maidsuokasenpai:

Dear Hollywood,

Stop making movies about people with disabilities “finding love against all odds” as if people with disabilities are unlikely to find love unless it’s in some “inspiring” story.  Our struggles are not your plot device.

bubonickitten:

girlwithapurplescarf:

bubonickitten:

someone with a wine cellar please invite trump to their wine cellar with promises of vintage amontillado

Show him how to build a real wall.

this is my favorite response so far

awfullydull:

100-lbs-of-salt:

yungmethuselah:

Don’t talk shit about people’s teeth. Seriously.

Speaking as a major dental hygiene enthusiast…

Great-looking teeth come from two things: luck and money (which is also a function of luck).

• Dental procedures tend to be very, very expensive, and are almost never covered by insurance.
  
• Healthy teeth aren’t necessarily big, straight or bright white. Depending on what someone’s natural teeth are like, achieving that look may require a significant downgrade in their dental health; unnecessary crowns and veneers cause damage.
• Do not underestimate genetics’ role in determining teeth’s appearance, or how prone teeth are to problems. Genes and early development, i.e. things people get zero control over, can outweigh all else.
• A wide range of chronic conditions impact oral health and teeth’s appearance, too, and may contraindicate various types of work or raise procedures’ cost even more.
  
• Finally, for many people and many reasons, celebrity-looking teeth just aren’t a priority (even when they’re attainable; some people might want, y’know, a new car instead).

Regardless, don’t be an asshole. Not even very attractive teeth look good on those.

I’ve NEVER seen a post like this and I’m thrilled TBH because I’m very insecure about my teeth and there is literally one reason they are not nice and that is money so I’m literally down for teeth positivity

Even those expensive dental procedures can go wrong and leave you with an undesirable result.

Teeth are not a huge deal.

jenniferrpovey:

memelordrevan:

rosslynpaladin:

iamthethunder:

s8yrboy:

“If autism isn’t caused by environmental factors and is natural why didn’t we ever see it in the past?”

We did, except it wasn’t called autism it was called “Little Jonathan is a r*tarded halfwit who bangs his head on things and can’t speak so we’re taking him into the middle of the cold dark forest and leaving him there to die.”

Or “little Jonathan doesn’t talk but does a good job herding the sheep, contributes to the community in his own way, and is, all around, a decent guy.” That happened a lot, too, especially before the 19th century.

Or, backing up FURTHER

and lots of people think this very likely,

“Oh little Sionnat has obviously been taken by the fairies and they’ve left us a Changeling Child who knows too much, and asks strange questions, and uses words she shouldn’t know, and watches everything with her big dark eyes, clearly a Fairy Child and not a Human Like Us.”

The Myth of the Changeling child, a human baby apparently replaced at a young age by a toddler who “suddenly” acts “strange and fey” is an almost textbook depiction of autistic children.

To this day, “autism warrior mommies” talk about autism “stealing” their “sweet normal child” and have this idea of “getting their real baby back” which (in the face of modern science)  indicates how the human psyche actually does deal with finding out their kid acts unlike what they expected.

Given this evidence, and how common we now know autism actually is, the Changeling myth is almost definitely the result of people’s confusion at the development of autistic children.

Weirdly enough, that legend is now comforting to me.

Yeah. The autism epidemic is a myth.

The only geographical pattern for autism is that it clusters in wealthy areas with highly educated parents - who are more likely to hire a good pediatrician, so they’re not clusters of autism, they’re clusters of autism diagnosis.

The term “autism” was not actually coined until 1911, and then it was used in Switzerland to talk about a subset of schizophrenics. It wasn’t used in its current sense until the 1940s, and until the 1960s it was still thought autism and schizophrenia were connected.

So, obviously, there’s no chance of people who lived before that being diagnosed. Analysis of people’s lives has sometimes indicated the possibility - it’s pretty commonly believed that Einstein was on the spectrum from the way he dealt with/didn’t deal with other people.

Now, here’s a big part of it.

The two major researchers who established autism were Hans Asperger in Germany and Leo Kanner in the United States.

Asperger’s view of autism was much like how we see it now - a spectrum, with some people only showing a few traits and some showing more of them.

Kanner thought it was a rare condition AND he thought it was caused by bad parenting. And THAT is the view of autism and autistics and parents of autistics that dominated in the US for a long term. He framed it as psychosis, favored institutionalization (because they needed to be rescued from the bad parents who caused it). And because he said it was a rare and severe psychosis only the most severe cases were counted.

What’s actually happening now is that people are acknowledging that Asperger was right and Kanner was wrong and counting the people Asperger would have counted all along.

Hence, sudden autism epidemic.

That doesn’t exist.