#discrimination

[alwaysbewoke]

Imagine how many people JUST LIKE HER are in ICU, TRAUMA, BIRTH AND DELIVERY, NICU, STEP-DOWN UNITS, PYSCH WARDS, ELDERLY CARE, OBGYN, CARDIOLOGY, POST OP CARE, etc…

[jackoshadows]

[sugas6thtooth]

Boost!! Please don't forget about the Palestinians outside of Palestine who are facing discrimination as well. Also, the airline responsible for upholding this discrimination is Delta Airlines. Do with that information what you will. :)

[animentality]

[hussyknee]

ID in alt.

Palestinian and pro-Palestinian students and academics are being actively persecuted beyond all precedent at universities right now. Can confirm Palestinians who're losing family members are being institutionally terrorized in both the North America and Europe. Students have been suspended for putting up Palestine flags. Palestinians posting on social media about their families and neighbours are being reported and doxxed and getting death threats and their employers and supervisors refusing support them. A colleague of a friend who lost her entire family went to talk to the university counselor about her anger and grief and was immediately reported to the administration. An entire think tank was dissolved because of its members spoke in support of Palestine at a lecture. This level of witch hunting and purging hasn't been seen since the Red Scare. It's fucking terrifying. Please boost this.

[one-time-i-dreamt]

[tocomplainfriend]

Hey, hear this!

I'm not black and don't know that much about voodou. There are lots of people ready to talk and explain their concerns about their representation in HH. Please hear them! (the amount of disrespect done by a bunch of non-black people upon the topic is disgusting!)

The demonizing and villainizing of this religion has existed since the time of slavery. Using this symbols and closed religion to make a character more "edgy demon evil" is awful. This was Viv doing exactly. I do not believe Al was even supposed to be black/mixed until Viv got told about the use of the religion she was using. All of her main black characters have 0 features. They are just black to profit of "diversity" while she makes no effort to show it or be respectful.

To the people being like, "Aren't you also mad about her representing Christianity wrong???" Based on the fact of how she has talked about Christian people before... YES (I have a whole post about worrying it). But the point brought up is about a religion that's under discrimination based on racism and colonizer mindsets. About a problem that existed when slavery started. Viv is not making a critique or tribute of Voodou she is just using it to make Alastor seem "COOL AND EDGY".

I also do worry of the point she is trying to make about Christianity and believing in it. Specially cause that means her story about heaven and hell could be the blandest immature criticism someone could make. -and sell more people into the idea of "all believers of Christianity are bad people". Which I still hope, it doesn't happen directly in the show. Btw, I'm not Christian! I'm queer and have faced a lot of discrimination that a lot of people justified in their Christianism, I know the level of frustration people feel relating to that. But I have grown to realize, not every person that believes in God and Christ is a bad person. And that I don't get to throw all of those people under the umbrella of "bad" because of how I have been treated.

BTW, this person got blocked by Viv:

ALSO, THIS IS STUPID!

You are crazy to say this. They are many criticisms of Disney, specially this movie. You just didn't see it and decided to tweet this without even thinking of searching for this? Like, have you never heard of people complaining about how Tiana as the first black princess becoming a fucking frog for most of the movie.

Dr. Facilier is a demonization of voodou! Also, Mama Odie is the "Good magic" but realize how she doesn't use the symbols or African masks. But only the bad magic, has it? Most of the representation of the religion is Facilier too, and it's wrongly represented.

EDIT:

NAHHHH. GIRL

[codthefishgod]

To all the people who think aspec people aren't LGBTQIA+ because we aren't "discriminated against enough", here's a lovely list of reasons why you need to educate yourself:

- We suffer from dehumanisation, people actively devaluing or even erasing our humanity because of our identities (The voidpunk community is heavily supported by aspec people because of this)

- We suffer from self hatred due to feeling as if and being told we are broken, that no one can be happy unless they're in a romantic/sexual relationship, because of allonormativity and amatonormativity that actively damages our mental health

- Amatonormativity shapes laws that put us at an active disadvantage, such as giving married people financial and legal benefits

- Aspec people have been victims of conversion therapy, correctional rape, a lower quality of life, and other effects of being a marginalised and oppressed group

- We suffer from our identities being pathologised and deal with medical stigma because of this, causing many of us to feel unwelcome in and even avoid health care settings

- We suffer from our identities being erased, which can range from people completely denying our existence and people equating it to celibacy, to an almost complete absence of aspec representation in the media (It's been getting better lately, especially for alloaces and aroaces, but I have yet to ever see a canon aroallo character, and representation for those on the spectrum rather than in the extremes is often ignored)

- YOU are creating a hateful, exclusionary space in a community meant to be about inclusion. The same thing that happens to us happens to bisexual people, to polyamorous people, and other identities that are "disputed." In a community meant to be about rejecting the norm, YOU are shoving us out because we don't fit the norm of being LGBTQIA+. Because we're not enough like you.

These are only a few examples of aphobia that people like me deal with. Discrimination and oppression against aspec people stretches far beyond this.

But even if it didn't, it is disrespectful and harmful to everyone involved to gatekeep membership in the community based on oppression and discrimination.

We aren't LGBTQIA+ because we experience oppression. We are LGBTQIA+ because our existence alone goes against heteronormativity and other societal norms forced upon us.

[bogleech]

Elon Musk’s latest low is publicly ridiculing an ex twitter employee, diminishing his roles in the company with stolen movie jokes, and finally, accusing him of faking his disability because Elon doesn’t know that speech to text exists:

The man’s identity, career, and disability are not only all extremely verifiable, but he’s a winner of his country’s person of the year award: https://www.icelandreview.com/news/haraldur-thorleifsson-sweeps-person-of-the-year-awards/ Note especially Elon knocking “Halli” over being “independently wealthy.” Halli’s wealth is barely an atom of Elon’s, but got there through actual hard work and is his nation’s highest taxpayer by choice, to support its health care and education programs.

[queerism1969]

[probablyasocialecologist]

A survey of more than 90,000 transgender people in the U.S. — the largest nationwide survey of the community ever — found that trans people continue to experience workplace and medical discrimination. However, the overwhelming majority of them still report more life satisfaction after having transitioned.  The National Center for Transgender Equality, or NCTE, one of the country’s largest trans rights organizations, released its 2022 U.S. Transgender Survey Early Insights report Wednesday after a yearslong delay due, in part, to the pandemic. The survey, the most comprehensive look to date at life for transgender people in the U.S., comes as hundreds of bills in the last three years have attempted to roll back trans rights, most often by restricting trans people’s access to transition-related health care and trans students’ abilities to play school sports.

[...]

More than one-third of adult respondents, or 34%, were experiencing poverty at the time of the survey, and 18% were unemployed. More than 1 in 10, or 11%, of respondents who had ever held jobs said they had been fired or forced to resign or had lost jobs or been laid off because of their gender identities or expressions. And, in line with previous survey findings, 30% of respondents had experienced homelessness in their lifetimes.  Of adult respondents who saw health care providers in the previous 12 months, 48% reported having had at least one negative experience because they were transgender, including being refused health care, having staff members use the incorrect pronouns for them or having providers use abusive language or be physically rough or abusive while treating them. Fear of mistreatment prevented 24% of respondents from seeing doctors when they needed it in the 12 months before the survey.  Many respondents also reported past mistreatment in school. Of adult respondents, 80% who were out or perceived as trans in K-12 experienced one or more forms of mistreatment, including verbal harassment, physical attacks, online bullying or being denied use of the restrooms or locker rooms that matched their gender identities. Of the 8,159 respondents who were 16 and 17, 60% reported such mistreatment. Despite those negative experiences, the vast majority of adult respondents, 79%, who lived at least some of the time in different genders from the ones they were assigned at birth reported that they were “a lot more satisfied” with their lives. An additional 15% reported they were “a little more satisfied.”

[politijohn]

Source

[cowsabungus]

Faces you get in a wheelchair

Fun little thing I made, most of the main body of text is meant as joking or sarcastic, especially the second to lay slide

DISCLAIMERS:

I'm saying these because on tiktok everyone felt the need to complain about it so:

-"saying you hate able bodied people is just as bad!" No it's not, come back to me when able bodied people are prejudiced against and physically refused access because of the of their disability and a lack of access built into our society, thanks x

-"I dont usually look at people!" Totally fine, do the same to disabled people. What I was getting at here was how able bods who are looking away are doing it because they feel awkward around disabled people and usually make a whole ass scene. There's a difference between someone who's generally a bit shy and someone who's looking away from you BECAUSE you're disabled.

That's all enjoy kings queens and regals especially if you're disabled I love you.

ID in alt

[writingwithcolor]

Dark features/people as blessed, white and light people as sick

ladyoftheseastuff asked:

I'm writing a fantasy story where the world is permanently covered in snow & ice. The people share a common culture & are loyal to their city states, but they are not homogeneous in appearance; there will be many, many characters coded as PoC. The main religion centers on the sun, & those with dark features are 'favoured' by the sun god, while pale people or anyone who has white/blonde hair are thought vulnerable to "snow sickness", a disease caused by environmental factors (1/2) & have other rules and customs to gain religious approval. It's dangerous & infectious but not well understood. It affects social standing and opportunities, but it's meant to be tied with ideas of youth, vitality, & fear of aging & sickness: it's not limited to those coded as white. This is a cultural detail and not part of the main conflict, but I want to avoid unintentional allegories/parallels & fetishization. Is this a concept that's too close to crossing any of those lines? (2/2)

This feels less like a means to show dark skinned people in an empowering light and more like a weak attempt at subversion. My primary concern (which you have not specified) is how do the "blessed" class treat the "sickly" so to speak. We have fantasy stories like The Grisha Trilogy and Girls of Paper and Fire, which deal with magical ability/feature-based segregation and conflict.

In both cases there is a sense of entitlement which comes with hailing from the "favoured" class, quite obvious, since there will always be an inherent othering metaphor whenever you create such a division, whether it was meant to be a source of conflict or not.

However, the two mentioned series use the "magical people are blessed, non magical people are to be pitied" arc which is somewhat more subtle than divisions created just on the basis of skin colour.

Disclaimer as I do not have albinism or vitiligo: The latter can be extremely harmful, and not just in a racial context, but in cases of albinism, vitiligo etc.

~Mod Mimi

The pitfalls of subversions

While it is always lovely to see dark features considered in a favorable way, there are some issues you may come across. Such a story could easily end up dressing those you wished to uphold as bad guys in the readers' eyes, even if the story's society and the sun god etc. thinks they're amazing, and white and light people as the victims of dark people, deserving reader sympathy. This may especially be the case based on how these groups get treated in the story.

These sort of subversions lean dangerously into "reverse discrimination" plots which are not overall accurate or favorable allegories for your real, human audience. There being diversity on both sides doesn't necessary fix this issue or remove racial or ethnic implications. On that note, and as Mimi mentioned, being demonized and ostracized particularly for skin and genetic disorders like albinism is already a thing. What does your concept say of them?

I think Dark/Black as good and Light/white as bad is a doable concept. Your concept differs a bit from simply subverting black/white tropes. This is not just Black good guys and night skies being peaceful or neutral. It's not just white/light villains (as opposed to victims) or snow symbolling death or sickness.

White and light people are quite blatantly being declared as sick and unfavored and they may very well be victims in the reader's eye with the dark people being the villainous, unsympathetic bunch. Is this your intention?

More to consider

Such a concept requires thoughtful, careful planning and intentional writing. You should have an understanding of what your story implies to the readers and the real-life takeaways.

I think it's possible to make dark skin the favored skin of the sun god without it meaning white/light people stand in a negative light and are sick or unworthy.

Consider what it is that you like about the concept of your story. Can you keep the essence of whatever it is that excites you about your ideas, without denying a whole group of people favor? If not, how will you go about telling such a tale that is not meant to symbolize a sort of reversal of roles discrimination?

Why does the sun god get to determine what is good?

Are there other gods that might have different strong opinions? Perhaps who is favored varies by time of day, season, region, culture, god?

Can dark skin get its favor without white and light features being deemed unfavorable as a whole?

How big of a deal does this favor have to be? I advise reconsidering it being the point of discrimination to white/light people for all the reasons already described.

No matter the directions you go, please research and get the appropriate beta-readers for feedback on the in-depth concepts and story.

~Mod Colette

[commiepinkofag]

Teachers with Pride Still Have to Hide

Gay schoolteachers wearing masks at parade, June 28, 1986

In this image, Seattle schoolteachers participating in the Gay Freedom Day parade through the Capitol Hill neighborhood hold a banner reading "Teachers with Pride Still Have to Hide," and wear masks to protest the discrimination they have felt. An estimated 10,000 people participated in the event, which is part of Seattle's annual Gay Pride Week.

[ 📷 Jennifer Werner-Jones / Seattle Post-Intelligencer ]

oh, how times have changed!

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Privacy first

The internet is embroiled in a vicious polycrisis: child safety, surveillance, discrimination, disinformation, polarization, monopoly, journalism collapse – not only have we failed to agree on what to do about these, there's not even a consensus that all of these are problems.

But in a new whitepaper, my EFF colleagues Corynne McSherry, Mario Trujillo, Cindy Cohn and Thorin Klosowski advance an exciting proposal that slices cleanly through this Gordian knot, which they call "Privacy First":

https://www.eff.org/wp/privacy-first-better-way-address-online-harms

Here's the "Privacy First" pitch: whatever is going on with all of the problems of the internet, all of these problems are made worse by commercial surveillance.

Worried your kid is being made miserable through targeted ads? No surveillance, no targeting.

Worried your uncle was turned into a Qanon by targeted disinformation? No surveillance, no targeting. Worried that racialized people are being targeted for discriminatory hiring or lending by algorithms? No surveillance, no targeting.

Worried that nation-state actors are exploiting surveillance data to attack elections, politicians, or civil servants? No surveillance, no surveillance data.

Worried that AI is being trained on your personal data? No surveillance, no training data.

Worried that the news is being killed by monopolists who exploit the advantage conferred by surveillance ads to cream 51% off every ad-dollar? No surveillance, no surveillance ads.

Worried that social media giants maintain their monopolies by filling up commercial moats with surveillance data? No surveillance, no surveillance moat.

The fact that commercial surveillance hurts so many groups of people in so many ways is terrible, of course, but it's also an amazing opportunity. Thus far, the individual constituencies for, say, saving the news or protecting kids have not been sufficient to change the way these big platforms work. But when you add up all the groups whose most urgent cause would be significantly improved by comprehensive federal privacy law, vigorously enforced, you get an unstoppable coalition.

America is decades behind on privacy. The last really big, broadly applicable privacy law we passed was a law banning video-store clerks from leaking your porn-rental habits to the press (Congress was worried about their own rental histories after a Supreme Court nominee's movie habits were published in the Washington City Paper):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_Privacy_Protection_Act

In the decades since, we've gotten laws that poke around the edges of privacy, like HIPAA (for health) and COPPA (data on under-13s). Both laws are riddled with loopholes and neither is vigorously enforced:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/04/09/how-to-make-a-child-safe-tiktok/

Privacy First starts with the idea of passing a fit-for-purpose, 21st century privacy law with real enforcement teeth (a private right of action, which lets contingency lawyers sue on your behalf for a share of the winnings):

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2022/07/americans-deserve-more-current-american-data-privacy-protection-act

Here's what should be in that law:

A ban on surveillance advertising:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2022/03/ban-online-behavioral-advertising

Data minimization: a prohibition on collecting or processing your data beyond what is strictly necessary to deliver the service you're seeking.

Strong opt-in: None of the consent theater click-throughs we suffer through today. If you don't give informed, voluntary, specific opt-in consent, the service can't collect your data. Ignoring a cookie click-through is not consent, so you can just bypass popups and know you won't be spied on.

No preemption. The commercial surveillance industry hates strong state privacy laws like the Illinois biometrics law, and they are hoping that a federal law will pre-empt all those state laws. Federal privacy law should be the floor on privacy nationwide – not the ceiling:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2022/07/federal-preemption-state-privacy-law-hurts-everyone

No arbitration. Your right to sue for violations of your privacy shouldn't be waivable in a clickthrough agreement:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2022/04/stop-forced-arbitration-data-privacy-legislation

No "pay for privacy." Privacy is not a luxury good. Everyone deserves privacy, and the people who can least afford to buy private alternatives are most vulnerable to privacy abuses:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/10/why-getting-paid-your-data-bad-deal

No tricks. Getting "consent" with confusing UIs and tiny fine print doesn't count:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/02/designing-welcome-mats-invite-user-privacy-0

A Privacy First approach doesn't merely help all the people harmed by surveillance, it also prevents the collateral damage that today's leading proposals create. For example, laws requiring services to force their users to prove their age ("to protect the kids") are a privacy nightmare. They're also unconstitutional and keep getting struck down.

A better way to improve the kid safety of the internet is to ban surveillance. A surveillance ban doesn't have the foreseeable abuses of a law like KOSA (the Kids Online Safety Act), like bans on information about trans healthcare, medication abortions, or banned books:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/05/kids-online-safety-act-still-huge-danger-our-rights-online

When it comes to the news, banning surveillance advertising would pave the way for a shift to contextual ads (ads based on what you're looking at, not who you are). That switch would change the balance of power between news organizations and tech platforms – no media company will ever know as much about their readers as Google or Facebook do, but no tech company will ever know as much about a news outlet's content as the publisher does:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/05/save-news-we-must-ban-surveillance-advertising

This is a much better approach than the profit-sharing arrangements that are being trialed in Australia, Canada and France (these are sometimes called "News Bargaining Codes" or "Link Taxes"). Funding the news by guaranteeing it a share of Big Tech's profits makes the news into partisans for that profit – not the Big Tech watchdogs we need them to be. When Torstar, Canada's largest news publisher, struck a profit-sharing deal with Google, they killed their longrunning, excellent investigative "Defanging Big Tech" series.

A privacy law would also protect access to healthcare, especially in the post-Roe era, when Big Tech surveillance data is being used to target people who visit abortion clinics or secure medication abortions. It would end the practice of employers forcing workers to wear health-monitoring gadget. This is characterized as a "voluntary" way to get a "discount" on health insurance – but in practice, it's a way of punishing workers who refuse to let their bosses know about their sleep, fertility, and movements.

A privacy law would protect marginalized people from all kinds of digital discrimination, from unfair hiring to unfair lending to unfair renting. The commercial surveillance industry shovels endless quantities of our personal information into the furnaces that fuel these practices. A privacy law shuts off the fuel supply:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/04/digital-privacy-legislation-civil-rights-legislation

There are plenty of ways that AI will make our lives worse, but copyright won't fix it. For issues of labor exploitation (especially by creative workers), the answer lies in labor law:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/10/01/how-the-writers-guild-sunk-ais-ship/

And for many of AI's other harms, a muscular privacy law would starve AI of some of its most potentially toxic training data:

https://www.businessinsider.com/tech-updated-terms-to-use-customer-data-to-train-ai-2023-9

Meanwhile, if you're worried about foreign governments targeting Americans – officials, military, or just plain folks – a privacy law would cut off one of their most prolific and damaging source of information. All those lawmakers trying to ban Tiktok because it's a surveillance tool? What about banning surveillance, instead?

Monopolies and surveillance go together like peanut butter and chocolate. Some of the biggest tech empires were built on mountains of nonconsensually harvested private data – and they use that data to defend their monopolies. Legal privacy guarantees are a necessary precursor to data portability and interoperability:

https://www.eff.org/wp/interoperability-and-privacy

Once we are guaranteed a right to privacy, lawmakers and regulators can order tech giants to tear down their walled gardens, rather than relying on tech companies to (selectively) defend our privacy:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/11/14/luxury-surveillance/#liar-liar

The point here isn't that privacy fixes all the internet's woes. The policy is "privacy first," not "just privacy." When it comes to making a new, good internet, there's plenty of room for labor law, civil rights legislation, antitrust, and other legal regimes. But privacy has the biggest constituency, gets us the most bang for the buck, and has the fewest harmful side-effects. It's a policy we can all agree on, even if we don't agree on much else. It's a coalition in potentia that would be unstoppable in reality. Privacy first! Then – everything else!

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/12/06/privacy-first/#but-not-just-privacy

Image: Cryteria (modified) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:HAL9000.svg

CC BY 3.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/deed.en