bcovertigo

So you took the literal scenario (woman in wheelchair gets insulting comment asking if her disability affects her sexually) and inverted it so that the insultor is disadvantaged against a hypothetical celebrity who causes them social harm. Why? Autism isn’t a fucking pallisade and it shouldn’t be used to counter attack legitimate points. You’re the one doing damage to perceptions of autistic people. Please stop.

“Nut meat” is a common phrase so I would guess the peanut product is closest, but please stop this line of thought for your own safety.

Confusingly, there’s actually two similar staves that get mixed up. The helix patterned one with two winged snakes I think you have in mind is called the Caduceus, but the the single wingless version I meant is the staff of Aesculapius (multiple spellings out there).

Go check out the alledged link between the snake wrapped staff that’s used to represent medicine and the treatment for guinea worms. Googling puts that theory with the Ebers papyrus from 1500 BC if it’s true!

Art by Jesper Ejsing in case you want to see the wider frame version!

It seems like you want people to examine their long held beliefs and customs, adopt your view that they are harmful and unethical, and change their behavior to match yours. A change that may have specific hurdles unknown to you for every individual.

Humans, being social animals, don’t typically react with reason to things that they percieve to be antagonistic. They tend to mirror hostility and are most likely to fight or disengage when facing an opponent, and cleave to the safety of the groups that accept them.

Just or not, the act of starting an interaction sets the tone. You’re completely justified in attacking villains and shaming them, but when you throw a devil costume on someone I don’t think you should be surprised when you get pitchforked.