Bruh. Nypd And Eric Adams Gave Evidence To Hbo Before They Gave It To Luigi's Lawyers. And The Evidence

FOR PARENTS OF YOUNG KIDS IN THE US!

Someone over on bluesky posted this and I figured I'd better repost it here. It's the pre-RFK 2025 vaccination schedule for babies and young children, ya know, just in case it mysteriously disappears. Save this and give it to your child's pediatrician; tell them this is the schedule you want your child on.

There are many benefits to being a marine biologist

Foragers (2022, Jumana Manna 🇵🇸)

Za’atar and akkoub are popular herbs in Palestinian culture and cuisine. In 1977, however, Ariel Sharon declared za’atar a ‘protected plant’, rendering its foraging, possession or trade a criminal offense. Akkoub suffered a similar fate when it was labelled protected in 2005. Those who pick za’atar and akkoub subsequently became lawbreakers and in many cases were indicted and convicted. The picking of za’atar and akkoub, nonetheless, continues while many regard it as an act of resistance. (src)

do people have no shame anymore?

obviously furries can be 100% nonsexual for a lot of ppl but once you start talking down to furry kinksters & acting like this whole damn community wasnt built on people wanting to fuck tony the tigers brains out or some shit youve lost the plot entirely to be honest

Salam Aidilfitri! Happy Eid!

Hehe thank you! I love that you used the greeting specific to my culture too eueb

Baby!Springer and Sari also thank you! Once the first is over his first experience with a sparkler and the second is done plotting about how to fleece ALL the Aidilfitri cash (WE GET THIS JUST FOR BEING KIDS? OKAY WHAT IF I WAS A KID FOREVER, NO THIS IS A SERIOUS QUESTION UNCLE OMAR)

I've been reading some more of the works of eugenicists while thinking about the state of education about this ideology. Yes, "Eugenics" is a dirty word nowadays; in my opinion, it's not nearly dirty enough.

Here's a fact to make your head spin: Eugenics wasn't about killing people. Yes, it ended up killing people, and if you examine the way eugenics has influenced the world, you realize it still does kill people, but the architects of eugenics weren't leading with, "My fellow countrymen, we should On Purpose Kill People."

The reason that's important is, people keep coming up with ideas labeled (by their critics) "uncomfortably similar to eugenics"--- ideas for a compassionate, scientifically-grounded way of improving humanity by understanding the heredity of good and bad traits and influencing the fertility rates of people with different genetic traits.

There is already a word for this kind of idea. That word is: eugenics. It is silly to set yourself apart from eugenicists by explicitly repudiating killing people or forcibly sterilizing them, when many founding eugenicists also explicitly repudiated killing people or forcibly sterilizing them.

Here is an Internet Archive link to "Heredity in relation to eugenics," a work by Charles Benedict Davenport, an early eugenicist. Please read at least the first four pages.

I'm afraid that his brief introduction to eugenics could sound, to the layperson, surprisingly less scary and disgusting than expected. Mister Davenport's word choices may provide a "red flag" to the reader: he refers to human babies as a "valuable crop," to marriage between people as "mating." The disquiet these word choices cause is because they dehumanize the subjects. Humans, from Davenport's perspective, are essentially the same as agricultural plants or animals, which in turn are assets, sources of economic gain---they are things.

Davenport articulates the contribution of a human being to the United States: "...forming a united, altruistic, God-serving, law-abiding, effective and productive nation." However, relatively few people are "fully effective" at this purpose, because a proportion of society is "non-productive"---either criminals or disabled, or among the people required to care for and control criminals and the disabled.

After you read the introduction of Davenport's book, read his wikipedia page. He was a Nazi. He was a Nazi until the day he died. He was rabidly and repugnantly racist, so much so that his later scientific works fudged together garbage conclusions that contradicted his actual data in order to prop up his racist beliefs. He lobbied Congress to restrict immigration into the USA, out of the belief that the immigrants would poison the blood of our country with inferior genetics.

Overwhelmingly, eugenicists were concerned with disability. They believed that disability would normally be eliminated by natural selection, and that caring for the disabled and allowing them to grow up and to have children would cause a steady increase in the proportion of society made up of disabled people---who were, as Davenport puts it, a "burden" on society.

Eugenicists were also concerned with race. They wanted to gather data that demonstrated what they already believed: that race was a biological reality, a reality that could only appear unclear or malleable because of harmful, aberrant, unnatural scenarios, namely miscegenation or race mixing. Basically, race was both a natural reality, and in need of enforcement.

But eugenicist ideology was not just about the inferiority of disabled people or people of color. Eugenicists thought of their ideas as a science and thought of themselves as scientists, and they broadly addressed virtually everything we would now consider a matter of "public health." Eugenicist writings almost universally address crime, and often don't recognize a clear distinction between crime and mental disability, or between either of those things and poverty. Criminals, disabled people and poor people were basically the same; they had something wrong with their genes that made them that way.

"Sexual deviance" is generally included in this, and Davenport explicitly references this in his introduction, where he says that "normal" people are not likely to have the kind of sex that leads to the transmission of STIs.

For many proponents (including Davenport), the key dogma of eugenics was that genes predetermined everything about a person. Tuberculosis was a huge problem at the time, and eugenicists were insisting that, although the disease was known to be bacterial, susceptibility to the disease was genetic, and therefore people who became sick with tuberculosis were genetically defective. Likewise if a child developed epilepsy after a head injury, the injury did not cause the epilepsy but instead revealed an inherent genetic weakness that was already there. This implied that spending resources on healing or rehabilitating anybody was a waste of time.

If you read more of Davenport's book, you will see that he makes some WILD statements---he asserts that artistic talent is a Mendelian trait controlled by a single gene, basically that you are either born an artist or you aren't. This seems absolutely absurd but, there is a good amount of popular belief in inherent aptitudes for art or music or math or what have you.

Eugenics isn't just about named prejudices like racism or ableism, it is even bigger than that, it is a set of beliefs encompassing how the potential and value of human beings is determined and how society should care for its members as a result of that.

disabled children not allowed be children.

especially. intellectually and/or developmentally disabled (I/DD) children, & children w behavioral or “behavioral” struggles (aka many I/DD children) not allowed be children.

which may be weird thing say at first because I/DD famous for be infantilized, be treat as forever children. so would think children be only thing they “allow” be, n say they not allow be children contradicting—

but not actually.

as general whole, nondisabled children “allowed” tantrums. allow emotional immature. allowed childish quirks.

what be normal child tantrum fuss in (white) nondisabled children, even with child health/care professionals who whole entire job be understand that nondisabled typically developing child have underdeveloped brain n not yet have self regulate skill n that developmentally appropriate that normal, it may be talk as annoying & inconvenient, but for I/DD children every. single. time. where they “tantrum” “fuss” even in developmentally appropriate ways, chance be write as sign of their disability, sign of behavior problem, sign of emotional problem. be evidence of disorder. of abnormal. of something wrong. which be “okay” reason dehumanize, abuse, be talk about like animal, like not in room, like difficult problem to be solved.

nondisabled adults fondly look back at childhood comfort objects that maybe still have now, stuffed toys blankets or maybe less usual things that mean something to them. but when disabled children have them it be more likely *automatic* see as problem, as something need be weaned off, need be taken away, as unhealthy overattachment, be write into behavioral plan, only allow x minute per day, see as “impractical” & “useless”.

as general whole, nondisabled children allow say no, allow act out “no,” allow prefer, allow not want do something so protest by not doing, by not listening, by pretend not hear you. it may be see as funny or annoying but meanwhile for disabled children it largely see as oppositional as noncompliance as inattentive as something need be trained out of by all means possible.

nondisabled children do things because they kids. disabled children do things because there something wrong with them.

nondisabled children rights n autonomy not fully respected by any means but disabled children get even less of it.

disabled children often not allowed many leeway’s as nondisabled children, what be developmentally appropriate for same age nondisabled children often be over label as disorder as problem as something abnormal need be get rid off in disabled children.

n especially when come to behaviorally, white nondisabled children get be the most “child,” n Black n other disabled children of color get “child” stolen from them in multiple ways.

i think the idea that every disabled person already has all the resources, defense, and accommodations they need is constructed by ableism because in the first place they were not happy with disabled people getting anything at all. for them, the bare minimum is too much already