While I’m sure there are people too lazy to spin a fork, keep in mind people like this person who may be suffering from arthritis or a neurological disease or nerve damage or a thousand other conditions that might impair their ability to do things as simple as spin a fork to eat spaghetti.
These are used with people who can’t grip well:
This is for Parkinsons’s:
For people who can’t even bend their joints:
Here’s a product that guides your hand from your plate to your mouth
This one holds a sandwich
Like I get it. I used to see things like the fork and think “that’s fuckin’ lazy” or that product that holds a gallon and you just tip it and pour. But then I started working around the disabled and impaired and found out that these products aren’t meant for lazy people, they’re meant for people who need help.
So maybe next time you see something, instead of thinking “Wow, are people that lazy?” just be grateful that you’re able to do the things you do every day and take for granted, like being able to feed yourself and wipe your own ass because you have enough coordination and bendy joints to do it.
This isn’t specualtion either; the majority of products from commericals that we think are funny or silly are autally MEANT for hte disabled.But they are marketed towards the abled because the disabled aren’t considered a viable enough demographic on their own.
the Snuggie for example? Created for wheelchair users.
This is actually really nifty.
oh my god of course the snuggie was for wheelchair users
The fact that anyone buys these products besides disabled people drastically lowers the price of them. These would normally cost hundreds if not thousands if dollars. Because if spent time and money creating it, the company wants to get more than that back. And they can’t do that if they sell and market these primarily to disabled people for $20-$40 a piece or whatever. They’d lose money on production. If they can sell hundreds of them to everyone, they can lower the price drastically and therefore disabled people don’t die while trying to scrape up the money to buy these things and be a bit more independent.
I never considered that last part and that’s actually genius
Like yeah, a handful of people ARE that lazy.
But those are the people who use these products even though they don’t need them and thus allow the price to be lower for those who DO.
So honestly in this case good bless the lazy and those prone to gimmicks because they are invaluable to the elderly and disabled in this sense.
@thebibliosphere Look! People learning about disability and why to be kind!
The normalization of disability aids needs to be a thing precisely so they can cost less.
one of my favorite things about the pokemon universe is how the humans are esp. the bad guys
like mob boss giovonni can pull out a glock and waste my 10 y/o ass but he doesn’t he just accepts that i knocked out his cat and hands me money
I have my own theory that humans in the Pokemon world don’t even have a concept of direct violence. They settle all disputes through Pokemon battles, but also a human without pokemon is entirely helpless. This might lend its self further to the notion that humans can’t venture outside of towns without bringing trained pokemon to protect them. Like, can Pokemon world humans even throw a punch? I think the notion of humans ever directly using violence against one another without pokemon involved is something they can’t even think of.
In one of the movies ash just straight up clocks lucario
ash is innovative in a world where humans can’t punch
*steeples fingers* okay so I know this is a humorous fun joke but like…
Let’s think about this for a moment.
Mob Boss Giovanni probably has a gun. Given the level of technological development in pokemon’s universe it’s very unlikely that nobody invented gunpowder or ever thought to put it together into a weapon, or that Giovanni would procure one.
Let’s also assume the average ten-year-old bright-eyed pokemon trainer is not wearing a bulletproof vest, or has particularly impressive gun dodging abilities.
Giovanni shoots child, Giovanni probably dies immediately.
favorite thing about tolkien fans is how y’all are like “now this idea would’ve had the old professor tolkien absolutely foaming at the mouth in rage ….. which is exactly why i have written 200k words of it and made art for it and firmly hold it as canon”
y’alls tags only further convince me of this
a few more honorable mentions for your viewing pleasure
it’s not the trope itself that militant fandom antis get mad about. it’s the ship.
imagine that you’re in a fandom where characters A, B, and C are all protagonists with friendly canon interactions – not necessarily friends, but definitely not enemies.
For a variety of reasons, you don’t really like it when people ship A & B together romantically. maybe you like B/C better. maybe you just don’t like the dynamics of A/B shipping. maybe it reminds you of a relationship you had that ended badly. Whatever the reason: A/B bothers you, and you wish nobody shipped it.
Imaginary You decides to try to stop people from shipping A/B. You start by telling people that based on canon, shipping A/B is morally and socially objectionable. with the redefining of words like ‘pedophilia’, ‘incest’, and ‘abuse’, it’s easy to turn canon molehills into mountains: A few years age difference is now ‘pedophilia’. knowing each other from childhood is ‘incest’. an argument is ‘abuse’.
But not only do people keep shipping A/B: they keep shipping it even while following your rules about what’s okay to ship! They make AUs where A&B are the same age! They age A&B up! They write slow burns where A&B start out friends and become lovers!
When you said ‘don’t ship A/B’ and gave reasons why not to, you meant for people to stop shipping A/B, not to ship A/B a different way!
So you find yourself having to teach people that A/B is always bad. it doesn’t matter how you ship it: it doesn’t matter what tropes you use. Any use of the imagination to make A/B a safe, ‘healthy’ ship is off-limits. (maybe you suggest that if one has to go to such lengths to make A/B okay to ship, they should just switch to the already healthy ship, B/C? it’s just a coincidence that you like B/C better. or maybe you like B/C because B/C isn’t gross like A/B.)
and that’s how you’ll find people objecting to tropes like friends-to-lovers.
it’s all just a means to an end – which is attacking any and all iterations of shipping the ship they don’t like.
a lot of scientists don’t act on scientific ideals; a lot of them are actually bad people, who in both their professional and private lives are trying to get whatever they can get away with.
This is something I haven’t mentioned even when writing or talking about something closely related, which is why you shouldn’t trust the conclusions of a scientific study. I mean, a single scientific study. Because, I say, a single scientific study is typically using a single model, or studying a single population; you don’t know if the results really generalize. Or there could have just been some honest mistake; my go-to example is the paper about the faster-than-light neutrino. One of my friends, when I broke the news (apparently he hadn’t heard) that this turned out to be an artifact, he was kind of angry at the authors. But, although I don’t know the details, I don’t think they did anything wrong; my understanding is they made the measurement and they reported it. What would have been wrong would be to not report the measurement because they know the conclusion is impossible. So, even when everyone is acting as they should, sometimes the conclusion of a paper is misleading. That’s why we have reviews and meta-analyses, which can cite hundreds of studies. That’s how we know what’s really a general principle, that’s how we can make statements about what’s happening in the real world instead of one laboratory or one population.
But it must also be remembered that everyone is not acting as they should, so you have even more false and misleading results than you would in the best case scenario. These people will happily publish results that do not meet the standards of evidence of their field, if no one is forcing them to meet the standards of evidence of their field, and reviewers usually do not catch everything.
just moving along like everyone else 