#grants pass OR

[cici-alt-bunny]

Limpy Creek, Grants pass, Oregon, USA.

[ofswordsandpens]

while I do like the added dialogue between Sally and Percy in the minotaur scene, namely Sally's speech to Percy telling him to hold fast, I really wish the scene had more of the urgency that it did in the book. Like Grover's heavily injured to the point of incoherency, Sally and Percy literally have to drag him up the hill, and that's when they're overtaken by the minotaur. In the show, having them all come to a grinding standstill and Grover being fully alert like "sorry I know we're being chased by certain death but your mom's human so she can't come :/" was kind of adflksadfjasdf

oh and in the book Percy doesn't immediately pass out. Instead, Percy doesn't let himself until he's hauled Grover over the boundary line and all the way to the big house because he needs help and it's only then does Percy finally collapse. and idk just the imagery of it all -- Percy crying for help, for his mother -- it always stuck with me and I wish they hadn't taken it out.

[dailyhatsune]

the old uncle going home

[notwiselybuttoowell]

Let’s start with Oregon – what does this mean for unhoused people in Grants Pass?

It means that Grants Pass can enforce its 24/7 citywide ban on public homelessness. The question was whether cities should be able to jail or fine someone who has no other alternative but to live in public space – the unhoused folks who are considered “involuntarily homeless”. The city was already allowed to arrest people who had declined offers of shelter. Now, Grants Pass will likely be fining people who have no shelter options.

When you fine someone who can’t pay, the fine can eventually turn into a misdemeanor. Studies have shown that it doesn’t help an already poor person to be driven into debt. Fining someone makes them less likely to emerge from homelessness, including by ruining their credit score and making them unable to afford basic needs like food.

Beyond fines, the city of Grants Pass is going to eventually jail more people. This is punishing people who have done nothing more than exist in public space. This case was about whether you can punish people for the unavoidable consequences of being human. The supreme court said yes.

How do you expect the decision will impact other jurisdictions across the west?

This is quite possibly the most consequential decision in history up until this point relating to homeless rights. It’s hard to overstate how important it is.

I think more cities will attempt 24/7 citywide bans on homelessness. I think it will encourage cities to shift away from investments in evidence-based approaches like adequately investing in affordable housing, permanent supportive housing and diversion and shift toward more law-and-order, enforcement-led efforts to essentially jail and banish already marginalized people from public view.

Grants Pass argued it wasn’t criminalizing the status of homelessness, but criminalizing the act of camping in public. The supreme court majority in its ruling on Friday concurred, and said that criminalizing an act does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment.

Presumably cities could in the future go even further than Grants Pass has, as long as they frame their laws as prohibiting public camping, instead of prohibiting homelessness, although I don’t think that issue has been fully resolved by today’s decision.

Donald Trump and others have used increasingly dark rhetoric, threatening to force people into “tent cities”. Will the ruling embolden those kinds of efforts?

I think we could see the forced displacement of unhoused folks into what I would call internment camps out in the middle of nowhere – a mass migration of unhoused people from one place where their existence is banned to other places where the laws don’t ban their existence. Many cities already have authorized camps in far-out locations that are completely invisible to the general public. I learned about one that was bordered by a dump, a recycling center and railroad tracks – the quintessentially least desirable place.

The idea of rounding up unhoused folks and forcing them into camps or out of the jurisdiction entirely is obviously very concerning. And it should be of grave concern, because once something is invisible, you don’t know what’s happening to the already really vulnerable people living there. Trump has publicly contemplated using his federal authority to move people into the middle of the desert where they won’t bother anyone by existing. It’s a very dystopian vision of internment camps and the likely abuses and neglect that would come from that. It’s terrifying.

Prior to this ruling, cities already had quite a lot of latitude to restrict camping, correct?

Yes, cities could already sweep encampments as much as they like. In many cities, they’ve been sweeping tents at record rates. They could also already enforce anti-camping laws if there was something that could be shown to be an urgent public health or safety issue with respect to a particular encampment – for example, if an encampment was blocking a whole sidewalk. Cities could sweep without even giving notice in those circumstances. Under the previous standard, cities weren’t even required to provide adequate shelter. It just said if the city lacks shelter, it can’t jail or fine someone, which to me should be so straightforward, and yet somehow here we are.

How do you expect legal advocates for unhoused people will respond to this ruling?

The dehumanizing message of today’s decision is going to galvanize civil rights attorneys. It has to. Anytime somebody’s basic right to exist is threatened, civil rights activists have to regroup. And cities should not approach this too cavalierly. There will be legal consequences for cities that pursue 24/7 citywide bans on homelessness. All this decision does is remove the protections for unhoused folks under the eighth amendment of the US constitution. States across the country have analogs to the eighth amendment in their state constitutions. States can and often do interpret their state constitutional provisions to be more protective than the federal constitution. The eighth amendment at its core is really about how much we value the humanity of vulnerable people. So it’s crippling from a human standpoint to have that protection removed. But there are other avenues that homeless rights advocates and human rights lawyers can still pursue. They can make arguments under other federal constitutional provisions. There are still due process arguments under the 14th amendment. You can still argue there is selective prosecution. There are arguments that could be made under the fourth amendment [which protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures]. There’s the Americans with Disabilities Act [ADA], and most chronically homeless people would likely qualify as someone with a disability who has protections from state-sanctioned abuse.

[adainesfuriousgun]

THE NEGRONI

Best possible reaction to a TPK. Absolutely unhinged.

10/10

[unteriors]

Buckskin Road, Grants Pass, Oregon.

[uldren-sobs]

Them. 🥲

[nicomoru]

Snorrrr mimimi snorrrrr

[dawntainbobbynash]

I just- I wish there was something more I could do to help.

I’m pretty sure that just seeing your face will be enough.

[hillbillyoracle]

So I saw this screencap earlier

And I thought it was a great chance to talk about something.

A lot of progressive folks are familiar with the fact that right wing circles use feminine as a derogatory term and that there's a real cost to that for women.

What people are less familiar with is how it hurts men - queer and straight, cis and trans.

And I'm not shocked given how common it is in left leaning spaces to be reactionary (read: dismissive or outright harass) when men try to talk about these what these issues look like for them.

When men talk about how they've experienced toxic masculinity and anti-feminine bias, in addition to the usual right wing responses, I'm starting to see a bunch of supposed feminists and trans/queer allies harass them as well - saying they're hurting women/feminine presenting folks by "centering men", dismissing their concerns as made up (even when there's research to back it up), "why aren't you talking about what this is like for cis and trans women instead??".

I've seen trans men accused of being TERFs or being liars (by other trans people even - wtf) when they talk about their experiences of allies actively excluding them from trans spaces or harassing them for using T4T tags. I've seen men be accused of lying about publicly accessible clinical research that shows men make up 75%-77% of suicide cases - or worse suggest they deserve it. I see posts about how men's complaints "aren't unique to them" and dismiss them because women also suffer things those authors assume are the same (even when the research contradicts this).

And here's the thing:

When you assume feminine=good/safe/gentle and masculine=bad/unsafe/enemy - you're parroting a conservative talking point.

There is no way around this fact.

A big part of what underpins child rearing being "the woman's domain" in conservatism, is the idea that men are inherently dangerous and therefore shouldn't really be around children without women present.

The reason why they blame women for abuse and rape - because they believe men are inherently dangerous and if a woman trusted them then it's her fault.

Part of why women have been effectively banned from many trades and careers for so long is the assumption that being around that many men presents an inherent danger to a woman.

"But!" you might be saying, "This person is clearly talking about men engaging in open conflict as good here!"

Yeah because conservatives see politics as an inherently male/dangerous/toxic sphere and uphold it as such.

I could go on and on really.

All of this is to say - please be more thoughtful in what you consume, comment, and reblog.

There are experiences specific to being masculine. Erasing that is one, a dick move, but two, particularly violent toward those talking about trans masculine, minority masculine, disabled masculine, and queer masculine experiences.

All privilege comes at a cost. Listening when people talk about that cost is key building a new more fair reality. Seeing the privilege is not worth the cost makes fervent allies. Want more allies? Don't be a dick to people having that realization.

Push back against the assumption of woman=good and man=bad when you see it - especially in community spaces. The amount of times I've seen domestic violence services only available to women is insane...

Do not let identarian politics blind you to the fact we're all human and working toward our own liberation should not come at the oppression of another. Believe me, those with real power would much rather you stay raging out at men in a similar class with you than directing your efforts at them.

The right wing wants you to believe it's either/or. Fuck that - it's both/and.

[avephelis]

recently finished a hardcore monotype grass nuzlocke and since basil the leafeon absolutely carried i had to capture his glory

also had some insane shiny luck which was. very unlike me.

[eddiediazofficial]

mostly correct 911 + bonus

[millenniallust4death]

On April 22, the Supreme Court is set to hear the case of Johnson v. Grants Pass, the most significant case in decades about homeless people’s rights. The case will determine whether cities can arrest or fine the homeless — even if there’s no other shelter. As the homeless plaintiffs wrote, this would be “punishing the city’s involuntarily homeless residents for their existence.”

Mark Horvath, Adam Westbrook, and Lindsay Crous in "Criminalizing Homelessness Won’t Make It Go Away". The New York Times (16 April 2024). Link here.

The city of Grants Pass in Oregon wants to make being homeless a crime in order to drive the homeless into other areas. I am so tired.

[cator99]

out of curiosity, would you consider yourself butch?

used to be a blonde underweight twink and now I'm a based jock still got the chanel bag and the sick albeit matured mind of a suckpig to prove it so I'm gonna let you decide whether you wanna call me that word just cuz I got a pussy and short hair. I promise you that there have been enough advancements made in the art of lesbian sexual dynamics in the past 50 years to broaden the vocabulary used to describe the plethora of types of masculine females.

[smashorpass50plus]

Grant Imahara (he died suddenly just a couple months shy of 50)

[where-is-my-whump]

911 7x09