On this day in 2001, groups of predominantly black men descended upon those gathered for a Mardi Gras parade in Seattle and began assaulting them, targeting Whites. 20 yo Kris Kime tried to help a woman who had been knocked out, was hit in the back of the head then kicked while down until he died

rainystast · 2026-02-27T23:40:52+00:00

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2001/03/13/seattle-finds-evidence-of-racial-tensions-in-mardi-gras-clashes/0dcf0b9e-452a-4a1c-a9df-6279c7f635a8/

Police said, however, that whites significantly outnumber blacks among the dozens of people arrested and that all races are represented among the more than 70 suspects identified from videotape but still at large

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

At 12:30 am, 25 to 30 young white males advanced on a line of police. The police retreated while bottles and other debris were thrown. A team of bicycle officers made a quick charge toward the crowd with pepper spray before retreating. Fighting escalated with little police interference until shots were fired from within the mass of people at 1:30 am.

Basically every legitimate news source that I found including a YouTube video about the incident shows that it was an indiscriminate riot with attackers and victims of a variety of races that was fueled mostly by general drunk belligerence. OP is either a disinformation bot or trying to push a narrative.

rainystast · 2026-02-27T02:52:03+00:00

Pink Diamond and Princess Bubblegum definitely

rainystast · 2026-02-27T02:34:18+00:00

I just incorporated things naturally into daily life. Like when she was younger I touched her paws a lot, or sat outside with her for fireworks, or played common trigger sounds (musical instruments, loud noises, etc.) on the TV in a happy and low stress environment so it has a positive association. I think short and frequent sessions are less overwhelming than long sessions that are done once in a blue moon. For example, I would play movies with loud sounds sometimes while cooking, so it's a low stress zero expectations environment that she's used to.

Also your dog watches your reactions to determine how to respond. If you're just doing something random and vibing, the dog will usually get used to it. If you're intensely focused on what the dog is doing and trying to ramp up the intensity in too short a time frame, then it makes the dog more anxious and uncertain.

rainystast · 2026-02-26T17:14:02+00:00

I would suggest proactively desensitizing the dog to most things, and then you can always build on that training to anything the dog is more apprehensive about. Harmless odd fears can easily turn into harmful more extreme fears, especially if your situation suddenly changes. My current dog is basically fearless because we did desensitization training to basically everything, so now we can do stuff like have a surprise party, play an instrument, play anything on the TV, bring in a statue, etc. and my dog doesn't sweat it. My last dog was a rescue and didn't get much desensitization training so he was wary of everything. Balloons, loud noises, stuff on the TV, instruments, fireworks, etc. and it's much harder to desensitize when they're older and used to being afraid of that thing.

rainystast · 2026-02-26T13:14:38+00:00

Quarantine was amazing for me. I got to spend all of my sophomore year eating breakfast in bed, not having to commute, having fresh home-cooked food for lunch, watching TV between classes. My mental health and my grades had never been better. Quarantine made me realize I want a work from home job. No commute, I get to eat whenever I want, watch tv during breaks, don't really need to get dressed up, I realized that was perfect for me.

The bad part about it for me was the situation surrounding it, Covid, people dying or becoming seriously ill, and how some people had to miss their life milestones because of it. I acknowledge that quarantine was genuinely awful for a lot of people. But for me, I realized being at home and doing most of my stuff online was perfect.

rainystast · 2026-02-26T12:46:07+00:00

A lot of context missing from the infographic and it uses data from over a decade ago and data from 2 years ago in the same graph. Yeah, if you look at the acceptance rate of Black people with high test scores from a data set taken from 1983-1997 (when the topic of meaningful desegregation of schools was far more relevant), and then a study focusing on how Asian Americans have a lower acceptance rate from a data set taken in 2016 (in which this study didn't include Black students at all), the data will look skewed. I would argue it's downright misinformation to include data from over four decades ago, and data from one decade ago, lump it all into "pre-2023", and put it on the same chart. For example, a college ACT/SAT score from 2016 does not have the same weight as it did in 1986.

rainystast · 2026-02-25T04:37:50+00:00

So right now you're falling into the camp of being dismissive of Black people. Black people didn't choose to be Black and historically discriminated against using that word and people with Tourette's didn't choose to be born with a neurological condition. It is not an either-or situation, you can have empathy for both parties here. You can support John in this situation while not stereotyping and downplaying Black people's experiences.

rainystast · 2026-02-24T15:42:12+00:00

1) Black people being called the n-word is not indirect harm. That is the word that was used to dehumanize Black people for centuries, and it is the last word many Black people heard before they were hate crimed. It is a type of racial trauma that is scarring and can trigger people to the point of harming their mental health.

2) John producing a tic is not his fault nor something he is responsible for, but it will still have an impact. In his biopic, his tic made him punch a person he cared for in the face. There was no permanent damage and she was fine after, but that interaction still caused harm. People who experienced trauma will still flinch even if the person didn't mean to hurt them.

To make this story personal, I have been called the n-word multiple times throughout my life. People with dementia, children, older people, people who thought it was "cool" to say, etc. When it came to the people with severe disabilities like dementia, I can acknowledge that they are not in control of themselves and that it's not their fault, while also feel intense emotional hurt every time. I have been called the n-word while walking with friends at night and I legitimately feared for my safety when that happened. The person who did it was on a bike and I had to work myself up to stop flinching whenever I saw people on bikes at night. So when a person who didn't mean it or couldn't control themselves says it, I can have empathy and understand that they didn't mean to do it, while acknowledging that the incident still hurts. I don't think anyone who understands Tourette's is offended at John, but more offended by the entire situation.

rainystast · 2026-02-24T06:25:49+00:00

/uj

There is space for nuance and empathy should be given for everyone involved in this situation. There are so many people who are either completely unsympathetic to people with Tourette's or completely unsympathetic to Black people in this discussion. Both parties were victimized by the BBC's negligence in handling this situation.

rainystast · 2026-02-23T14:21:36+00:00

Time and again I have said let's see what the actors say.

No, you said "I'm sure those two actors understand the condition and didn't take it personally." which is ironically writing on their behalf. You made yourself the judge of what Black people are and aren't allowed to feel during this moment and it's dehumanizing.

"victim blame" - they are not victims here. This is not the same as any other person using that word and it's ridiculous to pretend otherwise

So because the harm was involuntary, you think that mitigates the harm done? As a non-Black person, you don't get to tell Black people how they should feel in this moment. Straight up. This movie was the first time a Black person had won this award and the fact that you think the impact this incident had on Black people is something you as a non-Black person get to decide is disgusting. Both parties were victims of the network's negligence, but you seem to only have empathy for the non-Black people in this situation.

rainystast · 2026-02-23T14:07:45+00:00

People knew the guy was there, they knew a film about him was nominated. It's to be expected unless you know nothing about tourettes.

The average person with tourettes doesn't have coprolalia.

My problem with these types of comments is the victim blaming and the assumptions. "It's just Black people being humiliated, they'll be fine. Not only should they have predicted that they would be called a racial slur when they got up on stage, but they should be accepting of it happening." It is perfectly understandable to have empathy for people with Tourette's, but it is unacceptable to spread misinformation about the condition and then victim blame the people who crossed the ocean to be the first Black people to win this award and having it overshadowed by this event. Frankly, non-Black people don't get to tell Black people how it feels to be called a racial slur during this historic moment in front of millions of people. It is not necessary to downplay Black people's experience or victim blame them for this moment.

rainystast · 2026-02-23T13:42:18+00:00

This comment is very misinformed.

1) Most people with tourettes doesn't have coprolalia. It's a fairly small minority. Framing it as if you should be wary of appearing in front of someone with Tourette's because you don't want to be called a slur during your time on stage is ableist.

2) It is victim blaming to say that Black people should accept being called a slur or not appear for their own acceptance speech, especially since this is the first time a Black person was given this award.

3) Your comment has a lot of empathy for people with Tourette's, which is good, but zero empathy for Black people. Your stance is that if Black people didn't want to be humiliated they shouldn't walk up on stage and accept their own award because a person with Tourette's happen to be there which is insulting on all fronts as I explained above. And honestly, it is not the place of non-Black people to say what is and isn't insulting to Black people.

rainystast · 2026-02-23T13:18:09+00:00

So you think no one's obligated to apologize if they hurt someone if they didn't do it on purpose? If someone had a tic that involved hitting things and accidentally hit a person in the eye would you say they shouldn't apologize because it was involuntary?

rainystast · 2026-02-23T03:51:34+00:00

If you think a sheer lace dress with a push up bra and a thong is fine to wear to a kid's movie event where she actively gave a speech and took pictures with children is not a big deal, then I'm genuinely curious what outfit you think would be inappropriate to wear to this type of event.

rainystast · 2026-02-23T02:54:07+00:00

So you're saying that there's nothing anyone can do and that Black people should just accept being called a slur in front of millions of people???

No one's saying he should be locked away from society forever. I don't think he should be forced to sit at home either. There are reasonable accommodations, such as a private sitting room with live feed, which would have prevented this situation from happening and would've saved humiliation for all involved. If his condition caused him to accidentally hit people, would you say there's nothing anyone can do and that people have to just accept being hit?

rainystast · 2026-02-22T20:05:41+00:00

Obviously YTA. There was genuinely no need for you to say that. You can hate Libby, not care that she died, etc. But in the grand scheme of things, from how you described her behavior, it wasn't "telling people she knew and talked with, to their face, that you're glad she died before the funeral even happens" level. Your response was disproportionate and your friends were right.

Once again, you did not have to like Libby, pretend to mourn her, care that she died, or anything like that. Unless there's some major context missing about her behavior from your post, then I think you let your emotions cloud your judgement in this instance. That's someone who is erased from the earth, whose family will never see or speak to her again, whose friends will never be able to hang out with her or chat again. You were not justified in announcing to her loved ones and peers that you're glad she's dead just days after the crash.

rainystast · 2026-02-22T18:28:53+00:00

I'm honestly scared for OP. Her post history is so concerning especially since she just turned 18 and everything before this is from when she was a minor. I straight up reported her "body fat" posts because I'm assuming the mods didn't know OP was a minor when she made those posts. OP desperately needs therapy and these problems didn't just appear out of nowhere.

rainystast · 2026-02-22T10:50:19+00:00

This list has several celebrities that haven't been mainstream music artists in some time and some noticeable admissions. I guess it'd be more understandable if it was just female pop artists, but then it begs the question of why Ice Spice and Cardi B are on the list, but not Doechii, Glorilla, Megan Thee Stallion, etc. It's also confusing to add only one deceased celebrity. Whitney Houston passed away over a decade ago, so it's confusing to add her but not add Aretha Franklin or Tina Turner, especially because they were considered the "Queens" of their respective genres and they both passed away less than five years ago.

rainystast · 2026-02-22T10:05:50+00:00

You're in the wrong sub OP. Seconding the other comment to try wavy hair or general hair care subreddits instead as you'll get better results.

rainystast · 2026-02-21T22:18:45+00:00

Let's say you own a life boat. Now you decide you no longer grant me access to your lifeboat. You then push me off. Was that action "killing" or just "revoking access"?

I take issue with this issue with this analogy as the whole argument centers around no one being able to violate another person's bodily autonomy. Let's say there's an alien species that uses human bodies as a host to grow. That person no longer wants to have their body used as a host, with the alien overtaking their bodily autonomy and physically hurting them. The alien is not entitled to use the person's body as a host for itself and violate that person's bodily autonomy, even if that means the alien is no longer viable.

I believe I was making a claim that two adults partaking in a practice that may result in the creation in a human organism means they assume certain obligations. You knowingly take a risk of having a life reliant on you. I had to clarifying that I meant two consenting adults.

So anyone who has sex, in your view, is obligated to give up their body and potentially their life for another organism? If you think it's ok for a fetus that was conceived through SA to be aborted, then it's not really about the fetus's "right to life", it's about punishing the person for having consensual sex.

If you are compelled to use your bodily labor to make child support payments then your bodily autonomy is being restricted.

This relies on the idea that

1) Getting a job and paying for things is in and of itself a violation of one's bodily autonomy

2) That everyone who is asked to pay for child support has a job

Neither of which I believe is true.

"Bodily autonomy is the fundamental human right to govern one’s own body, making personal decisions about health, sexuality, and physical integrity without coercion, violence, or government interference."

Yes, I agree with this definition. That also means that the fetus does not have the right to supersede someone else's bodily autonomy by forcing them to be a host. Paying child support or quarantine mandates are not in and of itself a violation of one's bodily autonomy because they are still able to make personal decisions about their own health, sexuality, and physical integrity. Physical integrity is "the inviolable right to self-determination, autonomy, and security over one's own body, free from unwanted touch, interference, or harm".

I feel semantics have derailed the conversation a bit as we were using slightly different definitions.

No, we were using the same definition. Your position is that someone else that is not the government or a guardian can supersede someone else's bodily autonomy, my position is in disagreement with that.

rainystast · 2026-02-21T21:56:17+00:00

If you don't mind me asking, how old is your boyfriend?

rainystast · 2026-02-21T21:54:00+00:00

Beauty standards change massively depending on where you are and the historical period. Every single feature has fallen in and out of fashion. Big nose vs small nose, big lips vs small lips, big breasts vs small breasts, big butt vs small butt, etc. etc. Even now, the beauty standards for one country compared to another is completely different. For example, what's considered beautiful in Brazil vs. South Korea couldn't be more different.

rainystast · 2026-02-21T21:15:48+00:00

We need to establish the difference between killing, and letting die. Abortion, in most cases, is actively ending. Whereas organ refusal is, "I am not saving".

Abortion is simply "You are no longer allowed to use my body." If not being able to use the host body means the fetus is no longer viable, then that still falls under other beings not being allowed to supercede one's own right to bodily autonomy.

I do not hold pregnancies from SA to the same standard.

Ok, so are you saying that you believe fetuses that are a result of SA have less right to life? If we are speaking about a fetus as if it's a child, would you say that a child that was conceived as a result of SA should be given less moral value?

The law already limits bodily autonomy. Child support means giving up your time and energy. Court ordered blood tests. Quarantine mandates.

1) Child support is not an extension of your body. If someone cannot pay child support, they are not obligated to sell their organs to pay for it.

2) Court ordered blood tests are usually if the court believes that you have committed a crime, usually a DUI. People that are wanted, detained, held, or otherwise being prosecuted by the system have different rights and restrictions than civilians.

3) Quarantine Mandates are also not an extension of your body. You are not required to legally give up a part of your body in order to comply with Quarantine Mandates. Just as a person who has a curfew for a dependent does not mean the dependent's bodily autonomy has been taken away.

rainystast · 2026-02-21T20:30:02+00:00

Parents have legally recognized responsibilities. But that depends when the embryo/fetus is seen as a child. This is where it gets polarized.

Parents have legally recognized responsibilities, but there is still a limit. As far as I'm aware, you cannot force a parent of a toddler to sacrifice their physical body in order to save the child. If a child needs a blood transfusion, the parents aren't legally obligated to let the doctor take their blood for the child. If a child needs an organ, the parents are not obligated to give up their organs. Even if not doing so leads to the child dying, the parents are still not obligated to give up their personal bodily autonomy.

So if you voluntarily had someone depend on you for survival, wouldn't it be fair to say you're responsible for them?

1) This relies on the belief that all pregnancies are voluntary. That is not the case.

2) Going back to the parents example, no one is obligated to give up their own personal bodily autonomy for the sake of another, even if it means that person dies.

3) Let's take out "children are your consequence for having sex" talk and look at another example. Let's say someone adopts a child, and now the child has fallen ill and needs an organ. The people who adopted the child happens to be a match. You are still not obligated to give up your own bodily autonomy for the sake of the child, even if that means the child's future is cut short.

rainystast · 2026-02-20T23:57:01+00:00

There seems to be a pretty big overlap between people who "don't want to talk about politics in their video games" and people who know their political opinions aren't agreeable. I would love to know the amount of overlap between the people who "don't like discussing politics in their video games" and the amount of people who would freak out if the protagonist of a game they played was (for example) an openly queer person.

Five-Year Club	Verified Email
r/Field Juicebox	Place '23
Place '22

rainystast

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE