The funniest thing is that Phil, Ben and Shirley were actually the most reticent about the heist. Kat came up with the job originally and pushed for it with Phil, and Kush practically begged to be there (and Kat backed him up). But it is Phil, Ben and Shirley who 'must pay' 😂
Because, in EE lore, if you choose to go into business with the Mitchells, everything is always their fault and you are a victim of them because they are Bad and you are Good. I'm surprised people don't blame the Mitchells every time they forget their anniversary.
Kush: I have to make the criminals pay for their crimes
Me: *waits for Kush to hand himself in for the literal kidnap of a child*
Honestly, though, I find it all kinds of fascinating how these terrible awful shit useless criminals get bigged up by the Square residents, and how people use that to distort the reality of their own terrible decisions (and therefore removing their own responsibility).
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
We have a really serious problem in queer spaces with blaming queer people who identify differently to us for the violence and bigotry enacted by allocishets.
Blaming bi folk, bi/pan lesbians, people using neopronouns etc. for oppression just lets allocishets off the hook.
Try funnelling your anger and frustration towards the people actively harming you, rather than people in your community who happen to have a different experience to you.
If every single bi/pan lesbian stopped identifying that way, allocishet men would STILL abuse lesbians and try to 'turn them straight'.
If neopronouns disappeared tomorrow, cis people would STILL refuse to take trans people seriously.
The lack of engagement with disabled and immunocompromised people in articles like this is really starting to get my back up. These articles are written without mention or notice or word from the people most vulnerable, because y'all just expect them to stay indoors anyway.
I had hoped that maybe, MAYBE this pandemic would lead to people actually listening to disabled people, but I guess that was just a bit too optimistic. You wanted disabled people's advice for surviving lockdown, but now that it's over you're very happy to go back to ignoring.
Is this a discussion we need to have, around what's safe and what isn't and how hard our reaponses are fuelled by anxiety over risk? Yes.
But you can't do that properly unless you centre the people most affected and most vulnerable. The conversation, without it, is incomplete.
Someone just responded to my #AutismAcceptanceMonth video by calling me 'aggressive', which is both hilarious and symptomatic of how people treat you when you say 'hey, I'm being harmed and you need to stop harming me'. Whatever I say, however I say it, it'll be 'too aggressive'.
Not BECAUSE I'm actually being 'aggressive' (although if I was, could you blame me?), but the very act of daring to be autistic (or queer, etc.) and demanding respect is seen as aggressive because it's a challenge to their insular bubble. And they don't want to hear it.
Society's perception of 'aggression' is inherently rooted in biases and bigotry (as we see most keenly in the 'angry Black woman' trope, and white women weaponising our feminity to cry and call them 'aggressive' whenever they say something we don't want to hear).
Imagine if you lot had been as scandalised about the deaths of disabled people due to medical neglect and blanket DNR policies during the pandemic as you are about a donut company offering a donut to people who've been vaccinated.
You're more upset about disabled people eating a single fucking donut after this hell year than you ever were about disabled people dying, and that's why fatphobia and ableism cannot be separated.
Making it mandatory that you must be vaccinated (unless you have a medical exemption) in order to work in a caring profession is perfectly reasonable. You still have the RIGHT to refuse the vaccine, it just doesn't impinge on your client's RIGHT not to be killed by you.
I'm sorry if you don't want a vaccine and giving up your career makes you sad, but I care an awful lot more about the lives of the people in your care.
If the people in your care aren't your priority, what the fuck are you doing in this profession in the first place?
If you are a carer and your first response to the suggestion of mandatory vaccinations (with medical exemptions taken into account) is upset or anger, consider the absolute sense of entitlement that you are displaying over disabled people's lives.
"The hospital claimed a DNR which referenced Ms Deleon's learning disabilities had been incorrectly filled in and another order which did not note them was used instead." - I don't believe a word of this and it's horrifying. bbc.co.uk/news/uk-englan…
The hospital claims the DNR order was issued with the family's knowledge, whereas the family claims otherwise. Even if the DNR form which referenced her learning disabilities WAS filled in incorrectly, the fact that they would ever mention it on such a form is horrifying.
"Her family said Miss Deleon, known as Sone, had had her care in her final days in April influenced by her lifelong conditions."
I'm so sorry, Sone, you didn't deserve this. Your life was worth saving.