs (and not just "for thematic exploration," as some would have it, but as tangible demonstrations of what Westeros needs, and how Westeros could benefit if they were in charge), as Queen of Meereen, Lord Commander of the Night's Watch, and (acting) Hand of King Joffrey I Baratheon.

Both Jon and Tyrion show up in Dany's House of the Undying visions; Jon as Dany's third ?* in her bride of fire prophecy, Tyrion as a white lion running through grass. Tyrion similarly hears a prophecy of dragons from Moqorro, a prophecy that likely refers to both Jon and Dany, among other Targaryens, and is said to be a snarling shadow amidst them all. If that doesn't scream Tyrion's importance, especially his future connection to Dany and Jon both, I don't know what does.

All three are the third child of their parents, whose mothers died in childbirth, and all three have some kind of rivalry with an elder sibling (though Jon's relationship with Robb is the healthiest and most loving). All three also look up to their eldest brothers. All three had a negative relationship with an authority figure while growing up: Viserys, Catelyn, and Tywin (and for Cat haters, no I am not comparing Cat to Vis and Tywin, except to demonstrate the similarities in thinking and emotional state between the three).

All three suffer a formative betrayal that leads to a physical or metaphysical rebirth, taking place over ASOS to ADWD.

All three know what it's like to starve, be hunted, and live in deprivation. These aren't just random experiences; it's obvious that George is setting them up to brave the harsh conditions of the Long Night, possibly to find the heart of winter together. Being able to endure and survive starvation and the extremities of physical environments like The Wall, the Red Waste, and Slaver's Bay, are building blocks to this.

All three have connections to nomadic cultures that are seen as savage and barbaric––the Dothraki, the Free Folk, and the Mountain Clans of the Vale.

All three are positioned to rectify the wrongs of their houses, though thus far Dany has done the most concrete work in this regard (this is not a slight against Jon and Tyrion). More on this later.

All three are "outcast" POV's, even explicitly referred to as such by GRRM. Jon because he was raised as a bastard, Dany as an exile, bridal slave, and teenage girl, Tyrion as a dwarf who has been abused and maligned his whole life.

All three have had arcs that take place away from Westeros proper; again, this geographic and geopolitical distancing from Westeros only serves to enhance their ideological values as rulers and leaders.

Under the complicated rules of succession, all three are positioned to inherit a title that is not immediately accessible to them: Jon as King in the North (Winterfell), Tyrion as Lord of Casterly Rock, Dany as Queen of the Seven Kingdoms. Why they can't access it is because of the very things that make them outcasts.

All three are foreshadowed to have three formative romances. Jon with Ygritte, Val, and ?*, Dany's marriages to Drogo, Hizdahr, and ?*, Tyrion with Tysha, Sansa, and ?**. Dany and Tyrion specifically share the parallel of having three marriages, with the first two "failing" in some way.

Their ruling arcs each deal with similar themes: the makings of war and peace, the line between compromise and justice, stirrings of revolution, poverty, hunger, disenfranchisement, exploitation, religion, ableism, classism, ethnic nationalism, etc.

Dany and Tyrion share in common being enslaved. This is a very important parallel that Jon does not have in common with them.

All three are related to, and have thus observed, kings: Jon is Robb's brother (biologically, his cousin) and observed Robert Baratheon; Tyrion is Joffrey and Tommen's uncle, and has extensively observed Robert and Joffrey; Dany is Viserys III's sister, and her POV is a bait-and-switch revealing that the protagonist of the Targaryen storyline is her rather than Viserys.

They have clearly outlined parallels with specific Targaryens from history: Dany with Aegon I, Rhaegar, Aegon V, Aegon III, and the first two Daenerys', most prominently, though the entire history of House Targaryen is centered around her so really every Targaryen could be counted here; Jon notably with the Targaryen bastards/dragonseeds, including Orys Baratheon, Jacaerys Velaryon, and Brynden Rivers; he is also paralleled with Aemon the Pale Prince; and Tyrion with Viserys II.

All three are romantic idealists; Jon and Tyrion are more outwardly cynical and ruthlessly pragmatic, however, a parallel they share with each other rather than with Dany, even if Dany will ~go darker~ in TWOW.

All three identify with beast/monster imagery, and not just because of their house emblems. All three have also been subject to malicious slander, in part because of their association with beastliness/monstrousness. All three are also seen as religious sinners/heretics.

All three have compassion for the marginalized (this is a fact; most ASOIAF fans tend to see Jon as a hero and Dany and Tyrion as villains, for obvious reasons, but as far as the text goes, all three are presented as empathetic toward the downtrodden and oppressed).

All three have both military and diplomatic experience; Jon is the only formally militarily trained one, with a traditional weapon (a sword), while Dany and Tyrion have to use more creative ways to wage war and fight in battle.

All three long for home, and feel guilty for doing so. Dany and Tyrion share a specific parallel of longing for an abstract ideal of home that may no longer be accessible (the house with the red door, the cottage by the sea).

Dany and Tyrion specifically share in common that they were suicidal. Dany was suicidal in AGOT, and Tyrion was suicidal in ADWD. Conveniently, the ASOIAF fandom wants both to die (as heroes or villains), and sees nothing wrong with such endings for them. One can argue that suicidal characters dying in the end is good, righteous, and beautiful, in the ASOIAF fandom (at least when it comes to these two).

Dany and Tyrion share in common that they failed to protect an innocent––Eroeh and Tysha––and this informs their political and spiritual development as rulers.

(*? = fill in the blank as you see fit; it is contentious in this fandom to admit who Jon and Dany's final romances are, and I am not in the mood to argue over this).

(**? = I genuinely am not sure whom Tyrion's third marriage will be with).

I could sit here all day and list parallels. These are just the ones off the top of my head. As you can see, Dany and Tyrion in particular share a lot of parallels unique between them. The experience of having a terrible father, and being alienated your whole life from your own family, while also taking pride in your family name, is something they will be able to help each other understand. The books are clearly setting that up.

Why then do people replace Tyrion with Arya or Faegon or Sansa or whoever else in the three heads of the dragon theory? Don't just chalk it up to different interpretations. The plain truth is that it's ableism. Tyrion isn't an able-bodied or conventionally attractive man and thus doesn't fit the aesthetic component of the three heads.

Yet for all the talk of wanting Dany to be the "antithesis" to house Targaryen, or wanting Dany, Jon, and Faegon to be Targaryens who "end the Targaryen dynasty" (is the dynasty not already ended?), why does no one speak of how Tyrion is the only Lannister in text to actually go against House Lannister, in concrete, material ways, and has suffered the consequences for it? The one Lannister who was barred from accessing his own identity? The one Lannister uniquely positioned to bring down his house?

Perhaps it's because what Tyrion represents is something people are afraid to admit about House Stark (upheld as unequivocally heroic) and House Targaryen (upheld as unequivocally villainous). Tyrion does not just foreshadow the ending of House Lannister as we know it; he foreshadows a RECREATION of it, a REFORGING in a new name and light. Tyrion has experience running the household at Casterly Rock, and did an excellent job of it. He was Hand of the King. He's known enslavement and hunger and violence, which a Lannister typically will never experience. This gives him a unique insight into understanding the plight and trials of the smallfolk who work Lannister lands and the commoners who work at Casterly Rock. Tyrion has not abandoned his identity as a lion of Lannister, even if he feels more alienated from it than ever. Nor has he abandoned love for his family, in spite of his dark spiral in ADWD. Yet his pride in being a lion, him being the only one of Tywin's children to truly resemble Tywin (as per Genna), while also undoing Tywin's legacy of oppression, and his idealism and desire for companionship and empathy, all exist in tandem.

Tyrion WANTS to be Lord of Casterly Rock. He WANTS to rule. He WANTS to be acknowledged as a Lannister. He WANTS vengeance against his enemies, including his own family. He WANTS a wife and family. All of this exists ALONGSIDE Tyrion wanting a simple life, to protect dwarves, enact justice for the disabled, care for the weak and innocent, create more equitable political institutions, foster more accountable ruling for the people, and pave the way for peace. Rather than Tyrion being part of "the good heroic house" (Starks) or "being the antithesis of House Lannister and dying to eradicate the house," Tyrion is clearly a balance forging new ground: an unabashed, proud Lannister, who envisions a future where a dwarf rules Casterly Rock, gets married, has children, may even be ruthless and cunning toward his enemies, but is also empathetic, compassionate, idealistic, dutiful, and kind. The crux of Tyrion's struggle is not "should I be good or should I be a Lannister," it's being accepted as a Lannister, knowing his disability, his status, his appearance, his values, his relation to his family. Tyrion as Hand of the King went against his own family, for both selfish and selfless reasons, and yet protected his family and heritage and strove to forge new ground AS a Lannister, rather than as an anti-Lannister.

This is anathema for ASOIAF fans, specifically in how they engage with Jon, Dany, House Stark, and House Targaryen. For the typical ASOIAF fan, Jon is a classic, traditional hero, unquestioned, unproblematic, unhateable. Jon is meant to "embrace" his Stark bastard identity and "reject" his Targaryen identity. His reunion with his siblings is meant to be nothing more than heartwarming and poignant. House Stark in this scenario is the "protagonistic heart" of ASOIAF, the unequivocal heroes, not problematized by the narrative in the slightest. House Stark "winning" is a moral victory, Northern Independence is reminiscent of anti-colonial justice, and a return to Stark rule is a proxy for GRRM's anti-feudalism, anti-war message, because the Starks are the good guys.

On the other hand, for the typical ASOIAF fan, Dany has to die. Now, some articulate this in the more honest, traditional way: Dany is a villain, destined to be a mad queen, and her death signifies the end of House Targaryen. Others articulate it in a more creative and deceptive way: Dany is just such a good person (with the caveat that she's still a "white woman whose arc is built on the suffering of women of color") that she clearly isn't like the rest of her family, and will happily die for humanity to redeem herself (because she'll still commit a sin; she has those dragons after all) and by dying, House Targaryen will end protecting humanity, where once it "colonized and enslaved humanity." The death of Daenerys Targaryen is supposed to emblematize a moral victory, anti-colonial justice, and a proxy for GRRM's anti-feudalism, anti-war message, because the Targaryens are the bad guys.

What we have here is that one side will win, reunite with his family, get the girl/the title/the house/the power, perhaps reject part or some of it so that the rest of his family can retain it, while the other side will have to die, either as a hero, villain, or redeemed anti-hero, and such death will thankfully symbolize humanity winning, order being restored, feudalism being destroyed, war coming to an end, peace flourishing, etc.

Where does Tyrion stand in this discourse? Usually nowhere. Most ASOIAF fans don't even care to write about his endgame; most of them write him off as a villain. Some think he'll die, some think he'll inherit Casterly Rock, but there isn't much passion in what most people theorize about his endgame. For better or worse, there is at least passion in people arguing over Jon and Dany's endgames.

In the TEXT, however, as I argue, Tyrion is someone who embraces his house identity and pride, while also going against the oppressive values of his family, and doing so in a material, concrete way. Tyrion doesn't cry about how awful Lannisters are, or hate himself for being a Lannister, or tell himself that he should give up his noble title in order to be a good heroic guy and save the day. But he DOES reflect on Tywin's evil, Cersei's greed, Jaime's stagnancy, Joffrey's petty tyranny, the near-enslavement conditions of the smallfolk at Casterly Rock, the corruption of the monarchic system in Westeros that the Lannisters benefit from, the ableism of his own family, how he benefits from the noble name that has also alienated him, etc. He seeks to protect victims of his family, like Sansa and Penny. Under the frameworks promulgated by the ASOIAF fandom, this should not be possible; he either should belong to "one of the good houses" (which the Lannisters clearly are not, and Tyrion is not Jaime, so he does not get the 50-page long PhD essays and dissertations on redemption, gender, and honor that Jaime does, despite being the more major Lannister POV character), or he should hate himself/distance himself from his evil family and die to eradicate their name (while Tyrion is suicidal in ADWD, it's not for selfless reasons; and he doesn't hate himself for being a Lannister, he hates himself for not being accepted by his family, for being a dwarf, for being a kinslayer, for being unable to save Tysha, for being hated by society).

Tyrion doesn't have to despise himself for being a Lannister in order to change his family and even be a class traitor to his own family. He also doesn't have to eschew his selfishly motivated ambitions and desires to effectuate real change. This makes him an excellent character, yet it also makes him one hard to parse for fans, not just because he is morally gray, but also because he defies the ASOIAF fanmade dichotomy of good house=good character/bad house=die (unless you're a teenage-girl coded cishet male character, e.g. Jaime, Theon, or Sandor). Tyrion isn't a selfless, abstract ideal of morally pure heroism. He has real flaws, often discomforting ones, and some of his desires are nasty. His ambition is ruthless. Yet he is still the one positioned to end House Lannister in its current form and recreate it completely.

It's clear that this is what unites the three heads: Targaryen, Stark, and Lannister, the actual heads of each house if they were allowed to be the heads if not for what makes them an outcast within their own family, embracing their names and identities while changing and recreating what it means to be each of these names. All three houses have been enemies at one point or another, but by coming together, these three will signify a real unity. Yet it's hard for fans to apply what Tyrion represents to Jon and Dany, firstly because most fans hate or ignore Tyrion, and secondly because Jon and Dany represent the two ends of the dichotomy I outlined. For fans to accept what Tyrion represents for the other two, they'd have to admit that House Stark is not the progressive, anti-colonial, feminist, pro-smallfolk force for change that fans claim it is, and they'd have to admit that Dany dying to end House Targaryen won't singlehandedly change the world and end oppression as we know it, and that House Targaryen isn't actually the devil.

A House Stark with a bastard as its head, mixed with Targaryen blood, is anathema to the history of House Stark. Have any bastards been Kings of Winter or Lords of Winterfell, save for Bael the Bard's child who killed Bael? Have any Kings of Winter had blood other than First Men blood (knowing that Starks only marry First Men-blooded houses)? Have any Kings of Winter intermingled with the Free Folk and reintegrated them into Westeros?

A House Targaryen with a teenage girl as its head may seem anathema to the history of House Targaryen, but it's not; really, it's a vindication for the women of House Targaryen. Certainly it's anathema to the WESTEROSI history of House Targaryen. What's even more anathema is a Valyrian heading an antislavery campaign and warring with other Valyrians to abolish slavery. This is the aspect of Dany's character that garners the idea that Dany is the anti-Targaryen Targaryen. Yet would not Jon be the anti-Stark Stark, by being half Targaryen and mingling with the Free Folk, when Stark identity for thousands of years has been rigidly defined in opposition to the Free Folk, exclusive of non-First Men blood, and in conformance with the Wall and what it represents?

That's what Tyrion is: House Lannister with a dwarf as its head, a dwarf who cares about women, smallfolk, bastards, commoners, children, and the disabled, who actually wants to protect the people rather than just exploit them, and who has killed and harmed other Lannisters both in the service of that cause and in service of his own goals. The other two heads of the dragon, Jon and Dany, are supposed to represent that balance and nuance as well, between embracing and embodying identity/rejecting its worst parts, destroying the old and ushering in the new.

But it's not in vogue to include Tyrion. He's not attractive enough and he's not able-bodied. He loves dragons, power, wine, and sex too much. He takes too much pride in his own identity and doesn't hate himself enough for being a Lannister. He's too ambitious. He's too ruthless. For a fandom so insistent on the aesthetics and performance of "ending the Targaryen dynasty and ushering in Northern Independence," he fits nowhere into that tapestry, so he is excluded. It doesn't sound as sexy to say he's the third head, not just because he isn't a Targaryen, but also because he doesn't fit the "pattern" ASOIAF fans want, of a "three heads" of the dragon that serves to uphold the centrality of House Stark as heroes and the centrality of House Targaryen as villains.

Yet it's for all of these reasons that TYRION is the third head of the dragon. People will continue to debate this and vehemently disagree (as if it makes sense for a completely minor character like Faegon to be the third head). However, only Tyrion thematically, philosophically, and plot wise fits the conception of the three heads of the dragon, and only he is foreshadowed to have that kind of relationship with Jon and Dany, but especially Dany.

#daenerys targaryen #canondany #canontyrion #danyrion #meta #my discourse #asoiaf meta #asoiaf #tyrion lannister #jon snow #the dragon has three heads

294 notes · View notes

bonefall · 27 days

Note

I personally like Thunder's prosthetic. Explained it to my friend (who does use a mobility device, a cane and wheelchair, and listens to me rant and infodump about BB) and they agreed, it's important to know that not every person needs what someone wants to give them. It's another example of "bad ableist person does a thing that hurts a disabled person because they are bad and ableist".

Clear Sky got Jagged Peak killed and would have killed Sunlit Frost! He would absolutely force his disabled son to be "normal" and present it like a privilege. "I wouldn't do this for anyone else, it's special, why don't you want to be helped?"

Thunder Storm should toss it in Clear Sky's face. (I would say toss it into the river but we do not pollute waterways in this house)

Thank you for telling me this, and tell your friend I'm thanking them too! If they have anything else to add please forward what they have to say

Since BB!DOTC tackles some of the heaviest topics in the entire series because its canon equivalent is so dark, I think very carefully about what I do here and how I show it. I take feedback on its sensitive aspects very seriously. If I'm understanding the criticism properly, it's that I should avoid stigmatizing prosthetics by making sure Thunder Storm's not the only one with it-- which he's not! And I'll add even more.

I don't want to avoid something only because it's uncomfortable if the topic is important, and my portrayal is respectful. Ableism IS uncomfortable! There are some situations where a prosthetic is not wanted! I think the rejection of this particular one is both a good opportunity to show a type of ableism and ALSO is very fitting for the characters.

In BB!Clear Sky's mind, the villain, he's fixing an old mistake. He can't admit that he got Jagged Peak killed or take REAL accountability for it (though he will, occasionally, apologize insincerely), but deep in his bones, he knows what he did was cruel. He'll never tell anyone this because he doesn't really cognate it himself, but Thunder Storm NEEDS to take his gift.

If Thunder doesn't take it, it blows a hole in his newest story. You see, throwing Jagged Peak out was All That Could Have Been Done back then. It was a Tragedy and he simply Made A Hard Choice. He regrets it very much, But You Have To Understand.

But now? Now? Well, behold. Look at what he's accomplished since the tragic death of his little brother. His cats are well-fed, cared for, and stable enough to make such incredible advancements. If only Jagged Peak had been able to hold on longer, if only he could be here now, I could fix him.

Just like I can (MAKE YOU JUST LIKE ME) fix you.

"Everything I've ever done is for Jagged Peak. For Fluttering Wing. For you." Thunder Sky is SPECIAL, but if he rejects any gift, tries to turn down the "privileges" offered to him, in an instant that becomes ungratefulness and arrogance. He both forces him to be special, and then leverages it against him if it's rejected. "Spoiled brat, doesn't appreciate what I've worked so hard to give him."

It all goes back to him and his own guilt. He can NEVER be wrong. He can't accept his family doesn't have to be "normal" or reflect his own ability. He won't see himself as a bully, let alone a murderer. It was never about his son's comfort or finding out what Thunder Storm wants or needs, it was about his own ego.

...All that said I'm still taking feedback if there's anything else I should keep in mind, or if anyone has a counter point, especially if you also have experience here.

(In the interest of having a link trail for posterity, here's the critique/call for feedback this is in response to)

#ALSO also I will take suggestions on other characters who should have prosthetics #Sunlit makes sense and it will make a really nice character moment later for him to have one built #There's also an amputee in RiverClan few people talk about called Stonestream #I can give him one and bump him up into a bigger character. In BB he is the sibling of Willowshine #BB!DOTC #better bones au #Also just as a side note... I love writing BB!Skystar. My ire for the character comes from his redemption arc so I feel like I get to--#--write the character I WANTED to see #Same with Bramble in other BB arcs #cw ableism #tw ableism #ableism #They're fascinating in that they always have to see themselves as the victim or the hero #They believe every lie they tell.#If you ever catch them in a contradiction they will still try to find some way to turn it on you and YOUR lack of understanding.#Interestingly both of them are ableist. Sky's is just more obvious because he's LOUDLY bigoted.#But BB!Bramble is *notably* less close to Jay for a very sad and very subtle reason.#Jay just doesn't serve his ego like the others do until much later in his life.#unfortunately most bigotry is like that.#the type you have a hard time calling out because it's a deniable bias. the constant gaslighting of being part of a marginalized group #Maybe I need to address the criticism by adding a character with a prosthetic to THIS arc even earlier #Problem is that like... Thunder's small merc group is already full of disabled characters and their THING is forming in response to ableism #OH maybe I'll put someone in the Forest Cat group which is lead by Slash?#I need to finish that last book and then gather up all the cats for sorting into allegiances

75 notes · View notes

xxlovelynovaxx · 10 months

Text

Re: the last post.

Someone with severe sensory issues is just as unable to watch many movies or go places with certain lighting as someone with a migraine or seizure disorder.

Not only that, but a complete neurodivergent meltdown is just as likely to cause them to hurt themselves or others as a seizure or migraine is to cause damage to themselves (or others).

Severe executive dysfunction or schizospec catatonia makes someone just as unable to move as literal paralysis for the duration. Yes, it being temporary does change the exact nature of their accessibility needs. It's like the difference between losing speech and semiverbality/nonverbality.

My lack of interoception has basically the same effect on me as physical incontinence. My executive dysfunction bars me from doing the exact same things my chronic pain and POTS ALSO bar me from doing.

My sensory food issues combine with my GI sensitivities and MCAS to cause severe malnutrition, absorption issues, and whole body health issues - ranging from worsening pain flareups to worsening executive dysfunction to diarrhea to brain fog to POTS flareups to memory issues.

There are things I could not do at gunpoint, that I am technically physically "capable" of doing, because of neurodivergence. I have cognitive disabilities. My brain also is what sends the signals to my body to do stuff. If it refuses to send those signals or sends them wrong, get this - I am just as unable to do the thing as if my brain couldn't send the signals because the nerves themselves were severed.

There is no "overcoming" this. That's not how disability works. That's an ableist narrative, that if you just "try hard enough" that your brain or body can magically become abled. When someone tells you they literally cannot enter a certain store because their sensory issues make them violently ill, you don't tell them "no, you can, don't make this about you". You BELIEVE them.

The alternative is doing the neurodivergent equivalent of "so what if there's not a wheelchair ramp, if you try harder you can just walk in". I'm not exaggerating.

If you think this is me being ableist because you think there's a difference between the body not being physically capable of something and the brain not being physically capable of something, you need to examine your bias against neurodivergent people. You need to examine why you think ND people can just "get over" their disabilities and why you're acting like it's "just in our heads".

You need to examine why you're acting like all neurodivergent people have the same low support needs that they can push through and mask up too. You need to examine why you treat someone who has fluctuating needs as if they're always capable of doing the thing - especially because as an ambulatory wheelchair user, there are days when no, I can't actually access places without the wheelchair.

You need to examine your ableism.

In case any of you have skipped over the multiple times I've said this, too, I'm neurodivergent AND physically disabled. I have every right to have an opinion on neurodivergent accessibility as it relates to physical accessibility. I have every right to have an opinion on ND inclusion in physically disabled spaces. And I'll remind you, if you care about excluding ND people more than including physically disabled people, to the point you exclude people who are both?

You're just an ableist.

#ableism

351 notes · View notes

king-magppi · 1 year

Text

Yellow Guy's Age

DHMIS Fandom, we need to talk about the infantilization of Yellow Guy. It's Papyrus from Undertale all over again😭😭 seriously. Anyways, I'm tired of seeing a GROWN MAN get depicted as a child by this fandom (I'm not talking about AUs or whatever, I'm talking about in casual fanart and the like). There is plenty of evidence from the show to support that Yellow Guy is, in fact, an adult, and I will list some out for you here:

In episode 1 (Jobs), Yellow Guy falls in love and marries Claire (the wrench person) in the span of the 40 years of working for Peterson's and Son's and Friends Bits and Parts Limited! This would be weird if Yellow Guy had met her as a child and grew up to marry her, wouldn't it? "But all that never even happened!" Yes, it did, because if we're using that logic, nothing from ANY of the other episodes happened because they always end up right back at home with no memory of the day prior regardless! Stay with me here!

In episode 3 (Family), Yellow Guy is seen as old enough by Todney and Lily to be forced into the role of the "Mother" and successfully order the Grolton's Chicken family tub. When the three get home, they proceed to try and open the packet of Chuddle Dollops again. During this scene, Red Guy refers to Yellow Guy as his "brother" rather than a son or any other family member.

In episode 4 (Friendship), it is revealed that Yellow Guy has a maiden name (it's "Rat Eyes" apparently), implying he has been married and/or divorced! Also, this next point might be a stretch which is why it isn't the main one for this bullet, but the first thing Yellow Guy wants to do when they finally get on the computer is "Do Gambling".

In episode 6 (Electricity), Lesley refers to Yellow as "NOT their real son". If they DO in fact happen to be his creator/parental figure, and Roy is his father, then that makes it very well possible that Yellow is at VERY LEAST in his late 20s-30s if Lesley is between 60-70 (the actress that plays Lesley, Vivienne Soan, is 67 years old, so it's safe to assume her character is supposed to be presented as around that age range). Another bit that might be a stretch is that after getting fresh batteries, Yellow Guy is able to do taxes, and even speaks more clearly and "mature" sounding.

Yellow is never referred to as a child by the others and is treated as an equal by all members of the household. They constantly pick on each other and even get in a fistfight at the end of episode 4.

Yellow Guy's voice is deep and does not SOUND like one of a child. If he were supposed to be one, wouldn't they give him a more "childish" voice?

And now I will debunk a few arguments I've seen used against people claiming Yellow Guy being an adult:

"But he dresses in overalls!"

Roy wears overalls too. Does this make him a child? Anyone can wear overalls.

"He's child sized! He MUST be a child!"

Actually, Duck/Green is the smallest one, and they're all puppets. They're gonna be pretty small compared to Red Guy. Also, height =/= age. Remember when the smallest in the house in the Family episode was revealed to be the father? Also, if we're going by height, why isn't Duck considered a child too then?

"He's too stupid/doesn't act like an adult."

We see in episode 6 that the reason he acts the way he does is because his batteries are dying. Also "stupidity" =/= age. Half the time Red Guy and Duck are just as dumb (if not more) than Yellow Guy in their actions So I really don't get why people use this one as an argument. It also feels a bit ableist to consider "not smart" people as children.

Wow. All of this even when I've fully disregarded the Pilot episode (I did this because some of you may consider it "not canon" because it was scrapped) and the webseries. I can't believe I even had to make this post, but it had to be done or else I'd lose my head! Thanks for reading if you made it this far!

#magppi meeps #dhmis #dont hug me im scared #dhmis yellow guy #dhmis manny #dhmis doi #what else do yall call him even #fluffybird #<< to get people to actually see this

805 notes · View notes

flame-cat · 11 months

Text

there is something to be said about the intersection of feeling between mass surveillance and being autistic.

I listened to the KJB episode about The Lives of Others, and a lot of the ways they talk about the emotions that film gives them mirror how I feel literally all the time every day of my life forever, just being autistic. things I've experienced firsthand, even.

that feeling of everyone having to talk around things, trying to catch you in the act of being Suspicious. that one scene where the agent encourages a guy to continue making a risky joke, and once he's done goes all serious and says he'll have to write him up, and then immediately reels back and laughs at how scared it made him. every conversation is a game of blind chess, you can never know whether something you say will be used against you later or will cross an invisible line. its paralyzing and harrowing, and above all else extremely isolating.

autistic people essentially live our lives in a surveillance state, we have WORDS for how this makes us feel, what we're forced to do and make normal. we mask every day of our lives and its so ingrained in us that there are support groups to help each other UNmask, because we've become so inured in the false identity we're forced to inhabit that we've forgotten how to be ourselves. honesty and truth are risks that are frequently not worth taking, with the consequences of being scorned, mocked, outright accused of being manipulative or sociopathic or any other number of ableist bullshit, even beaten or murdered. friends will leave you, manipulators and abusers will use your Suspiciousness to turn all your loved ones against you and leave you more alone than ever. the hallmarks of being autistic, the way allistic people can Tell what we are, are overwhelmingly acute stress responses. meeting an autistic person without some form of trauma just from existing in this constant state of paranoia and stress is almost impossible. our families don't trust us. nobody trusts us. and beyond that they don't even like us.

and those of us who aren't verbal, who find communicating with written or spoken language either difficult or impossible, are straight-up ignored and used as scapegoats and punching bags. those of us who have high support needs- their inner lives mean nothing. if we can't do something, its met with the scornful response of, "yes you can, you're just not trying hard enough." even if someone does support us in the ways we need, we are often treated like disposable, exploitable children. no privacy or inner life, no opinions or feelings, no agency. just someone to be watched over. (if anyone is able to speak more on this please please do, you deserve to be listened to)

idk. I'm in my feelings about this. anyone else?

#in the life #actually autistic #kill james bond #allistics u can reblog btw but dont clown

261 notes · View notes

nekropsii · 5 months

Note

im thinking about the relationship between kankri and porrim because its just so fucking WEIRD like theyre obviously important to eachother or care about eachother to some extent but we dont really know why?? like they dont seem to get along very well

she patronizes him constantly (which is VERY loaded considering they lived on fucking beforus) and ignores his boundaries (calling him patronizing nicknames he doesnt like, wiping his face while he tried to push her off) and he constantly makes insensitive bitchy bigoted comments that go against all of her values and make her angry

and theres not the same dynamic dolorosa and signless had where she raised him like theyre the same age so why do they even talk to eachother?? what is their relationship?? like were they childhood friends or something?? itd make sense if they were both a little different as kids and therefore got along better but then why do they still talk to eachother when they really dont now ITS SO WEIRD

It's... Complicated. They go way back, as far as I can tell.

The way I see it, they do not have a "Mother and Son" relationship- I find that most who assert this often place far too much maturity onto Porrim, who is literally 19 years old. It's more like an Adoptive/Found Sibling relationship between someone with a severe case of Eldest Daughter Syndrome and the social conditioning of a higher-end Midblood on Beforus, and someone with a chronic case of Only Child and the social conditioning of a Mutant Lime on Beforus. The relationship makes more sense to me when you view it this way. It's just... A fraught sibling relationship, formed under societal pressures we can't even fathom. Porrim Maryam, trained by society to cull those beneath her, trying hard not to, and for the most succeeding outside of someone very close to her, and Kankri Vantas, culled and isolated his whole life, becoming a total suck-up to the deeply misogynistic, ableist, hemoloyal culling system as both a method of self defense and as a wielding of the only weapon he really knows. It was used against him all the time, and it works, doesn't it? If sucking up to Able-Bodied Male Highbloods and ridiculing everyone beneath that golden standard is the best way to ensure safety, then he's gonna do it. He's essentially a lifelong voter for the Leopards Eating People's Faces Party.

Ultimately, I think what keeps Porrim by his side is that... I think she believes in him. It's like watching yourself lose your sibling to the Alt-Right Pipeline. I think she thinks he doesn't actually believe most of what he's saying, and that this is all deeply reflexive. She's smart enough to recognize the real systemic issues at play here, and that he's essentially caught in chains between 5 different machines that all want him dead. And she's right. When you actually read the shit Kankri's saying, it becomes almost immediately apparent that he's spouting bullshit, and that he absolutely knows this. I think what keeps Kankri by her side is that he knows she cares about him. There isn't any denying it. She might infringe on boundaries, or be generally annoying to him, and keeps doing that frustrating little thing called seeing through his and everyone else's bullshit and calling them out on it- not just including but especially his- but she cares. I think he knows that at the end of all things what he'd have left is her. Is this to say that if you got Kankri to grow a spine and genuinely believe in things that aren't spoonfeedings of the latest Conservative Highblood Talking Point/Psy-Op, he'd be a good person? Hell no. No way. He has a raging savior complex and is way too eager to throw other people under the bus and insult/ridicule them to their faces. He's an asshole. Just completely slimy.

But, again, sibling relationships know no bounds. This kind of dynamic just feels so... Realistic to me. The way their relationship is so strained but still so strong and ongoing just feels so human. I don't know. This is pretty meandering, I just think about them a lot.

#homestuck #homestuck analysis #homestuck meta #alpha trolls #beforan trolls #porrim maryam #kankri vantas #porrim.pdf #kankri.pdf #nekro.pdf #nekro.sms

132 notes · View notes

neuroticboyfriend · 7 months

Text

I often feel somewhat offput when abled is used synonymously with ableist... Not only can we not know if someone's abled unless they tell us, some of the worst ableism I have faced came from (and continues to come) from other disabled people. I have been misunderstood and severely abused even by other people with severe disabilities.

To be clear, this isn't me saying you can't be like "I'm so tired of abled people doing [ableist] thing." I just wish there was more care to how we talk about people who are ableist, even viciously ableist. I wish there were some more acknowledgement that we live in such a deeply ableist society that many people with disabilities are ableist - outside of internet discourse (which, is not insigificant, to be clear).

Some disabled people even politically side with the system in such a way that it effectively makes them culturally abled... In this world, there is a difference between simply having a disability and being Disabled... The struggles comparatively and culturally abled disabled people matter, they do, deeply... it just isn't fair how they'll take other disabled people down with them, and trade ableism against us for being granted advantages like trust from abled/other ableist people.

And I just wish the section of the online community Im in spoke about that more.

#softspoonie #disabled #disabled community #ableism #lateral ableism #comparatively abled #culturally disabled #disabled culture #culture #assimilation #politics #disability #disability community #anti ableism #systemic ableism

124 notes · View notes

olderthannetfic · 5 months

Note

I think that asking if screening for disabilities on pregnancies or not (and eventually aborting them if they do carry a disability) is ableist or not is just kinda missing the point.

Either you're """pro-life""" (I hate this term), and you're already against abortion to begin with, or you're pro-choice and the question shouldn't matter.

Bodily autonomy means a expecting person can terminate the pregnancy for whatever reason they want, including reasons you disagree with, and if your support for the abortion is conditional then it means you don't really support the pregnant person's choice.

It's a question of consistency: you can't say "it's a fetus, not a baby" to pro-lifers and then turn around and say "You'd be participating in a genocide" when someone wants to terminate a pregnancy that's confirmed to have some kind of disability or another.

Either the fetus is a baby who has an a priori right to life or it isn't. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

(Not to mention that all of those pretty arguments about "You want the baby to be born, but will you help raise them?" still apply.

We all know that disabled children take a lot more money to raise because disability aids / hospital visits aren't cheap.

There are a lot of people who could deal with the financial and emotional costs of raising an abled body child but simply can't with a disabled child.

And then there's the fact that parentification of elder siblings has a tendency to ramp up when a disabled child is born because the parents are overwhelmed with the care needed and can't afford the professional help they need, specially in the US where everything healthcare related is about a blood signature away from asking for your soul.)

While I appreciate that people raising this argument are coming from a good place, the very question is just incompatible with pro-choice values and common pro-choice rhetoric.

86 notes · View notes

emzii-hi · 4 months

Text

MY OPINION ON THE FOREVER SITUATION

I would like to start to say this hurts me as a fan of forever and that I would honestly want to stay neutral and keep out of this whole thing until its be clarified but will keep tabs on whats going on. I do not speak on behalf of forever this Soley my thoughts and opinions. I do not know the culture of Brazil and i speak only from experience when i make connections. And the whole reason I am righting this is that I want to just get it off my chest. THIS IS A VERY VERY LONG POST!!

First of all i have seen the tweets and have watched the whole stream that forever streamed talking about this. I would also like to say that I speak and can read portugués so I feel like I can confidently form a well informed opinion based on what is being put out there. And i will talk about each part separately and then give my final opinion

THE TWEETS

The tweets are in no other words gross and very concerning and that's honestly all you can say about them. He was very obviously over what we know is the legal age and was talking about/towards minors fan or not is gross. Concerning about every other ableist and sexist tweets again are gross and shows a lack of maturity that he had at that age.

IMFORMATION/PEOPLE ONLINE

The way people especially English speaker from what I can see is actually crazy that people and assume information then spread THEIR opinion as fact towards other people. Whether the information is correct your opinion is not fact. sharing and putting your opinion of the information is okay but don't go around spreading your information as fact because it can be more hurtful then helpful to both parties.

Also this is another language AND culture. I feel like people speaking online about his voice sounding this or the way he phrase this are mainly English/Spanish speaking and even if Spanish is similar we do not know all their tones and cultural cues

Also a big thank you to everyone who is translating the information about everything that is happening you are all doing gods work and me and everyone in the community appreciate you

STREAM

On stream today forever both talked about the drama and the way he is handling it.

LAWYER/LEGAL ISSUES

I see a lot of people complaining and saying he must be guilt if he is lawyering up. Now this has two faces. ONE is that yea okay of he is so innocent why does he have to lawyer up it makes no sense. And to an extent i can agree with as like if you have nothing to hide. Especial if maybe the same victim is not able to get a lawyer.

But on the second side think about this logically. If you were accused of a crime petty or not your first thought is clearing your name. He is lawyering up in a way that is able to clear his name is a legal sense. Why can't and wouldn't he be able to defend himself is he MIGHT of truly not done something.

Another people were hoping that he would at least say sorry about what he did to the victim. But i would like to put it out there that if he is taking the legal route and he is getting a lawyer and defense to help him, if he were to say anything at the moment that made him seem guilty like admitting to the allegations would be used against him. Obviously this is in thoughts that the victim/s are taking any action towards Forever other that just stating it on the internet.

HIS OLD TWEETS

First things that i want to say is that one we do not unless you are Brazil know the culture. I am part Mexican and I can say that you will find a lot of men (more like boys) that joke like this. I can say from experience like that one of my ex and his friends that would joke like this a lot and people in Valorant joke like this ALL OF THE TIME. Is it wrong yes, did it make me feel super uncomfy yes. Point is that people usually joke like this and it was way more common back in the earlier 2010s, even fucking racist jokes where consider super funny until like super crack woke era came. He in the stream was like did I say this yes and I was wrong and I am not the person I was back then. For me I am like okay that's valid. PEOPLE CAN CHANGE. People can grow and mature. A school bully can become a better person. The fanfics we read where the mean person becomes nicer is change. Character development, character growth, maturing, call it what you will it does happen and honestly I am shock that people will point at someone that wasn't always they way they are now go 'OMG YOUR THE DEVIL NOW WHY DID YOU DECIEVE MY EXPECTATIONS'. Again this is not me defending Forever for his past tweets but more of me saying that you cant judge a person sometimes because of their past. This man probably met people that slapped sense and knowledge into him that he was like wtf I was a shit person.

Him deleting his old post is him starting a new and trying to show the person he is now and not the person he was and no longer agrees with. I would do the same if I posted something and just not longer agreed with it cause people do change and learn and grow new opinion whether for better or worse.

HIS POPULARITY

He also talked about how its kind of ironic that this claim/s has come to light right after his popularity has hit an all time high especially after the QSMP. And how every claim/s has first started on Twitter when theirs not actual legal action be taken into consideration by the victims. (from what i can tell) THIS DEOS NOT MEAN FOREVER IS INNOCENT. This just means keep an open mind. If people are able to send raid officers, break into streamers house, dox them online I would not put it past people faking a very gross and traumatic experience that effects actual peoples lives and hurts ACTUAL VICTIMS.

THE PERSON THAT PASSED AWAY

There was this person named Choquel (trigger warning) committed suicide due to a gossip blog spreading around false information. This person was who had a life and family that are now in shambles just because people wanted to spread rumors. I hope that they rest in peace and are enjoying their after life. And I send prayers to their family and hope for the best for them. I honestly don't feel comfortable taking 100% on this mainly cause idk a lot and this is just what ik about this situation but full am sadden that the world lost a person that could of made a change in someone's life but ended up taking their own because of others and their words.

OTHER STREAMER UNFOLLOWING/BANNING FOREVER

I do not know much on this aspect put from what I can see and do know is that a lot of people are unfollowing forever and even people from close circles like: PHIL, & BIRIUM.

I think this has two sides one is the very obvious opinion. They unfollowed because they believe the claims/have actual information that has not been released. And if they do and that's is why they unfollowed him then GOOD FOR THEM. I am glad they are standing in solidarity with the victim.

BUT on the other hand, is just in my opinion is that they just don't want to drag into drama that might effect them as streamer/person just for following the person being accused even if they don't support that person. Then again I do not have the information to be able to fully understand this.

MY FINAL CONCLUSION

I am going to remove myself from the forever community but will keep my eye out for any update. This can go either way, and if the victim is an actual victim and not someone that is just hateful, then I hope you get your Justice and forever gets the punishment and karma that he deserves. If forever truly is innocent then I wish him Goodluck on clearing is name.

I am really sad that this has happened to us as a community especially right now in the new year. I am sorry and give my condolences to any victim in this situation which includes, his wife, the victims that brought this to light, any past victims in the past from his tweets, and his friends.

Overall this situation is a bad situation and if its like what the community believes to be which is true then keep boycotting forever, keep spreading information/translations, and supporting the victims. But please do not send hate to fans in the community who choose to continue to support and enjoy Forever. They are fans and entitled to their opinion and do not deserve any hate towards them.

Again this whole thing is my opinion and thoughts if you have questions or concerns or feel that I missed something please let me know. IF you had or are going through grooming/sa/domestic violence speak to someone please trust me you will find people in life that will treat you and support you in the way you need and want.

Stay safe and warm. Eat and drink water

-EMZII OUT-

#forever situation #qsmp forever #qsmp #talking #my opinion #I am out but will be keeping tabs #sad #veent

55 notes · View notes

autistic-zukoao3 · 9 months

Text

Just saw a low support needs person claim that support levels are ableist because "there is no real difference between level one and level three autism"

Bro. You are so wrong,

Support needs aren't comparing autistic people to allistic. It's compared against other autistic people. A level three autistic person is going to have substantially higher support needs. It's not ableist to say this. It's not ableist to say someone has higher support needs than you.

Please, for fucks sake, stop erasing high support needs autistic people from discussions. They're autistic and human too. They exist. They are on here telling you this.

Stop fucking pretending that a low support needs autistic has the same needs as someone high support needs.

I'm medium support needs. My milestones and accomplishments look a bit different than a low support needs person. Going to a restaurant and not having a meltdown within 30 minutes is a significant achievement for me. Going into the store by myself and buying three items is a significant achievement for me. Saying anything to a stranger is a significant achievement for me. Remembering to go to the bathroom, eating, and drinking water is an accomplishment.

My friend's brother is very high support needs. He will never be able to live independently. He is nonverbal. He cannot read. He can't write. He can't spell. He can't learn sign language. AAC for him is offering two hands, a verbal option for each hand. Left hand for no, right hand for yes; left hand for iPad, right hand for toy (as examples). That is his only way to communicate.

He is high support needs. That is not ableist to say. That is a fact. His severe intellectual disability is inherently connected to his autism. There is no end to his autism and then start to his ID. They are connected.

Anyways. I'm just sick of seeing low support needs autistics claiming that "y'know one day I could be level one and another I'm level three." It just doesn't work that way. Level 3 autistic people don't have days where they could be seen as level one or low support needs. They are visibly disabled and even if you have zero knowledge of autism, you can still tell they are disabled.

I type better than I speak. My friend speaks better than he types. His brother can't do either.

Stop erasing high support needs autistics.

To the high support needs autistics on here (because they do exist on here, they aren't hard to find), please correct anything I've said that is wrong. I am still learning, and want to be a good ally.

I'm not tagging this with nonverbal, or high support needs, because that's their place. I'm not nonverbal, I'm not high support needs. Those aren't my places to post. That is their space.

#zuko rambles #cw ableism #tw ableism #medium support needs #ableism #verbalflux #low support needs stop talking over high support needs #it's not allyship it is just ableism

125 notes · View notes

vaspider · 2 years

Text

This previously existed as a comment on a post about vibrators as accessibility tools. The OP of that post has since indicated that they don't want to be associated with the word "cripple," which is an identity word for me, so I've taken down my reblog of that post and reproduced and expanded upon my thoughts here. Please don't continue to spread the version of that post with my commentary.

There is a sort of punitive mindset especially in the US when it comes to disability -- you cannot ask for accommodations if you don't really need them, it has to be for something essential, something you can't live without, can't do your job without. (Oh, the capitalism.) I think this -- in the end -- comes from the very ableist idea that people aren't disabled unless they have somehow failed to not be disabled. The Puritain mindset which says that disability is a punishment for failing to be good -- somehow -- and that it is a punishment for sin -- somehow -- informs this particularly noxious bit of garbage.

(This is a message that I received extremely blatantly as a child -- one of my Sunday School teachers told a fellow first-grader that her T1 diabetes was an indication that she must have sinned.)

If you want help, you have to suffer for it, because you wouldn't be in this situation at all if you didn't deserve it somehow -- and that goes double if the help that you need is disability payments or Medicaid/Medicare or something else that's an 'entitlement'. If disabled people aren't in sackcloth and ashes, they can't really need help, because we must suffer, live in penury, and -- very importantly -- be seen to suffer.

And like, fuck that, actually, and fuck the idea that only 'good cripples' deserve accommodations? Even if my disability was the result of having driven my car recklessly and crashed it into a tree, I don't deserve to never know joy again. Even if my diabetes were because I had eaten nothing but spoonfuls of confectioner's sugar for three years, I don't deserve to suffer. The good cripple/bad cripple narrative is a shit one which sets us against each other and sets us up with an expectation of public eternal suffering so we may be Inspirations (good cripples) or Dire Warnings (bad cripples) for the temporaily-abled.

Fuck the idea that only 'good cripples' who didn't 'do this to themselves' deserve accommodations, and fuck the idea that disabled people don't deserve the full experience of human life with all of its joy, all of its dancing, and yes, all of its orgasms. I am, and remain, a defiantly bad cripple and a cripplepunk -- and I deserve to define my cripple-ness as an experience of solidarity, truth, and joy. I'm a cripple because I survived things that should have killed me, and I'm not ashamed and I'm not going to suffer visibly to prove I deserve the bare minimum.

1K notes · View notes

thedigitalwave · 8 months

Text

If you ever think the radqueer community is wrong by despising "survivors of the radqueer community", just think of Oli London.

He labeled himself as queer and was transrace. Now he hates queer people and trace people, says they're all the same mob of horribleness, and thrashes trans people because he's now christian and doesn't identify with those "beliefs".

Do you really think he was right? If yes, you're just a bigot, congratulations, but if not, where do you draw the line? At hating "actual queer people"? At hating "an actual minority"? Because I've never seen a non-queer radqueer. I've never seen a radqueer who's never been oppressed in any way. And with the amount of hate we've gotten, you can bet (and I know it's true) that a lot of antis are bigoted. I've seen antis be so straight up ableist while "fighting against ableism", I've seen them call radqueers the r slur and say horrible shit. And you can't say that's not a majority, I've never seen an anti who isn't conservative-coded and doesn't spew bigoted bullshit.

Because the nature of antis is segregation between binaries that don't exist as a binary. Disabled vs abled is not a binary, yet I've seen antis say that people can never become disabled, which is just stupid. As a white latino, POC vs white is not a binary I fall into, yet they really want to separate those and say people can never ever identify as something other than what they're born and perceived as.

They want to separate them because it's less confusing and less problematic. They want to maintain the status quo of never letting minorities become privileged as an identity (e.g. transwhiteness and nullabledness), and of never letting privileged people identify with minorities. Privilege or minority status will likely never leave us and we're not saying it will, but muddying the waters will never be something less than good. Because that only empowers.

In my humble opinion, saying disability and other minority status is desirable and inherently neutral or good, is not harmful. Because the other option is saying disability and other minority status is inherently undesirable regardless of how the disabled person or minority feels about it.

Anyway. I have said this multiple times, but having a distinct line between privilege status and minority status that no one can cross is not a good thing and will never be.

61 notes · View notes

midnight-soulless-system · 4 months

Text

What it means to be verbalpunk to us:

It means to speak in a disorganized way and not try to mask, especially on bad days. It means to not push ourselves to try and speak when we can't. It means to support others who talk "weird" or in a "disgusting" or "non-understandable" way. It means to be kind to ourselves when we can't mask our semiverbalness. It means to stutter freely and laugh it off. It means standing up against ableists who think that difficulty communication means that our voices don't matter. It means caring for our nonverbal and semiverbal siblings who have no way to community their needs and wants. It means not apologizing when speech come out wrong. It means laughing with our friends when our sentences are not at all what we wanted to say, and being able to let ourselves be upset when that happens too. It means accepting and being kind to those who talk differently from you because that's what everyone deserves.

Being verbalpunk means being accepting of others speech. No exceptions.

#verbalpunk #cw repetition #Sorry if this is hard to read y'all #We tried our best lol #-Anika #soulless speaks #Semiverbal #Nonverbal #actually schizophrenic #Actually schizospec #Actually disabled #actually autistic #Actually semiverbal #Stutters #speech impairment

47 notes · View notes

disabledunitypunk · 4 months

Text

I want to revisit exactly why we founded this blog in the first place.

I was viscerally reminded of it while scrolling an entirely different liberation tag. I found a post that I liked and went to the blog to see if I might like to follow them. The second recent post on their blog was this, which as I was reading I found myself relating to.

Warning for uncensored references to slurs. This is done for readability in the context of talking about them, and the slurs are neither being aimed at anyone nor reclaimed in this context, even where reclaimable.

You know how you look back at past shitty connections, friends, family dynamics, and relationships and you're like "I can't believe I let them treat me that way"? I think it hits differently with disability because when you're disabled you don't always even know that you're being mistreated and/ or abused in regards to it.

I know statistically disabled people are more likely to be abused but sometimes there's an additional type of abuse that's hard to identify even in hindsight because no one tells you how abusive it is.

But ableist abuse relating to your disability can look like:

Pushing you to do things beyond your limitations despite their awareness of them.

Blaming you for the "inconveniences" brought on by things beyond your control (ex: missing a movie because you had to wait for your pain meds to kick in).

Not allowing you to take breaks or antagonizing you when you do.

Bullying or making fun of things you can't help like gait, a lisp, an embarrassing symptom.

Trying to "cure" or "fix" you, often framing it as "helping" you. Sometimes they look similar and you might be able to tell by their reaction towards lack of improvement.

Holding over you the things they have to do for you (cooking, cleaning, driving, working, etc).

Giving ultimatums that demand things of you that you can't do (getting a job, keeping up with multiple chores).

Using insulting terms, language, and/or slurs that you have not permitted them to or in a context where there is intent to harm you.

Interrogating you about your disability or trying to find discrepancies between your experiences and what they've heard/read/seen about it.

Implying or saying anything along the lines of you faking, being lazy, or exaggerating.

Reducing you to a hypochondriac, saying you enjoy being disabled because you seem to like having things done for you, or that you're lazy or abusing them by depending on them for things.

Asking you about it not to learn more, but to use it against you in some way.

Having a martyr complex, acting as if they're a hero for giving you the support you deserve.

Calling you a burden, implying you to be one, or treating you like one.

Acting like you owe them a debt, sometimes even demanding some kind of repayment. Keeping track of money they spend on you that you won't be able to pay back, feeling entitled to things like control, sex, a portion of government benefits, etc.

Self victimizing. They act like you being disabled causes more suffering to themselves than you.

Accusing you of being addicted to your medication. If you genuinely develop an addiction a normal response is concern not rage, finger pointing, etc. if you don't have one baseless claims are very harmful

Trying to force you to stop "depending" on things you need like medication and disability aids

Comparing you to others that are doing "better" than you. Maybe showing you inspiration porn of someone with no legs for example doing incredible things- which is great for them but the "I don't let my disability stop me so you can do anything" shit is harmful. Some of us will get very unwell if we try, and some just can't.

Trying to make others also see you as dramatic, faking, or lazy. Often embarrassing and mocking you as well.

Withholding things you need like medication or disability aids as a punishment

Saying your disability is karma or something inflicted by a divine entity/religious figure. Maybe as punishment for not praying, being queer, or something else they disagree with.

Saying that it's a result of being "promiscuous"/ LGBT. For instance if you have HIV or ME/ CFS that was a result of something like mononucleosis ("kissing disease")

Shaming you for things related to your disability beyond your control or expressing embarrassment over these things. including but not limited to: appearance (general but also things like say a lupus butterfly rash or weight gain/loss), having to lay down in public (ex: with POTS), inability to keep up with hygiene, etc.

Lacking boundaries and acting as if they are entitled to information or intrusion of your space/belongings due to the power they hold over you and assistance they may provide.

Implying/saying you're living an extended vacation. Maybe one they say they wish they had because they have to do x y z while you "sit around"

Abandoning you solely for your disability (ex: because you can't hang out, they don't want a disabled partner, think you're faking, etc)

Note that someone doing one or two of these things a few times doesn't always mean they're abusing you (also depends on which). It's about the patterns and frequency of this behavior as well as refusal to improve once aware that they're hurting you. People who care about you don't want to hurt you and the normal response is to do their best not to repeat the action that negatively affected you

There are more examples and you can feel free to list some

Except it was then, at the very bottom, followed by:

✨This is about physical illnesses and disabilities, please don't derail✨

So let's go point by point, shall we?

Pushing you to do things beyond your limitations despite their awareness of them.

This is universal to all forms of disability, and in fact neurodisabled people are often pushed beyond their limitations by people aware of them precisely because those people think neurodivergence can't be profoundly disabling, rather than thinking a specific individual's physical disability isn't so in their specific case or based on their specific diagnosis.

Blaming you for the "inconveniences" brought on by things beyond your control (ex: missing a movie because you had to wait for your pain meds to kick in).

While this one is universal to abuse in general, I have no problem with a post about ableism focusing on ableist abuse. There is in fact a unique manifestation of this kind of abuse with ableism, where the things that are beyond your control specifically are also causing significant distress to you, as opposed to another aspect of your life like a physical feature or care breaking down or something that is either neutral or external.

However, it is in fact not only not exclusive to physical disability, but in fact one of the primary ways neuroableism manifests, because neuroableism relies on blaming individuals for things beyond their control by pushing the narrative that it would be in our control if we just "tried harder". This is not unique to neuroableism, either; corpoableism very much does this too, precisely because it relies on the sanist ideology that physically disabled folks are not intellectually capable of knowing our own disabilities and limits.

Erasing either type from the narrative would be wrong and lead to a reductive and facile understanding of ableism.

Not allowing you to take breaks or antagonizing you when you do.

Once again universal. Not being allowed to take breaks for neurodisabled people can lead to burnout, PTSD, self-injury, brain damage, traumagenically triggered development of chronic pain disorders and chronic illness, and more.

Bullying or making fun of things you can't help like gait, a lisp, an embarrassing symptom.

Once again universal, and I'd like to point out that gait can be and lisps usually are neurological in nature. They are very much physical manifestations of what are often or even primarily neurological conditions, and are in those cases considered forms of neurodivergence.

Trying to "cure" or "fix" you, often framing it as "helping" you. Sometimes they look similar and you might be able to tell by their reaction towards lack of improvement.

Autism S/peaks exists for this exact reason. "Curing" divergences in functional neurology is the entire basis of sanism and therefore fighting it is a fundamental part of the very foundation of mad liberation. This is actually a form of ableism more prevalent against neurodivergence, especially unpalatable neurodivergence, than physical disability. It is even present against nondisabling neurodivergence (that which causes neither distress nor dysfunction), which is an important facet to consider in understanding how ableism functions - even solely against people who ARE disabled.

Holding over you the things they have to do for you (cooking, cleaning, driving, working, etc).

Yet again universal. Somehow I wonder if this person thinks neurodisabilities aren't actually, well, disabling. Neurodisabilities can make you unable to cook, clean, drive, work, make appointments and access care, do paperwork required to receive the "benefits" you need to survive, and more, just as physical disabilities can.

Giving ultimatums that demand things of you that you can't do (getting a job, keeping up with multiple chores).

Again, neurodisabilities are disabling.

Using insulting terms, language, and/or slurs that you have not permitted them to or in a context where there is intent to harm you.

Retard. Stupid. Crazy. Idiot. Insane. Dumb. Sociopath. Bipolar. Narcissist. Psychopath. Schizo. Antisocial.

Just because you refuse to recognize many of these as slurs doesn't make them not slurs, and they are certainly "insulting terms and language". The ones mentioned are specifically often weaponized against neurodisabled people based on various aspects of their neurodisabilities, and not always based on the exact definitional meaning or common usage of the slur. For example, a person with ADHD might be called "insane" for finding their ADHD profoundly disabling, despite ADHD not typically being considered under the umbrella of disorders/neurodivergencies most impacted by sanism.

Interrogating you about your disability or trying to find discrepancies between your experiences and what they've heard/read/seen about it.

Refusing to recognize autism outside of "Rain Man" stereotypes. Refusing to recognize inattentive and mixed subtypes of ADHD. Refusing to recognize cluster B disorders if a person seems "nice". Refusing to recognize OCD outside of excessive cleaning. Refusing to recognize complex dissociative disorders outside of a very narrow definition that excludes medically recorded and accepted presentations of CDDs. Refusing to recognize psychosis and schizospec disorders in anyone who is able to express themselves.

Those are just some of the many extremes that we have personal experience with - never mind the more subtle and insidious forms of this kind of abuse that don't involve outright fakeclaiming and barred access from treatment/support.

Implying or saying anything along the lines of you faking, being lazy, or exaggerating.

Not only is this a primary manifestation of neuroableism, but it is in fact the one that is most prevalent in disabled community infighting and discourse, most typically weaponized against neurodisabled people. This one is particularly ironic for that reason - physically disabled neurodisabled people are called abled or told we are pretending or want to be more disabled than we actually are the instant we dare to talk about how our disabling neurodivergence profoundly disables us; let alone that we AND "physically abled" neurodisabled people do not in fact gain access to abled privilege.

Reducing you to a hypochondriac, saying you enjoy being disabled because you seem to like having things done for you, or that you're lazy or abusing them by depending on them for things.

*Stares directly at pretend camera like I'm on The Office*.

Another one at least as equally prevalent against neurodisabled people, though for this one I hesitate to claim more so. I've found that our experiences with chronic pain and executive dysfunction are near-identical in this respect.

Asking you about it not to learn more, but to use it against you in some way.

Having a martyr complex, acting as if they're a hero for giving you the support you deserve.

Calling you a burden, implying you to be one, or treating you like one.

Self victimizing. They act like you being disabled causes more suffering to themselves than you.

Doing these all together because they're all related.

Autism warrior moms are the most visible example of this, but people who act in any sort of caretaker role to disabled people, related or not, do this all the time. They do this regardless of specific disability. Parents of disabled children and partners of disabled people (and friends and other relations) are all "heroes" in societies eyes, and often not only don't challenge that, but wield it against their children/partners/friend/etc.

Also, the entire concept of "narcissistic abuse" is just this.

Trying to force you to stop "depending" on things you need like medication and disability aids

Withholding things you need like medication or disability aids as a punishment

Grouping these together a bit out of order because they're also related. The addiction narrative is especially common with antidepressants, anti anxiety meds, and especially ADHD meds. My own abusive parent tried to get me off my meds for this reason.

This is also the reason meds like ADHD meds are systemically refused and withheld - the anti-addict narratives, fear of "dependence" and withholding meds as a "punishment" for challenging the narrative that disabled people can't know their own disabilities or that a psychiatric professional might know less or be wrong about them.

Accessibility aids that are necessary for preventing meltdowns and/or shutdowns such as stim toys, light-sensitivity glasses, noise-canceling headphones, and such, are also often withheld because they don't want you to "depend" on them or as punishment.

Yes, and Albert Einstein was autistic. Vincent Van Gogh was suicidally depressed and schizophrenic - and the fact he did some of his best art while actively being treated for these is erased. Edgar Allen Poe, among other things, likely had a seizure disorder - which is a form of neurodivergence as much as a physical disability. There's dozens of examples of this for just about any given neurodisability, whether with someone famous or simply another family member with the same diagnosis, just as there is for a given physical disability.

Saying your disability is karma or something inflicted by a divine entity/religious figure. Maybe as punishment for not praying, being queer, or something else they disagree with.

Another universal one, but especially applies to depression, self-harm, and suicidal ideation.

Saying that it's a result of being "promiscuous"/ LGBT. For instance if you have HIV or ME/ CFS that was a result of something like mononucleosis ("kissing disease")

This is so far, the first one I've seen that primarily affects people who are physically chronically ill (though ME/CFS actually specifically causes neurodivergence in the form of profound cognitive disability - an example of how systemic physical conditions are often partially neurodivergent in nature due to the simple physical organ responsible for consciousness being affected).

While there are outliers, such as trauma disorders resulting from abuse occurring in a queer relationship that you have less recourse and resources for in a queermisic society, I think it's at least possible to have a conversation about this one centered on physical disabilities without excluding a group just as severely and commonly effected.

However, it is neither distracting from a conversation nor decentering the most effected to simply acknowledge that even this is not wholly exclusive to physical disability, and it in fact enriches the conversation and makes measures which fight it more effective to analyze the totality of how this form of ableist abuse is used against people.

That's... kinda the whole basis of the theory of intersectionality.

I'm not sure if this is just a more specific repeat of the second point or a similar but different manifestation of it, but as someone with physical disabilities that come with flushing and rashes, with POTS, and whose inability to keep up with hygiene is as related to their neurodivergence as their physical disabilities: this I would say is more common in terms of appearance with physical disabilities but equally as common in terms of hygiene with neurodisabilities.

Some exceptions include Down Syndrome, FASD, and even some disabling intersex variations in specific contexts for appearance; and it's worth noting that hygiene is slightly more commonly weaponized against those with invisible disabilities than those with very visible ones in either case, though cases of significant acne and other skin conditions are a large exception to this as well.

Lacking boundaries and acting as if they are entitled to information or intrusion of your space/belongings due to the power they hold over you and assistance they may provide.

Once again a very basic form of abuse, but made worse by the inherent hierarchical power imbalance of being abled while you are disabled (or in some cases, being disabled but a parent or disabled but having financial power over you in any relationship). This is actually one of the single most prevalent types of child abuse specifically, but especially against both neurodisabled and physically disabled children.

Implying/saying you're living an extended vacation. Maybe one they say they wish they had because they have to do x y z while you "sit around"

Hm, I wonder if neurodisabled people ever have the distressing and disabling aspects of their neurodisabilities erased while people act like they are on vacation while being profoundly disabled by their brain to the point of being unable to work. /sarcasm

Abandoning you solely for your disability (ex: because you can't hang out, they don't want a disabled partner, think you're faking, etc)

Is your disability disabling? Then this in fact likely applies to you! I don't know a single neurodivergent or physically disabled person who hasn't experienced this, even amongst neurodivergent people that are in their own words not very disabled by their neurodivergence.

So out of 27 examples, exactly one is primarily experienced by physically disabled people.

Somehow I fail to see how it is "derailing" to acknowledge forms of ableism as experienced equally by neurodisabled people, but I do find conversations of ableism actually derailed by insisting on not letting a significant portion of the disabled community (including what is a significant portion if not a majority of the physically disabled community) talk about the full extent of their experiences with ableism.

Or, to put it more simply, it is derailing discussions of ableism to insist that they are exclusive to physically disabled people when they are not, and especially to accuse other physically disabled people of derailing if they talk about how their experiences with ableism are intersectional with and even inseparable from their neurodivergence.

I have an example to add to this list after all: DARVO, an acronym which stands for Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and offender. When you deny that neurodisabled people face this ableism (or that they face it at similar rates, to the same extent, etc), attack them for bringing that up, and act like they are being ableist while you erase disabled people's experiences with ableism, you are guilty of this.

This is the whole reason we coined unitypunk and made this account - to address lateral ableism within the community and erasure of both corpoableism from neurodisabled folks and neuroableism from physically disabled folks. The community has been more successfully fractured by this discourse than any fed psy-op could ever have done or even hoped for, and part of fighting that is refusing to tolerate ableism in our spaces and reminding people that we have a common goal - total liberation for ALL disabled people.

When you perpetuate ableism against one part of the community, you reaffirm the structures that oppress us all.

There are in fact conversations to be had about variances in oppression that cause unique forms of abuse towards physically disabled people - such as how the slightest of slopes or uneven surfaces can make a "walkable" city utterly inaccessible to mobility aid users, or even the microaggression of the term for a city that is supposed to be more accessible specifically focusing on those who can walk, a language choice which often shapes the inattention towards accessibility needs when planning these spaces. Another fundamentally interrelated example of this is lack of masking and social distancing during the ongoing pandemic - in another way effectively shutting disabled people out of public spaces.

There's also conversations to be had about the unique forms of ableism that affect neurodisabled people - such as the carceral institutionalization of neurodivergent people for anything from refusing to medicate psychosis whether or not it is causing distress or dysfunction, to being plural, to being suicidal, to being autistic and a hacker, and all the forms of violence and especially suppression of neurodivergent identity that come with that.

I want it to be clear: I chose two examples I am directly affected by that I consider equally serious precisely to illustrate how important both of those conversations are. The utter erasure and apathy towards making even the most tiny of steps that are inconsequential for abled people towards accessibility in public spaces that make them completely inaccessible for us as physically disabled people, and the incarceration of neurodisabled people and forced "correction" of our neurodivergence are massive forms of structural ableism that massively impact us as disabled people on a daily level.

The narratives used to justify these forms of oppression often rely on one another to function, and that's a really important part of the conversation! Disabled people are "crazy" for demanding we be taken into consideration when planning accessibility because either "we already are" (except it's ramps that are utterly unusable or similar that is just an elaborate display allowing abled people to get away with patting themselves on the back for doing less than nothing) or because "the pandemic is over" or similar.

Disabled people need to be locked up "for our own good" to cure us of the sickness ravaging our brains until we are compliant - and mental illness diagnoses are weaponized against physically disabled people and we are enforced to endure CBT for chronic pain and illness as a form of medical gaslighting because really, our disabilities and the ableism we face are just "thought distortions".

This is again, basic intersectional theory. Conversations about transphobia are enriched by discussing where transandromisia, transmisogyny, and exorsexism overlap and interact, as well as how these all rely heavily on and perpetuate intersexism. Conversations about the unique ways pluralmisia manifests based on perceived and actual origin and disordered status and how much of pluralmisia relies on sanism and oppression of mad and especially psychotic people benefit from acknowledging all of that, while also acknowledging that aspects of pluralmisia exist independently of sanism and manifest uniquely for nondisordered and endogenic plurals, as well as for plural non-systems.

At the same time, there are conversations to be had centered on the unique forms of oppression within a marginalized group. In my experience, conversations about exorsexism and ceteromisia in particular need a space to focus on the marginalization of those who aren't binary or binary-adjacent, despite exorsexism overlapping significantly with binary forms of transphobia and gender essentialism and bioessentialism based in those false binaries.

Another example that I can speak less to, but want to acknowledge, is the variations in anti-black, anti-indigenous, anti-AAPI, and other forms of racism. Racism as a rule doesn't map in a lot of ways to other forms of oppression and so comparing them as such is often clumsy at best and actively racist at worst.

Given how much eugenics and white supremacism and colonialism rely on and inform ableism in turn, though, I think it's important to bring up. Examples such as schizophrenia being recategorized to diagnose black civil rights activists as violent crazy people so their imprisonment and experimentation on could be "justified" to white society - where it was previously considered a disorder of white housewives; black asylum prisoners being the primary victims of lobotomies and other experimentation; the overdiagnosis of oppositional defiant disorder and other conduct disorders in (typically autistic) black children are some of the ones I'm most aware of.

I am aware however that my knowledge on the subject is sorely lacking and welcome all people of color to add to this part of the conversation.

All this to say - I started this blog to try and open these conversations up. I have definitely been guilty of being reactive myself (and speaking for other headmates as well) in response to ableism and cruelty. I don't mean to tone-police myself or anyone else, but I do want to acknowledge that we personally want to move away from that and feel that doing so will make us specifically more effective as facilitators in this conversation.

Every time we add a related perspective to a conversation and someone says "oh, yes, and also this", it reminds us that the goal of unitypunk in addressing ableism as it affects all disabled people and rejecting ableism within our communities is possible. Every time someone has the courage to add a perspective we did not consider to our posts, we are grateful that they took the time and effort to foster solidarity and educate us and others on it.

We always wanted to create a supportive community and movement that welcomes diverse experiences and perspectives, and allows the valuable insight of different people to enrich our conversations about and activism against ableism. We've been far from perfect in doing so, but even where we've disagreed on matters that specifically affect us and our specific disability, we have no end of appreciation for every participant who has recognized our humanity and disability.

If you agree that at the end of the day, organizing with the ultimate goal of liberation matters most, and that fighting ableism wherever it occurs is the most important thing, you are embodying unitypunk. It's a movement that refuses to handwave ableism as "disagreements", but also refuses to let true disagreements stand in the way of standinf unified against ableism.

We hope that going forward, we can continue to create a safe and accepting space where all disabled people can have both these focused and general conversations about ableism, while specifically making sure to include everyone affected by said ableism.

#unitypunk #ableism #sanism #neuroableism #corpoableism #neurodivergence #physical disability #cw brief mention of suicidality #cw brief mention of self-harm #cw psych abuse #cw psych hospitalization #cw brief mention of 'narc abuse' (in context of it being ableist)#racism #transphobia #intersectionality

25 notes · View notes

neurosharky · 2 months

Text

An Open Letter to the ASPD community

Hi,

So I've been asked to comment on a little issue, that I absolutely agree needs adressing, and I thought that an open letter format might be the best way of doing it! It allows for a bit more freedom with wordings, because this is just my personal letter to the community and not me trying to speak for everyone.

I've been one of the first few accounts that started talking about ASPD here on instagram (and was actively involved on twitter and tumblr before that), so I've been part of the community for a pretty long time and have seen it grow and change a lot! We have overall been able to make a pretty substantial amount of people aware of the stigma that we face, have shown them a lot of different examples as to why we developed our condition and continue to broaden the diversity of the ASPD experience.

But just like with any community, we have some internal issues, that yes sometimes we do actually have to adress and then reflect on!

These issues aren't instagram specific and I actually see them less on instagram than in other places like the ASPD subreddits, tiktok and tumblr, but as I have indeed been receiving DMs with this type of stuff ever since I started here, I do want to use my presence on this platform to adress it!

These mentioned DMs usually consist of a stranger telling me, that I cannot have ASPD, because I do not fit their personal idea of what ASPD looks like. They tell me its because I am too soft, because my aesthetic is too cute, because I love stuffed animals, because I care about sharks, because I experience some emotions intensely, because I am in recovery, because I talk positively about my family, or because I struggle with things that "real people with ASPD" would not struggle with.

I'll be entirely honest with you: its tiring and also a little confusing to me, because is this not what we are trying to do on here? To make people with ASPD seem more like humans than monsters? To educate about the symptoms & dangers yes, but to also point out that next to that we are people living our everyday lifes, just like everyone else?

Are we not trying to fight against the stigma painting us as inherently emotionless evil criminals? Are we not trying to bring more awareness to the diversity of how ASPD can present itself in someone? Are we not trying to teach society, that certain traits do not mean we are inherently something and to understand that we are capable of being their friends, partners, neighbours and parents?

I confess myself confused, because I thought we had moved past this ridiculous belief, that everyone with ASPD has as many emotions as a brick and that we only have two destined life paths: gang boss or prison inhabitant. Do you not feel ridiculous when you preach you are a human being capable of living life, just to turn around and tell someone who is doing exactly that, that they can't have ASPD?

Do you not realize that you are judging them based on the same ableist beliefs you have been judged under all your life? Because if you do not realize that, oh boy, do I get you, oh boy do I understand you, because I did not either. I spend such a large amount of my life thinking that I had to be that monster everyone saw in me, that I had no chance at an actually nice life, that I was destined to just rot in prison and be the thing everyone hates. I denied myself my dreams, my emotions, my hobbies, my true beliefs and personality leanings, heck I denied myself certain versions of my future, because I thought that I could not be that. That it was impossible for people with ASPD to be in happy relationships, to study at university, to have a favourite animal that means the world to them, to rekindle their relationship to their family...

And isn't that sad? Isn't it sad how I thought that I had to deny myself happiness, just because that is what societies stigma tried to tell me? I think that it is quite sad actually and I kinda hate that so many people with ASPD still seem to be caught up in that. I mean I haven't shaken it entirely, thats for sure! I still despise showing weakness and having to admit to it! I still have internalized stuff to work trough! But do you know what I'm not doing?

I am not going around telling others that they can't be happy. I am not going around telling others that them being in recovery & living their lifes means they don't have ASPD or that they misrepresent the community. I am not trying to shame them back into their bad habits. I am not trying to make them feel so insecure about their diagnosis, that they fall back into their old patterns. Because I know better now.

I know that people with ASPD can be the cutest softest animal loving people.

I know that they can be in healthy relationships and friendships.

I know that they can have hobbies, a career and a family.

I know that they can feel emotions, some of them really intense, others maybe not so much.

I know that no person with ASPD is the exact same as the other.

I know that they can choose recovery & be sucessfull in it.

And I know that my own dislike for "weakness" and my own discomfort with the sides of myself that I have been taught to despise, are not an excuse to make other people feel bad about themselves & take that dislike/discomfort out on them.

Theres just one question that remains: Do you know that as well and if yes, are you ready to act like it?

~ Liam 🦈

Out of letter end note:

Trying to insist that people with ASPD have to adhere to the descriptions that you connect to them & telling them that they cannot ever change, is discouraging them from recovery.

Telling people with ASPD, that they cannot have emotions, is directly ignoring the DSM criteria point that recognizes aggressive outbursts, as well as ignoring the literal emotional erractic cluster it is in (aka Cluster B).

Claiming that a trauma based condition dictates your interests, what colors & animals you are allowed to like, your personality traits outside of your condition, which aesthetic you have to have on social media and what type of clothes you are allowed to wear is frankly so ridiculous, that I don't even know what to say.

You are not immune to internalized ableism & making people feel unsafe in the community. You do not personally have to like the things they do, but being shitty to them about it, just because its what you internalized is not the way to go.

First posted on my instagram (same @)

#actually aspd #aspd #mental health education #antisocial personality disorder #mental health #antisocial #aspd awareness #aspd feels #aspd thoughts #aspd things #aspd safe #aspd stigma #soft aesthetic #being soft #internalized ableism #reddit #instagram #twitter #tumblr

28 notes · View notes