Shenaniganous Shenanigans

I really hate being hit with the nopes when I’m on a goddamn time schedule. Brain, we are doing the things whether you like it or not, so pick up the slack. You’ll thank me later.

scienceshenanigans:

spoopyscience:

thisiswhyredismyfavoritecolor:

spoopyscience:

[[[withholds urge to scientifically correct this post]]]

You’re more than welcome to scientifically correct this post. If any of you see me post scientifically incorrect statements, I’d prefer if you called me out on it so I can learn from it, remove the post and do better next time.

Right. Let’s get a thing straight first. Chemical refers to any substance. While it especially refers to ones which are artificially prepared/purified/distilled etc. it is not exclusive to these. If you point at any substance both in the chemistry lab and in the real world it’s going to be a chemical (or numerous chemicals). 
The mantra to get out of that is; Everything is chemicals. 
Therefore oxygen is a chemical, urea is a chemical, vitamin A is a chemical, you’re made of chemicals, everything’s a bloody chemical. So using ‘chemical’ as a scare word is wrong from the get-go. 
here’s a text post that came up on my dash yesterday about the ‘no chemicals’ trope 
Now, using ‘chemical’ as a scare word is nothing new. Anti-vaxxers, new-age hippies, health-food-store-frequenting-pseudo-scientific-vegans have been using it as a scare word for like forever. And it’s worth considering that it’s a) largely an advertising  thing and b) scientifically false. 
I’m going to quickly talk about chemical names as a scare word; Sodium Chloride sounds scary. Like If you saw ‘sodium chloride’ on the back of a packet of oatcakes or can of soup you’d probably feel uneasy because it sounds like something synthesised in a lab which you shouldn’t be eating. However, sodium chloride is just table salt. That’s all it is. So it’s worth thinking to yourself when you see a chemical name on the back of packet ‘what could this be really?’ Ascorbic acid is a pretty common one which usually makes people uneasy, but in all actuality is (one form of) vitamin C. (A- meaning without, scorbic meaning scurvy) 
While i’m here i should also say that counting calories is a pretty shit way of dieting, but that’s another story. 
Something about the delivery of this post makes me uneasy. Almost as if the creator of the image was shaming dieters to forward their anti-chemical agenda. 
[Aside; Chemical can be used as a warning in itself. Like, if i go into a lab and I see a box labeled ‘Danger; Chemicals’ I know the sort of properties I can expect from this chemical, (corrosive, probably an acid, do not handle with bare hands, stuff like that) bc that warning is used (mainly in shipping, i think, that’s what i’ve seen in the UK) to denote dangerous chemicals.  but these sort of warnings are usually only used outside chemistry; a label which says ‘chemicals’ in a chemistry lab is pretty redundant, considering everything is chemicals.]
ther was a cool post going around last month that treated  fruit and vegetables as if they were edible products that needed all their chemicals in them listed, and it really blew out of the water the whole ‘chemicals are scary’ trope
lemme have a search for it

right i’ve only found one
note how there’s also E numbers in the strawberry break down, 
E numbers are merely a shorthand to different chemicals, as ‘E161g’ is shorter and easier to fit on the back of a package than ‘Canthaxanthin’ (which is a chemical used to colour things found in edible mushrooms and fish and some other things too i think

right, that’s all i got

TL;DR ‘Chemicals’ is wrong to use as a scare word, counting chemicals is a useless endeavor, counting calories is also mostly useless, you are made of chemicals, everything is made of chemicals, please stop saying that you want ‘chemical free’ or ‘low in chemicals’ food, 

i think that about covers it, if there’s anything you want further explained then you’re 100% free to ask

scienceshenanigans:

spoopyscience:

thisiswhyredismyfavoritecolor:

spoopyscience:

[[[withholds urge to scientifically correct this post]]]

You’re more than welcome to scientifically correct this post. If any of you see me post scientifically incorrect statements, I’d prefer if you called me out on it so I can learn from it, remove the post and do better next time.

Right. Let’s get a thing straight first. Chemical refers to any substance. While it especially refers to ones which are artificially prepared/purified/distilled etc. it is not exclusive to these. If you point at any substance both in the chemistry lab and in the real world it’s going to be a chemical (or numerous chemicals). 

The mantra to get out of that is; Everything is chemicals. 

Therefore oxygen is a chemical, urea is a chemical, vitamin A is a chemical, you’re made of chemicals, everything’s a bloody chemical. So using ‘chemical’ as a scare word is wrong from the get-go. 

here’s a text post that came up on my dash yesterday about the ‘no chemicals’ trope 

Now, using ‘chemical’ as a scare word is nothing new. Anti-vaxxers, new-age hippies, health-food-store-frequenting-pseudo-scientific-vegans have been using it as a scare word for like forever. And it’s worth considering that it’s a) largely an advertising  thing and b) scientifically false. 

I’m going to quickly talk about chemical names as a scare word; Sodium Chloride sounds scary. Like If you saw ‘sodium chloride’ on the back of a packet of oatcakes or can of soup you’d probably feel uneasy because it sounds like something synthesised in a lab which you shouldn’t be eating. However, sodium chloride is just table salt. That’s all it is. So it’s worth thinking to yourself when you see a chemical name on the back of packet ‘what could this be really?’ Ascorbic acid is a pretty common one which usually makes people uneasy, but in all actuality is (one form of) vitamin C. (A- meaning without, scorbic meaning scurvy) 

While i’m here i should also say that counting calories is a pretty shit way of dieting, but that’s another story. 

Something about the delivery of this post makes me uneasy. Almost as if the creator of the image was shaming dieters to forward their anti-chemical agenda. 

[Aside; Chemical can be used as a warning in itself. Like, if i go into a lab and I see a box labeled ‘Danger; Chemicals’ I know the sort of properties I can expect from this chemical, (corrosive, probably an acid, do not handle with bare hands, stuff like that) bc that warning is used (mainly in shipping, i think, that’s what i’ve seen in the UK) to denote dangerous chemicals.  but these sort of warnings are usually only used outside chemistry; a label which says ‘chemicals’ in a chemistry lab is pretty redundant, considering everything is chemicals.]

ther was a cool post going around last month that treated  fruit and vegetables as if they were edible products that needed all their chemicals in them listed, and it really blew out of the water the whole ‘chemicals are scary’ trope

lemme have a search for it

image

right i’ve only found one

note how there’s also E numbers in the strawberry break down, 

E numbers are merely a shorthand to different chemicals, as ‘E161g’ is shorter and easier to fit on the back of a package than ‘Canthaxanthin’ (which is a chemical used to colour things found in edible mushrooms and fish and some other things too i think
right, that’s all i got
TL;DR ‘Chemicals’ is wrong to use as a scare word, counting chemicals is a useless endeavor, counting calories is also mostly useless, you are made of chemicals, everything is made of chemicals, please stop saying that you want ‘chemical free’ or ‘low in chemicals’ food, 
i think that about covers it, if there’s anything you want further explained then you’re 100% free to ask

image

thee-renaissance-man:

Just gonna leave this right here

thee-renaissance-man:

Just gonna leave this right here

It is not possible to be truly balanced in one’s views of an abuser and an abused woman. As Dr. Judith Herman explains eloquently in her masterwork Trauma and Recovery, “neutrality” actually serves the interests of the perpetrator much more than those of the victim and so is not neutral. Although an abuser prefers to have you wholeheartedly on his side, he will settle contentedly for your decision to take a middle stance. To him, that means you see the couple’s problems as partly her fault and partly his fault, which means it isn’t abuse.

"Why Does He Do That: Inside The Minds of Angry and Controlling Men" by Lundy Bancroft

(via lesbian-lily)

I have never seen the Neutrality Fallacy explained so succinctly before.

(via appropriately-inappropriate)

"We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented." - Elie Wiesel

(via radicalfeministuprising)

th1syearsgirl:

K, but, James had a friend facing bigotry and he became an illegal animagus to help make that friend’s life better.

Snape had a friend facing bigotry and he joined up with the bigots.

Like end of contest, bye

floweringplant:

i hope this trend where people care about vibes and aesthetics never dies i love all these types of style i love that everyone is some cool kind of goth fruit bat or whatever life rules heck yeah

patronuslights:

Teaching 101: How to blackmail your pupils into paying attention.

thatmanonthebridge:

petemaximoff:

EW STEVE ROGERS WORE THE SAME UNDERPANTS FOR SEVENTY YEARS

have u taken into consideration that he was a 

howling commando

Australian: making my way down town
Australian: walking fast
Magpie: aggressive bird noises
Australian: walking faster

theresarumblyinmytumbly:

Jason Momoa for Men’s Health UK October issue (x)

shubbabang:

So I work at target now and one of my favorite things to do when I hear something in the next aisle fall is to drop what I’m doing and stand at the end of that aisle like so:

image

image

image

image

image

I don’t know if any of you are on instagram but I finally started using it today. My user name is theefrosty (surprise). Be forewarned, I’m gonna be using it to interact with Halloween Horror Nights when I start going.

pyrositshere:

internetgoose:

I’m gonna depress the hell out of all of you. ready? ok go

so, that “stop devaluing feminized work post”

nice idea and all

but the thing is, as soon as a decent number of women enter any field, it becomes “feminized,” and it becomes devalued.

as women enter a field in greater number, people become less willing to pay for it, the respect for it drops, and it’s seen as less of a big deal. it’s not about the job- it’s about the number of women in the job.

observe what happened with biology. it’s STEM, sure, but anyone in a male-dominated science will sneer at the idea of it being ‘for real,’ nevermind that everyone sure took it more seriously when it was a male dominated field. so has happened with scores of other areas; nursing comes to mind

so the thing is, it’s not the work or the job that has to be uplifted and seen as more respectable. it will never work out, until people start seeing women as respectable

but there’s a doozy and who the fuck knows if it’s ever happening in my life time

"observe what happened with biology. it’s STEM, sure, but anyone in a male-dominated science will sneer at the idea of it being ‘for real,’ nevermind that everyone sure took it more seriously when it was a male dominated field."

Personal anecdote time!  I’m in a biology graduate program.  An acquaintance wanted to introduce some guy to me because his son was thinking about becoming an undergrad science major.  When he found out I was in the biology department, he grinned and said, “Well, I guess that’s kind of related to science.”

I gave him what I hope was an icy look and said, “Isn’t it strange how men outside the field started saying that right around the time biology majors shifted from mostly male to mostly female?”

The guy got this look on his face like he was about to play the “just a joke” card, and then an older woman who had been standing nearby, talking to someone else, turned to me and said, “The same thing happened with real estate.”  She went on to explain that, over the course of the career, the male-to-female ratio among real estate agents had dropped, and the pay and “prestige factor” of that job dropped along with it.

[W]e live in a sexually liberal society, not a liberated one. A truly liberated society is one where sex is value-neutral and not having sex is just as acceptable as having a lot of it.

The fact that asexuals are considered weird, sick, abnormal, mentally ill, repressed, etc is a bold indicator that we are not living in a sexually liberated society but in a liberalized one.