No title available
ellievsbear
Monterey Bay Aquarium
occasionally subtle
PUT YOUR BEARD IN MY MOUTH
I'd rather be in outer space 🛸
One Nice Bug Per Day
cherry valley forever
Keni
JBB: An Artblog!
🪼
Janaina Medeiros
hello vonnie
Misplaced Lens Cap
Game of Thrones Daily
Kaledo Art
roma★
YOU ARE THE REASON
#extradirty
2025 on Tumblr: Trends That Defined the Year
seen from Malaysia
seen from Germany
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Italy
seen from United States
seen from France
seen from Ukraine
seen from United States
seen from Malaysia
seen from United States
seen from Germany
seen from Lebanon
seen from Malaysia
seen from Australia
seen from Germany
seen from United States
seen from Indonesia
seen from Malaysia
seen from United States
@confusingwiring
the lack of dykes n more specifically butch dykes in post apocalyptic media is bizarre bc every single lesbian i know is the most prepared person in any room n not even for survivalist reasons we do that shit for fun
exactly
[id: a tag reading “for every post apocalyptic grizzled man there could be 5 butches doing it better than he could ever hope to]
Blogging again because there are too many assholes in this country!
every person can feel freddie’s presence in their souls when they sing MAMAAAAAA UUHHHH, I DONT WANNA DIE, I SOMETIMES I WISH I’VE NEVER BEEN BORN AT ALL with all the air in their lungs i’m not joking
it’s fucking crazy to think about the amount of people who have sung bohemian rhapsody? like it’s such a unifying song, by nature of the fact that so many people know it. it holds so many good memories for me and other people. it’s a song you scream in the car with your friends while you drive around your boring hometown, it’s a song you drunkenly sing with your arm around your best friend, or a song you sing along to with strangers when it’s on in public. it’s bittersweet to think about freddie’s legacy carrying on like that through his masterpiece. freddie carries on because he’s a part of so many people’s good memories and bohemian rhapsody is a huge part of that.
Reblog if you have sung bohemian rhapsody with your friends
every time i see this post i’m reminded of the video of 65,000 people singing bohemian rhapsody in near-perfect harmony
like, what other song can make that claim?
Some of the highlights of that video include:
The crowd cheering after the first stanza when they realize what they’re all doing
So many people audibly ‘doing the guitar parts’… like ya do
The sheer number of voices joining the rediculous falsetto (thanks, Roger)
How they all start jumping at the ramp-up “so you think you can stomp me”
Hands up, hundreds, thousands deep for the final “ooooo”s and the last line to close the song
Only days before my state went into lockdown, “Bohemian Rhapsody” came on in the restaurant kitchen I’d just been hired at and, no shit, every single worker in that little diner started singing along. Me (the only queer afaik), the manager, all the other kitchen workers, the dishwasher up front, the two people on the counter, all but two of the men over 30. Just belting out Freddie Mercury at the top of their lungs. And you can bet when “sometimes I wish I’d never been born at all” came around, we every single one of us ramped up the intensity and basically made sure Freddie could hear us in the afterlife.
One from the archives.
Some hints about evaluating scientific studies
Firstly, understand that something being published in a scientific journal (or an academic journal for the social sciences) does not automatically make it true. Publishers profit from publishing novel, eye-catching, surprising research, which means they are more likely to publish positive results than ones that didn't find a connection between given variables. This means that scientists' careers benefit when they get positive results. Certain institutions also benefit from certain findings above others (a committee for research on "obesity" that is funded by a government organisation tasked with ending it, for example, is likely to try to stretch the evidence to find a link between body weight and poor health outcomes). So how do people evaluate scientific studies, especially without being scientists themselves?
Literature reviews
Literature reviews, which aim to assemble and summarise most of the available or influential papers on a given issue, can be a good place to start when trying to research that issue. Typically, scientific studies shouldn't only be evaluated on a case-by-case basis (since even well-designed studies can be contradicted by other, equally well-designed studies), but a full survey of the different results people have gotten should be taken.
Background information and conflicts of interest
Try to find out who funded a given study. Who published the study? What do these people stand to gain from the results of the study being accepted? (For example: you might pay special attention to the experimental design on a study on whether a certain essential oil helps to reverse hair loss that was carried out by a company that sells that oil.)
In theory, many journals call for study authors to declare any conflicts of interest they may have in a special section of the paper. This section should also list funding sources. You might also look up the authors on linkedin or something to find where they're employed; also look into whether another conglomerate owns that company, &c.
Experimental design
If the study involves a survey, have the authors of the paper provided the questions that people were asked, so that you can evaluate them for potential ambiguity or confusing wording? Not being transparent about the exact wording of questions is a sign that a study isn't trustworthy.
What's the sample size? Is it large enough for the claim the study is making to be reasonable? (More on this in the next section.)
Does the experimental design make sense with what the researchers wanted to study? Are the claims that they make in the conclusion section something that could reasonably be proven or suggested by the experiment that they performed?
Does the experimental design "bake in" an assumption of the truth of its hypothesis? (For example, measuring skeletons to argue that they fall into statistically significant size groupings by sex, using skeletons that you sorted into "male" and "female" groups based on their size, is clearly circular).
How was data collected? People might change their answers to a survey, for example, if they have to speak to a person to give them, rather than writing them down anonymously. Self-reported information (such as a survey aiming to figure out average height or average penis size) is also subject to bias. A good study should be transparent about how the authors collected their data, and be clear about how this could have affected their results.
Also regarding surveys: do the categories that the authors have divided respondents into make sense? Are these categories really mutually exclusive? If respondents were asked to sort themselves into categories (e.g., to select their own race or ethnicity), is there any guarantee that they all interpreted the question / the boundaries of these categories the same way? How would this affect the results?
Interpretation of results
Could anything other than the conclusion that the authors came to explain the results of their experiment? For example, a study finding a correlation between two variables and assuming that this means one variable causes the other ("being in a lot of stress causes short stature" or vise versa) could be missing a secret third thing which is in fact causing both of those things (e.g., poverty). Check to make sure that the authors considered other explanations for their findings and ruled them out (for example, by controlling for other variables such as socioeconomic status).
Are the results of the study generalisable to the population that the authors claim they're generalisable to? For example, the results may not be true for the entire population if only cisgender men between the ages of 30 and 40 were tested. Sampling biases can also affect generalisability—if I surveyed my college to try to find out the percentage of women in the total population, you might ask "but is your college sure to have the same percentage of women as the Earth does?"
Statistics
Are the results statistically significant, or are they within expected margins of error?
Many studies provide a p-value (a number between 0 and 1) for their results. In theory, a p-value represents the chance that the study's results could have been achieved by random chance. If you flip a coin ten times (so, your sample size is 10), it's not very odd to get heads six times and tails four times, and you wouldn't accept that as proof that the coin lands on heads more often than tails. The p-value for that result would be high (that is, there's a high chance that the coin appears unfair only because of random chance). On the other hand, if you flip a coin 100,000 times and it lands on heads 60,000 of those times, that's much better evidence that the coin is not a fair one. The p-value would be much lower. Typically, a p-value lower than 0.05 is considered statistically significant.
In practice, there's more than one way to calculate p-values, and so studies sometimes claim p-values that seem absurdly low. A low p-value is not proof of a claim in and of itself. Check to make sure that the authors of the paper also provide the raw data, and not just the p-values; this indicates a concern with other people being able to independently evaluate their results, rather than just trying to get The Best Numbers.
Citations
If the study cites something that seems foundational to their claims or interpretation, try tracing it back to the paper that was cited. Does the source actually claim what the authors of the first study said it did? Does the source provide proof or support for the claim, or does it seem flimsy, like a "common-sense" assumption?
Replication
Check the studies that cite the one you're currently looking at. Has anyone else tried to replicate the study? What were their results?
What if I really, really don't want to read scientific studies?
That's fine. Not everyone is concerned enough with specific scientific questions for regularly reading scientific papers to be reasonable for them. Just keep in mind that not everything in a scientific journal is necessarily true; that profit motives and personal and institutional bias impact results (e.g. when some studies revealed a lack of poor health outcomes for "obesity," and many scientists responded by calling it a "paradox" that needed to be "solved"); and that pop science and journalistic reporting on science are subject to distortions from the same sources.
Try finding commentators on scientific matters whose output you like, and evaluate their writing the same way you would evaluate any other critical writing.
Retraction Watch is a great place to keep up with ongoing scandals and also has a database of papers that have officially been retracted by the journals that have published them.
Additionally, in most fields there will be journal issues and articles about improving reproducibility of research, where scientists publish work on the challenges facing reproducibility. Searching for "Field name + reproducibility/replication + challenges" should help you find some. These issues, like this one for robotics (IEEE RAS, published in 2015) often highlight what specific challenges exist in the field. It is really difficult to replicate results for experiments that require expensive equipment, so experimental physicists have different challenges than say, computer scientists. These should give you reasonable assumptions for what best practices can look like in the field. This is useful to compare where the publication you're reading falls short.
WHY WOULD YOU HIDE THIS IN THE TAGS
What if I told you the sword is really small but the fellow is even smaller
i love the way women talk… every woman has their own fun expressions and mannerisms we have FUN with it men all talk the same
in actual honesty there’s tons of research on how women are linguistic innovators (one example: a study conducted about language changes in english from 1417 to 1681 found that 11 out of the 14 changes they studied were led by young girls, and the 3 remaining linguistic changes were linked to men’s greater access to education) and you can still see that all the time because women talk so distinctively and so fun like you can see young women leading linguistic change all around you
People tolerate my spam posting cause I'm really funny and cute
Like attracts like, I see
cruelty is so easy. youre not special for choosing it
"The trouble is that we have a bad habit, encouraged by pedants and sophisticates, of considering happiness as something rather stupid. Only pain is intellectual, only evil interesting. This is the treason of the artist; a refusal to admit the banality of evil and the terrible boredom of pain."
-Ursula K. LeGuin, The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas
every new thing i learn about how this submarine was built is fucking wild. i’ve been actively suicidal at points in my life and i’ve never wanted to die as badly as these men clearly did.
So within two days of each other, Fox News writes an article comparing aromanticism and asexuality to pedophilia, and then Matt Walsh releases a video saying asexuality is a mental illness and asexuals are tricking teenagers into having depression.
Not sure what’s going on right now over in Conservative World, but it’s a hell of wild U-turn for them to suddenly switch from “Oh no! The left is sexualizing our children!” to “Oh no! The left is asexualizing our children!”
It’s a reminder, I guess, that they’re coming for all of us. The fash and the white supremacists will not make nice distinctions between the queers when they put us up against the wall. There is no gatekeeping, no label-policing, no purity-purging and no assimilation that any of us can do that will save us. They want us dead, and while they’ll start with whoever is most vulnerable at any given time, they’ll get around to all of us eventually.
Queer solidarity means all of us because the fash are coming for all of us.
All Dividers are Feds. Stand united or die separately.
Frankly, the reason I don't post very much about my disability situation is because every time I complain about the difficulty of finding suitable assistive devices, I have to deal with a swarm of dipshits rocking up in the notes convinced that they've solved the problem after five minutes on Google. Y'all know who you are.
A couple of pro tips:
If a physically disabled person remarks on a problem of any description that they've clearly been dealing with for many years, suggesting that you've come up with a magic-bullet solution after a whole thirty seconds of thought is presumptuous at best; and
With respect to assistive devices in particular, consumer fraud is rampant in this area, and the overwhelming majority of assistive devices for sale that you're likely to find with a cursory Google search are almost certainly making false claims about their features, applications, and in many cases even basic information like "what size is it" or "what material is it made of"; this is, of course, something you'd already know if you were even remotely qualified to be offering advice.
A list of things not to do to damage a robot police dog
This is crucial information, especially if your city has implemented robot police dogs.
"So YoU'rE sAyInG mEn HaTe OtHeR mEn?"
Yes. Yes I am. And you can ask literally any marginalized man and they will tell you American Patriarchy hates them, too, specifically because they are being men in the "wrong way".
Like fuck, this is feminism 101.
Edit: it's non-radfem feminism 101.
Just look at the way that manosphere wierdos talk in reference to other men: they are competitors to be dominated either socially or with explicit violence. The whole grift is built on selling men the idea that they can climb their way to the top of the pile
^^^ This. It's like a pyramid scheme of abuse. "If you throw fifteen men under the bus and convince five of your friends to throw fifteen other men under the bus, you can Win at Patriarchy, we promise!"
I can't agree enough with this, and it's something more and more men are speaking up about, even if our voices aren't being heard.
Man box culture, as some call it, starts when we're young. It's pervasive - the competition to be a real "man" as defined by violence, dominance, and this absolutely fucked up concept of emotional detachment. It's a raw struggle to not appear weak, and it starts with how adult men treat male children - the toxic values they instill, sometimes with words and sometimes with fists. And even if you grow up in a less toxic and more loving environment, you're never really free from it. Your male role models, male adults like teachers and such, but especially male friends who are your age, all get caught up in this toxic system of abuse. And "real men" don't have emotions, right? So you have to bottle all that up rather than understanding any of it because it's *weakness.* All of that tends to come out in the one emotional state that men allow each other to display: anger. Shit, by the time most boys reach high school, they've been struggling against each other for years. All that hate, that anger, that uncontrollable rage? That's been taught to them long before teenage testosterone hits. And by that time, it's gotten worse because the patriarchy has defined how "real men" see and treat women. Underneath everything is this deep, deep fear of failing and becoming the weak punching bag. There's so much shame to it all.
It isn't always like this for every boy growing up, but no one is left unaware of its existence. And the only true way to stop it begins when we are young.
This is fucking heartbreaking.
One of my friends in law school once opened up to me and a few other people in our mixed-gender friend group that he didn't really have friends before he knew us, even though he thought he did. We sort of nodded like, yeah man, we're glad you're our friend too, sorry people back in your home town were shitty – and he stopped us like, no, you don't understand. He told us that he thought he had friends, and that those people thought that they were his friends – but that his all-male small-town social circle constantly hurled abuse at each other, and that they all thought that that was normal. He told us that he used to go out partying with them, and whereas when we'd go out, we'd talk each other up – like, man, nice shirt, love what you did with your hair, I bet chicks are gonna dig it, etc. – back in his old circle of friends? All they'd ever do before going out was talk each other down. You're dressed worse than your friends? You look like trash. You're dressed better than your friends? Why do you care so much about you're appearance, are you gay? You're dressed exactly the same as your friends? Wow, look at this loser copying other people's look. You could never win, you could never even break even, and you were expected to not only put up with this, but to participate, because that sort of normalized constant stream of verbal abuse was the main way that you and other men your age socialized. He literally did not realize that men could have actual, real friendships – with women, sure, but also with other men – until he met us, because to him, the act of hanging out with people who you weren't dating was so deeply intertwined with toxic competitive expectations that he flat out didn't know that there was a different way to be until he moved halfway across the country for law school in his late 20s.
It's incredibly fucked up, and men should be able to talk about what a patriarchal culture like that does to them without being silenced.
Discworld: Wyrd Sisters Director: Jean Flynn | Studio: Cosgrove Hall | UK, 1997
It genuinely upsets me that there are people who call this animation and voice acting bad, there’s so much heart and soul on display in just this clip alone
At first glance: ‘lol this is going to be one of those hilariously cheap animations’
30 seconds in: ‘…Oh my god this is fantastic’
“WHO DARES TO INVOKE WXRTHLTL-JWLPKLZ?” “Where were you when the vowels were bein’ handed out, behind the door??”
