#that i consider personal information

[vile-wizard]

.

[trans-axolotl]

saw a post the other day that said that psych survivors were overexaggerating and fearmongering for saying that people should be aware that having diagnoses on your record can be a danger + impede your life. and the more i think about it the more annoyed i am. because i think people need to know that there are exceptions to health privacy laws that can make having psych diagnoses and psych hospitalization history on your record risky depending on your circumstances. diagnoses follow you through your health interactions-you do not have to consent to have your information shared between providers. judicial proceedings are also an exception to the HIPAA privacy rule, so for things like custody battles, guardianship, getting orders of protection--the court can petition for medical records. there's so many other situations where even if they can't legally access your information without your authorization, people will require you to disclose diagnoses, records, previous hospitalizations and refuse to give you services/hire you/whatever unless you share that information with them. for example in many states anyone (a provider, a cop, friends and family) can disclose that you have certain psych diagnoses like bipolar to the DMV which then might require that you undergo drivers license review as frequently as every 3 months. my university is actively trying to kick me out right now because i had to disclose my medical record, psych diagnoses, and hospitalization history to them as a requirement to stay enrolled.

and i don't want to scare people or make people think that having a diagnosis on their records is automatically going to mean that it is weaponized against us. because i do know plenty of people who have never faced issues with their records. but i do expect that the community supports the people speaking out about the ways that we have been harmed by diagnoses creating barriers to accessing necessary parts of our life. instead of attacking us or saying that we're lying about things we are currently experiencing.

[crippled-peeper]

I’m $400 short on rent which I have to pay today or my housing situation is threatened by which is really scary at this time of year since it’s freezing out

PayPal: @mhickey3

Venmo: @Morgen-Hickey

Cashapp: $MorgenHickey

anything helps. I don’t get paid from my new work until two weeks. I still have heard nothing from my social security hearing which was in august

[bigcats-birds-and-books]

so many three-quarters of one moon ago, @asexualbookbird tagged me to do the "random things in your room" poll, and i have FINALLY gotten my ducks linear enough to participate! therefore, without further ado:

tagging: @alloreli, @six-of-ravens, @e-b-reads, and anyone else who wants to play!!

[psychoticallytrans]

There are three main models of disability that are in common use. The moral model, the medical model, and the social model.

You may not have heard of the moral model before, but if you are disabled, you have felt the impact of it. The moral model is disability as a failure of character. It sources the problem of disability in the character of the disabled person. It's the people who insist that if you just tried harder, were better, had a better attitude, that you would no longer be disabled. It is a model that is used by ableists in order to conceptualize of disability as a failing of the individual. An extreme example of this mindset are the Christian Scientists, who believe that all illnesses and disabilities should be healed by the grace of their god and that if you are not healed, something is wrong with you. It is the the most cruel of the models, and the least successful at assisting disabled people.

The medical model is the model used by the medical establishment and by those who put their stock in medical authority. It sources the problem of disability in the body. It measures disability against a theoretical average person, and seeks to make disabled people match that average person more closely. This model works very well for disabled people with disabilities that can be measured, have a potential treatment plan, and want their disability gone. It does not work very well for people who do not match all three criteria. If they match the first and second but not the third, then strict adherents of the medical model often fall back on the moral model, stating that they are stupid, lazy, or selfish for not being interested in being cured. This also often happens if treatment fails to improve the condition of the disabled person.

The social model is a newer model, largely designed by disability activists and scholars and often defined in opposition to the medical model. It sources the problem of disability in the interaction between the disabled person and their physical and social environment. It argues that the solution of disability is to change the environment so that impairments are no longer an issue. This model works very well for disabled people who consider their disability not to be an issue when fully accommodated. It does not work well for people who consider their disability an inherent impairment and/or desire a cure. Strict adherents of the social model often fall back on the moral model when considering these people, stating that they are short-sighted or that they worship the medical model. These are the people who state things such as that depression would not exist in a world without capitalism.

When a disabled person fails to behave as expected by the model a person has of disability, the moral model is almost always the fallback position, because many people cannot conceive of why someone would disagree with them other than a lack of good character. This is a problem, because the moral model proposes no solution but to ignore or abuse the disabled person until they behave as expected.

Another notable interaction is that adherents of the medical model can often be persuaded to support the more traditional parts of the social model, such as providing large text resources to people with impaired vision, so long as there is empirical research backing it. However, they rarely support more radical arguments that challenge how we define disability and how society should be structured or restructured.

All three models have major failure points. The moral model fails every disabled person it is applied to. The medical and social models both fail different disabled people when adhered to strictly. The best approach at the moment seems to be hybridizing the social and medical models, so that they cover each other's weak points and fit the needs of the widest spectrum of disabled people. The main barrier to this is that they are often defined in opposition to each other.

[words-writ-in-starlight]

You could say that I have strong feelings about this ongoing debate

[quaranmine]

On Wednesday before I gave my presentation I confessed to a new employee that I was worried it would be too long and she brightly told me her life hack was to just let AI rewrite things for her. She said I should put in all my talking points and ask ChatGPT to give me a five minute exactly presentation. I was like....how is the most polite possible way (since this is a new colleague I shouldn't get off on the wrong foot with) that I can express that I will Not be taking this advice. Ever. I told her that I didn't think we were allowed to use ChatGPT at this job (we most certainly are not, it is a nightmare for any type of protected information) and also that I prefer to write all of my own work. Despite my best efforts the last part of that was still passive aggressive, lol.

Something about being a writer makes it so that it's almost offensive to me for someone to suggest I use AI to do my work instead? Like, the day I reach the point where I let AI write something for me is the day y'all need to be checking me for brain damage because clearly I'm losing it

[ahaura]

absolutely fucking insane for people to message palestinians saying "im thinking about killing myself" like did you stop for one second to think about the person whose people are being subject to genocide is a human being and not your therapist, diary, or thought-dispenser who exists to make you feel better or to ease your distress

[imiya]

hes right behind me.. isnt he..

[aliusfrater]

[unopenablebox]

attempt to idly discuss concept of custom wedding vows with 🌸 ground to a halt after the realization that neither of us actually, like, wants to try to figure out what the fuck we'd be promising

can you do custom vows, but instead of vows to do stuff, it's just a list of the superbly good qualities of the other person in order to make it clear why any rational actor would agree that you should obviously plan to keep hanging out with them as long as possible

[tj-crochets]

so I had some Unexpected Floor Time* and am taking it easy, which means no crafting this evening except maybe crochet I'm going to be going through my asks, so feel free to send me asks if you have any crafting questions!

*for once Unexpected Floor Time was not blood pressure related! I was just standing and the sudden like "oh no lie down right now" feeling so I did, and then once I'd done that for a while I opened my eyes and it looked like the light in the room was flashing even though it wasn't, which I have learned today is not a thing everyone experiences? I have not previously had that lie down right now feeling without low blood pressure dizziness so idk what the heck it was, but I am going to a doctor tomorrow about it. I am okay though! Just tired

[britneyshakespeare]

Had the extremely upsetting experience of a mutual of like 6 years going off on me for occasionally making posts about supporting Harris because apparently that makes me a g n cide denier who refuses to learn and grow, with all of my views just being assumed not even from what I've told them I believe or what I've posted before, but just because I DON'T post particularly the kind of things they THINK I should be. When I pointed out how much they were just completely assuming about stuff I'd never talked to them about, I was told it doesn't matter what I do in real life or "care" about if I simply disagree with their conclusion and vote for her anyway. Like they were absolutely not sorry for the level of maliciousness they not just assumed of my character, but for some reason thought appropriate to bring directly to me before unfollowing me. No apology whatsoever for how discomforting or upsetting that might be and certainly no acknowledgment that I could disagree with them and still be a good person. I just got another even longer rant about how they fundamentally can't fuck with me because of this one thing, no matter WHAT else I do in my real life (which I pointed out that they do not know), and how I'm directly supporting fascism.

Like seriously what is it about Tumblr that makes people think they know someone based off of occasional posts? There were just such DEEP assumptions they were making of me and going off of very little or absolutely nothing. Around the time I first became mutuals with that person I used to express my personality and beliefs and talk about what was going on in my life a lot more openly, but I've significantly scaled back on doing that in many ways for many reasons. One of my major ones is privacy and the way I've had strangers outside my followers and following circles just find random things I say and dogpile me for it. I was fundamentally changed after some T Fs did that to me like 3 years ago. I also just didn't have many conversations w that person anymore (I message people in general on here like 10x less than I did circa 2018-2019, which I'm somewhat sorry about!). My point is to say I think this person felt comfortable assuming that they knew me, especially who I am in 2024 at the age of 25, much better than they actually did.

One of the specific things they accused me of was being afraid of learning and growing (because I don't perform social media activism on here like they think I should). Like AFRAID to take criticism. When again I've never received criticism from them or had to respond to any criticism on here before as pertaining to my views on... well, absolutely any of the issues they accused me of not caring about. They essentially treated it as if the only thing in the world I cared about was the US election and characterized me as the most out-of-touch liberal they could possibly imagine, because I'm not "pushing" Kamala Harris to be better (Oh?? Should I do that on here?? Does she read my blog??).

And most hypocritically what they said was that I only *sometimes* *vaguely* post pro-Harris things (I often post like 5 or fewer things in a day though?). But here's the kicker. "Because I know I'll get shit for it. And rightfully so."

Really????? Not a single person, anon or not, in my messages or in a tagged post or anything, has ever given me shit before for saying who I'm voting for. I'm actually NOT afraid of "getting shit" for that opinion, I just don't start fights with people who are anti-voting. And why should I??? I genuinely don't believe in trying to change the minds of strangers on the internet about that sort of thing. I'm just not confrontational about it; that is so not the same thing as being "afraid of getting shit." I'm not posting ENOUGH about my support for Harris, therefore I'm afraid. But therefore they can also make all these assumptions about me being their strawman for an ignorant Harris supporter.

I'm afraid of getting shit but I still post anyway? But if I weren't afraid of getting shit I'd be posting a lot more?? This is ALL based on their assumptions of what my blog *should* look like, based on what I really and truly believe. My level of posting every now and then is an accurate gauge of my feelings on complex, sensitive, global issues. Because I'm voting for the Democratic presidential candidate and I'm ok sharing pretty much just that little glimpse of myself.

I really don't think that person knows just how inappropriate and insulting that is to just say all of that to me. Like they really know what's going on in my head. Their first message began and ended with like "I'm sorry I love you I just can't take it anymore" but they clearly weren't sorry enough to try and be more respectful to me, and they didn't love me enough not to default to extremely ungenerous assumptions and attacking me based off of those instead of any actual words I've said that they take issue with.

Online radicalization is real and it's not necessarily bad because your political views can start to fall well out of the contemporary Overton window. The way you find it appropriate to treat people whose views, however common, seem to fundamentally misalign with yours... that does matter. You can't just assume the worst of everyone and then act on that in how you approach them as individuals. And then be shocked that you don't stay friends with them. You can't be confrontational with someone about an issue you've never had an honest conversation about, and then expect them to take your bad faith in them as reasonable well-meaning criticism.

I'm afraid of criticism??? I'm afraid of criticism. No I'm not. This person and I have never had an issue before where they criticized me and I got harshly defensive. It was ALL projection. The entire tone of their messages was as if all their anti-voting posts recently were somehow in communication with the occasional go-vote-for-Harris posts that I make. That's not a conversation. I don't post for your satisfaction. I don't post in "response" to my mutuals I disagree with. I just post what's on my mind, sometimes, about some things. I really again can't stress enough how baffled I am by this

[fjordfolk]

when someone in ur circle goes to spontaneously pick up an 8yo cavalier a day's drive away with no info other than 'its free' and 'retired from breeding' and also 'they had a lot of dogs and couldn't keep them all' and you think hooooo boy let's hope for a miracle. but 3 weeks later you hear the dog has possession issues, almost no teeth left, a heart murmur, and an itch they were told could be allergies but vet thinks is neurological and well. there weren't any miracles to be had i guess.

[thatone-highlighter]

I just got through the Earthlings arc during my SU rewatch and im absolutely facinated by Jaspers character

She’s such an effective antagonist for so long because she clashes with every other character so fundamentally. She’s got this completely foreign to the show worldview that is shown to be contrary to what the rest of the show is trying to say but she still feels like a real person and when you think about her she’s just as much a product of her circumstances as anyone else. She doesn’t want to talk it out with Steven because why would she? She was literally born to fight as has been doing so since the second she was born, it’s all she’s ever known and has been drilled into her head that that’s what’s expected of her, she’s rewarded for fighting well and watches as others are punished for doing badly, either by losing or by facing consequences for failing.

And then there’s the whole “perfect solider” part of her character. She was literally born more capable and with a higher status than everyone else. But because of the way home world is structured to reward her and punish people like the off-colours, she’s been indoctrinated into thinking that the reason she came out on top had nothing to do with how she was made and everything to do with her behaviour and attitude. Peak “pull yourself up by your bootstraps” type person but because it’s a fictional story you can see what happened to make her this way. Her and amethyst are fundamentally different, they’re different quartzes, they were born in different places, they were just created differently, from the start jasper was always going to be better at some things than amethyst and amethyst would be better at others than jasper. But because of the way jasper has been “raised” for lack of a better word she doesn’t see that, she doesn’t understand that her and amethyst are simply different gems who were made different, she’s better at fighting and is picture image of what a quartz “should” be so that means it’s possible and anyone who can’t live up to that standard simply isn’t trying hard enough. And she even manages to get that into amethysts head, if jasper is capable of this then that means that amethyst must be too, even tho that’s simply not true. Through no fault of her own amethyst would have to try infinitely harder to achieve even close to where jasper is, jasper started out with a huge head start and trying to play catch up does nothing but hurt amethyst. It’s such a good analogy for so many things I think

Her main role in the story is serving as a character who simply refuses to talk it out with Steven, but again, why would she? From her perspective the entire reason her life is like this, she reason shes spent her life fighting endlessly, all the suffering shes lives through, its his fault. Rose Quartz started the war she was quite literally born to fight in. Rose Quartz also ended that same war by killing the only person jasper ever had to look up to, forced her out of the only reason she had for existing (both as in to fight the war and to serve Pink Diamond). And then heres Rose Quartz once again, saying she wants to help her? Where was she offering help when jasper when she was living to fight as much as she was fighting to live? Where was this „help“ when she shattered Pink Diamond and Jaspers entire world with her? „Help“? Help my ass shes the reason everything thats gone wrong in jaspers life went wrong in the first place

And then she gets poofed at her lowest point, gets removed from the story entirely until Future, and Future does nothing to make anything better for her! Last jasper knew the person shes been seeking revenge on her entire existence cant even be bothered to remember what she did, and then she loses herself to the Earth and corruption, the very things she prided herself on being better than.

And then suddenly shes brought back and „hey guess what! That war we created you to fight in? The one you created your entire person around? The one you lost Everything in? Yeah so it was pointless. Actually the person you idolised for the past 6000 years is the same person who you thought killed her and have been seeking vengeance on for the same amount of time. Crazy how that happens. Anyways so do you wanna come hang out with us now that we sorted that out and were chill about it?“

Can you even IMAGINE what that feels like? No wonder she runs off into the woods and becomes a hermit what else is she supposed to do! Shes got nowhere to go! Her entire life has been turned on its head and she’s expected to just move on! That’s ridiculous!

And thats just the backdrop for her appearance in Future. When she finally does appear they kill her and thats the first and only time we ever see her happy. Someone Finally speaks to her in a way she can understand and she actually dies, and uses that to find herself a purpose. If steven is powerful enough to shatter her, a feat never before seen by a gem, then sure she can serve him, anything to give her life purpose again. and then they just forget about her! Steven literally ditched her in his house! They pull the rug out from under her Once Again. but now she can be „normal“ now she can do what other people want her to do so they all assume shes „better“ now.

I think future did her so dirty the original show handles her character So Well and im not really sure how else they could have gone further with her character because people like Jasper in real life dont really change. And if she were to change and agree with steven it would feel like the show saying steven was right and jasper was wrong and she should have listened to him from the start. Shes such an interesting character to delve into because shes the antagonist yes but shes a very specific type or antagonist that doesnt appear very often and when it does its not with as much backstory, even if just implied, or delving into the thoughts behind the actions. Its so interesting to me

[i3utterflyeffect]

from Alan's perspective, Cho and Dark finding him is probably the single scariest experience of his life, thinking he and SC are both about to get fucking murdered for Alan's own crimes. meanwhile Cho and Dark are having the single most confusing experience of their lives, because Alan is acting Completely Fuckin Bizarre, and also has a baby??? for some reason??? what the fuck??? and SC is just crying because theyre literally babey and theyre So So Stressed

YEAHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!! it's just extremely stressful for everyone involved and honestly Chosen probably is the one that has to take the initiative to step up and be like 'hey Alan, can you explain what the fuck is happening????' which is. Extremely confusing for Alan also because he was HORRIBLE to Chosen, why are THEY the one who isn't immediately trying to murder him????