The hard truth about autism acceptance that a lot of people don’t want to hear is that autism acceptance also inherently requires acceptance of people who are just weird.
And yes, I mean Those TM people. Middle schoolers who growl and bark and naruto run in the halls. Thirtysomethings who live with their parents. Furries. Fourteen-year-olds who identify as stargender and use neopronouns. Picky eaters. Adults in fandoms. People who talk weird. People who dress weird.
Because autistic people shouldn’t have to disclose a medical diagnosis to you to avoid being mocked and ostracized for stuff that, at absolute worst, is annoying. Ruthlessly deriding people for this stuff then tacking on a “oh, but it’s okay if they’re autistic” does absolutely nothing to help autistic people! Especially when undiagnosed autistic people exist.
Like it or not, if you want to be an ally to autistic people, you’re going to have to take the L and leave eccentric, weird people alone. Even if you don’t know them to be autistic. You shouldn’t be looking for Acceptable Reasons to be mean to people in the first place. Being respectful should be the default.
This reminds me of that global warming comic, like
…and, at the time of his death, he was one of the most hated people in the USA.
The FBI sent him a letter trying to convince him to commit suicide. Don’t let this revisionist bullshit slide. The things they say now about protests, kneeling, etc, are the same things they said about the sit-ins and marches.
respectability politics is a trap.
respectability politics is a trap.
respectability politics is a trap.
Look at this vintage political cartoon. Reactions to MLK and BLM are near identical.
His own kids are telling yall not to fall for the bullshit
People will say “write what you know!” But I know so little
“Bad books on writing tell you to ‘write what you know’, a solemn and totally false adage that is the reason there exist so many mediocre novels about English professors contemplating adultery.”
“Consider the Vikings. Popular feminist retellings like the History Channel’s fictional saga “Vikings” emphasize the role of women as warriors and chieftains. But they barely hint at how crucial women’s work was to the ships that carried these warriors to distant shores.
One of the central characters in “Vikings” is an ingenious shipbuilder. But his ships apparently get their sails off the rack. The fabric is just there, like the textiles we take for granted in our 21st-century lives. The women who prepared the wool, spun it into thread, wove the fabric and sewed the sails have vanished.
In reality, from start to finish, it took longer to make a Viking sail than to build a Viking ship. So precious was a sail that one of the Icelandic sagas records how a hero wept when his was stolen. Simply spinning wool into enough thread to weave a single sail required more than a year’s work, the equivalent of about 385 eight-hour days.
King Canute, who ruled a North Sea empire in the 11th century, had a fleet comprising about a million square meters of sailcloth. For the spinning alone, those sails represented the equivalent of 10,000 work years.”
“…Picturing historical women as producers requires a change of attitude. Even today, after decades of feminist influence, we too often assume that making important things is a male domain. Women stereotypically decorate and consume. They engage with people. They don’t manufacture essential goods.
Yet from the Renaissance until the 19th century, European art represented the idea of “industry” not with smokestacks but with spinning women. Everyone understood that their never-ending labor was essential. It took at least 20 spinners to keep a single loom supplied.
“The spinners never stand still for want of work; they always have it if they please; but weavers are sometimes idle for want of yarn,” the agronomist and travel writer Arthur Young, who toured northern England in 1768, wrote.
Shortly thereafter, the spinning machines of the Industrial Revolution liberated women from their spindles and distaffs, beginning the centuries-long process that raised even the world’s poorest people to living standards our ancestors could not have imagined.
But that “great enrichment” had an unfortunate side effect. Textile abundance erased our memories of women’s historic contributions to one of humanity’s most important endeavors. It turned industry into entertainment.
“In the West,” Dr. Harlow wrote, “the production of textiles has moved from being a fundamental, indeed essential, part of the industrial economy to a predominantly female craft activity.””
- Virginia Postrel, “Women and Men Are Like the Threads of a Woven Fabric.” in The New York Times
yall look at this shit ad*be is tryna pull now on ppl who have outdated software:
(note for context: i’m all for piracy, but in this case my copy of CS6 was downloaded years ago when they were giving it away to students. i got it totally legally.)
so here is what NOT to do if you’re a loyal fan of adobe who has the cash to shell out for a newer and shittier version of the product you already paid for.
1) DON’T use your search bar to find and open the Run app
2) DON’T type in services.msc
3) DON’T find Adobe Genuine Software Integrity Services and right-click to get a dropdown menu, and don’t select ‘properties’
4) if you happen to click properties, DON’T use the startup type dropdown to locate the option to disable the program. be sure you DON’T click apply to finalize that change.
5) DO NOT do the same thing in order to also disable Adobe Genuine Software Monitor
if you do all of these things, this WILL disable adobe’s ability to monitor the software, and you will be forced to continue using the same older software that you already paid for instead of having to sign up for a newer, shittier version and pay more for it. so if you have lots of cash to spare and are cool with putting it the pockets of racketeering capitalists, definitely don’t do any of these things.
however, you SHOULD reblog this to spread the word, as we certainly want to make sure lots of people know what NOT to do :)
fucked up how colors look different depending on what screen you’re looking at them on. that should be illegal I think
this fucking shit, you know
I spend so much time carefully picking and adjusting the colors in every single drawing I make that I’d probably lose my mind if I didn’t just repeatedly push this out of my memory and pretend it’s not a thing. Why am I reblogging a blank empty post that doesn’t say anything??? Weird
good news! you can’t make sure that everyone will see the correct colors on their own device, but you can make sure your monitor is as accurate as possible for printing and sharing by calibrating it!
there are a bunch of free monitor tests, but here’s an easy one you can use. the passmark and eizo tests are also pretty good, though passmark doesn’t work in your browser. be warned that some tests may cause eye strain.
you can either use the settings built into your monitor itself or use the display color calibration settings in your operating system to adjust the settings until everything looks correct, and then enjoy your accurate colors.
REBLOG TO SAVE A LIFE
Photographers, too. Color calibrate your monitors if you intend to print or sell your work. There’s a ton of info out there for this.
