1 of 842


don’t trust people who get angry at the thought of their money being used to feed people and keep them healthy

don’t trust people who care more about money than people

"Another myth that is firmly upheld is that disabled people are dependent and non-disabled people are independent. No one is actually independent. This is a myth perpetuated by disablism and driven by capitalism - we are all actually interdependent. Chances are, disabled or not, you don’t grow all of your food. Chances are, you didn’t build the car, bike, wheelchair, subway, shoes, or bus that transports you. Chances are you didn’t construct your home. Chances are you didn’t sew your clothing (or make the fabric and thread used to sew it).

The difference between the needs that many disabled people have and the needs of people who are not labelled as disabled is that non-disabled people have had their dependencies normalized. The world has been built to accommodate certain needs and call the people who need those things independent, while other needs are considered exceptional. Each of us relies on others every day. We all rely on one another for support, resources, and to meet our needs. We are all interdependent. This interdependence is not weakness; rather, it is a part of our humanity."

AJ Withers, Disability Politics and Theory (via thalensis)

This reminds me super-a-lot of a section from Critic of the Dawn, published 11 years earlier by Cal Montgomery, so I’m gonna leave that here. 

"But some rely on supports which are so common as to go unnoticed, while others use support that is atypical and therefore apparent. Some supports are provided by the community as a whole and go unnoticed, while others are borne — or not — by a small number of people whose lives are profoundly affected."

(via yesthattoo)

tagged → #ableism

Finger Ring, gold and sapphire English, 14th century The inscription on the hoop reads: Rutilans Eboraci Civita[ti]s cantor (Rufus(?) of York, Musician(?) of the Episcopal City).

Finger Ring, gold and sapphire
English, 14th century
The inscription on the hoop reads: Rutilans Eboraci Civita[ti]s cantor (Rufus(?) of York, Musician(?) of the Episcopal City).


i’ve stopped trash talking comic sans after learning the font is actually one of the only dyslexia-friendly fonts that come standard with most computers and i advocate for others doing the same


"so you’re still single" excuse u i’m just faithful to my unreachable celebrity crush

"Like the Exceptional Woman, who exists somewhere between a woman who explicitly seeks to uphold the Patriarchy and a fully-fledged feminist, the Good Fatty is someone who exists somewhere between the fat person with desperate desire to be thin and a fully-fledged radical fatty. It’s a space many of us tend to occupy on our way to freedom, when we know we want more, but haven’t quite jettisoned the self-loathing, or self-doubt, or shame, or willingness to offend in defense of our own humanity, in order to seek community.

Playing the Good Fatty might entail talking about how you totally eat healthy all the time, or totally work out regularly, or totally have “great numbers” (blood pressure, cholesterol, etc.), or totally make sure you wear clothes that aren’t too revealing.

It’s basically saying: I’m not one of THOSE fatties. You know, the ones we’re always hearing about, with their eating whole pizzas and destroying the healthcare system and stuff.

The transition from Good Fatty to Radical Fatty is when you decide it doesn’t matter why someone is fat. That fat people’s rights aren’t contingent on anything else but our humanity."


lifes too short to pretend to hate pop music

tagged → #1d #paul rudd
"The truth is, everyone likes to look down on someone. If your favorites are all avant-garde writers who throw in Sanskrit and German, you can look down on everyone. If your favorites are all Oprah Book Club books, you can at least look down on mystery readers. Mystery readers have sci-fi readers. Sci-fi can look down on fantasy. And yes, fantasy readers have their own snobbishness. I’ll bet this, though: in a hundred years, people will be writing a lot more dissertations on Harry Potter than on John Updike. Look, Charles Dickens wrote popular fiction. Shakespeare wrote popular fiction - until he wrote his sonnets, desperate to show the literati of his day that he was real artist. Edgar Allan Poe tied himself in knots because no one realized he was a genius. The core of the problem is how we want to define “literature”. The Latin root simply means “letters”. Those letters are either delivered - they connect with an audience - or they don’t. For some, that audience is a few thousand college professors and some critics. For others, its twenty million women desperate for romance in their lives. Those connections happen because the books successfully communicate something real about the human experience. Sure, there are trashy books that do really well, but that’s because there are trashy facets of humanity. What people value in their books - and thus what they count as literature - really tells you more about them than it does about the book."
— Brent Weeks (via lauraroslins)