todays bird
oozey mess
2025 on Tumblr: Trends That Defined the Year
almost home
$LAYYYTER
NASA
Janaina Medeiros
Cosmic Funnies
One Nice Bug Per Day
Aqua Utopia｜海の底で記憶を紡ぐ
@theartofmadeline
Misplaced Lens Cap
pixel skylines
Andulka
Sweet Seals For You, Always
he wasn't even looking at me and he found me
Monterey Bay Aquarium
No title available
No title available
d e v o n
seen from Italy
seen from United States
seen from Ecuador
seen from Ecuador
seen from Ecuador
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United Kingdom
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Greece
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Malaysia
seen from Germany
seen from Singapore
seen from T1
seen from Belarus
@rockinrachelwrites
This is the real story of Ferguson, from Mic reporters on the ground.
Looks a lot like the ending scenes from "Do The Right Thing." Institutional oppression is alive! "An injustice anywhere, is a threat to justice everywhere"- Martin Luther King, Jr. It's on this day that we rest our heavy hearts with those who have suffered so much for those who deserve so little. When will we see these issues? From Trayvon Martin to Sean Bell to Patrick Dorismond to Aswan Watson and beyond.
The death of the brain means subjective experiences are neurochemistry
This is a really interesting article from Scientific American. I know that yesterday's conversation was pretty split, and that my comments were less than popular, but my aim is to let people see the beauty in life outside of some "higher" or "divine" meaning. I guess how I think about life and the meaning of it is that the existence of life (i.e. how life came to be?, how life continues to evolve?, and what sorts of biological processes contribute to the experiences of life?) are separate questions from meaning (i.e. what is the meaning of life?). If science unveils life as a series of chemical, biological, physiological and physical properties, that doesn't change what the meaning of life is. Furthermore, if science is able to prove that god or any higher power exists (which is logically impossible, because one cannot prove a negative), then we still have not answered the meaning of life. For me, this is what makes life wonderfully beautiful! Life's meaning is so personal and so individualized BECAUSE (in my opinion) there is no higher order. This is what makes the meaning of life so important. The meaning of life is whatever YOU so choose it to be. The meaning of life is not something or someone anointing you with tasks that must be accomplished in your lifetime. I think the idea that we choose meaning is unsettling for many people because it gives each of us so much power. We must make meaning and if there is no higher meaning than somehow we are actually responsible for what we do, and say, and create in this life. That I think is where the unnerving of this topic comes from. Life operating as a series of reactions and consciousness is not mutually exclusive in my mind. We may discover that our emotions and our feelings are no more than just a series of biological reactions, but that does not mean that we are not conscious beings. For me, consciousness is simply the ability to have an effect, and by simply breathing and existing I am having an effect in the world. I am changing the oxygen-to-carbon dioxide ratios in the world at any given moment. I have the capacity to effect another's biological processes, in turn creating emotions and feelings. Thus, for me, consciousness is simply being, and the idea of consciousness is a separate one from meaning, in regards to life. Your existence-that is consciousness. What you choose to make of this life-that is meaning. The Big Bang is what brought about planet Earth and our solar system. Horizontal gene transfer created eukaryotic life from single-celled organisms. Evolution brought about amazing biological diversity, and is the reason humans exist in their current form. These are all biological processes that may have absolutely no meaning other than chance and chemical and physical particle collisions. At the end of the day, life may not have some grand plan, and I challenge you to think of what you'll say, or do, or feel, if science unveils the mystery of life to be nothing more than a series of biological reactions, as we continue to delve into these topics. In my mind, this doesn't change much for me. Yes life may be a series of chemical and biological reactions that propagate to bring about our existence; however, this does not answer the meaning of life. The meaning of life has already been laid out... BY ME.
Here’s my take on technology… I’ll keep it short. You don’t get to have something new and better, you don’t get to have something that drastically improves your life, and you don’t get to have something that you love, without any flaws. That is what we fail to recognize in all our arguments about…
Overall, I agree with the points you bring up. I don’t think it does anybody any good to sit around talking about how good things used to be or how technology is alienating us from ourselves and each other or whatever. I also think we should expecting any one discovery or invention to provide all the answers to society’s ailments only leads to disappointment, or worse, reactionary anger.
However, I’m not sure if terms like “flawed” and “perfect” are the best ones to frame this discussion. I mean, I think something like eugenics was pretty successful in what it set out to do. This isn’t to say that we should blame the study of heredity for that particular development, but that we should be wary of movements that use the labels of “science” or “progress” to mask their agendas.
More than that, I don’t know by what measure one could say an animal, invention, or ideology is “perfect.” I feel that that’s a sort of teleological way of looking at progress, assuming that history and nature are moving towards some final end, advancing towards a perfect state, and once that end is reached change will no longer be necessary. I think this line of thinking is 1) really anthropocentric (I believe it’s fair to say that humans are the only organisms that care about things like history or perfection) and 2) predisposed to legitimize hegemonic ideologies of what is best for society.
Eugenics wasn't science. period. and I'd hardly say it was successful in what it set out to do... I 100% support science. The reason being is that unlike everything else in this life, everything that is uncertain or untrue, science has facts. Eugenics never used facts, it used semantics to play on people's fears. Eugenics was based on pseudoscience and there's a big difference between pseudo- and real science. Anyway, my point being that I don't think sitting around arguing for how we should shy away from technology is going to get us anywhere. It seems like a useless and pointless conversation, and I hope we can move past these conversations, and focus on something that is actually productive. It's kind of like the arguments of whether global warming is "real." The argument is useless and doesn't solve anything. What we should be discussing is how we can mitigate the issue and move forward.
Technologic
Here's my take on technology... I'll keep it short. You don't get to have something new and better, you don't get to have something that drastically improves your life, and you don't get to have something that you love, without any flaws. That is what we fail to recognize in all our arguments about how technology is the devil or the savior of our souls. Yes, technology is flawed, and it can be used for bad, it can be used to hurt others, and it can cause major life conflicts at both a grand and minimal scale; however, I challenge you, YES YOU, to come up with one invention that did not meet failure in some regard. I think you'll find it nearly impossible, The truth of the matter is, technology, like every invention that is deemed "out of this world" or "beyond our time" is going to be met with substantial, albeit mostly true, criticisms. Even animals, as perfect as we might think, come out as imperfect creatures. Unable to walk or communicate outside of a cry for help toward their parents when something doesn't work right, or go their way. The sooner we can learn to accept that nothing is perfect or comes without costs or downsides, the better off we'll be and the faster we'll advance as a society.
Ain't nobody got time for that.
I know, I know- another Buzzfeed, but seriously this one is hilarious and it's actually quite informative. What I really love about reading these types of posts, which typically come from Buzzfeed: LGBT (I'll talk about this later), is that they give me hope that people across the world are fighting a similar battle as I am! Isn't that what the internet is for, after all- Bringing together people who are fighting/working/interested/desiring the same things you are? Anyway back to the actual article, one of my favorite things in this article is #9: "Both genders should know how to cook because neither feminism, nor sexism, are going to help you when you're hungry." What's refreshing about this is that I think sometime you can get so close to an issue or subject, that you lose the ability to laugh about it, or make (appropriate) jokes about it. While it's good to keep a level head and not take these issues, such as gender equality, lightly, being able to say witty fun-loving things like #9 is a good way to get your point across without being perceived as up-tight or rigid. Okay now to the part where this article is feature in Buzzfeed: LGBT... WHAT'S UP WITH THAT? For some reason this really bothers me. I mean gender issues are not "special" issues, and until we stop seeing them as such, we will never truly reach equality. Gender equality is not women's rights, they are EVERYONE'S rights! Everyone should read this article! Not just those who openly state that gender equality is an important 21st century issue, and then are pigeonholed and put in the category of "special interest" groups. Just as I have said before and will continue to say, feminism is NOT just about women. It's about teaching our young boys that it's okay to be who they want to be, and that their self-worth isn't dependent on how "manly" they are. No one is really THAT "manly" anyway, right?! I mean beauty (and manliness, and femininity) are all in the eye of the beholder. "One man's trash is another man's treasurer." Well that goes for everything in life really! One person's manliness might be another's femininity. So let's stop trying to universalize the terms and stop pressuring people to fit into these rigid categories that don't tell us much to begin with!
is a phrase that sickens me. It drives me crazy. It’s misogynistic and sad and girls need to stop. It is essentially a thing women say to fit in with guys by joining them in a masculine superiority complex. By discounting HALF of the human population as unworthy of your…
It’s hard to explain what I feel about this issue. I was raised in an environment surround by mostly girls. I went to an all-girls-school from elementary school to high school. People would constantly ask how I survived being in the same school for more than 13 years. I believe that by growing in an environment were we as women were not constantly differentiated or compared with boy, I developed self-confidence of being able to develop any ability I want to. We were taught we were able to succeed in a male-dominated world, and that we had the same chances as boys. Fortunately, I was never diminished by others in the sense of not being able to do something because I was a girl. This week, I received the news that my school was no longer going to be an all-girls-school. All my classmates and I have a chat where we talk about random things. This time we had a really interesting conversation about this crucial change in our former school. We were all surprised after hearing this, because even though sometimes we couldn’t stand each other, we developed an environment of comfort and no-judgement. We had and still have a strong sense of support among each other. Now that all of us are now in co-ed schools we do see some differences on how girls act with boys. A friend is studying Electrical Engineering in the National Polytechnic Institute in Mexico City and has experienced gender discrimination. She has being told that she is not able to do things, that she doesn’t know how to work as a boy, and they have diminished her abilities. She has also heard girls saying it would be better if they were boys. During college I have also experience something similar. However, in my case is has boys who don’t want to receive help from a girl. I believe the idea of boys knowing more or being better with numbers is still common. For my Physics class, I was helping my TA in a lab session since I had already done that experiment. I was surprised to see that boys would say they did not have any questions and then go and talk to the TA. I did not take it personally, though I felt they didn’t want me to help them. How did I know something they didn’t? It’s not only the I do not get along with girls from girls, but also the barrier boys put on women. It has become an endless cycle were both men and women keep creating barriers which try to prove a gender is better than another. In my opinion, a lot of effort and analysis is required to destroy these barriers.
This is actually really interesting to me as well. Personally I agree with the original post. I HATE when people say things like this! It's an overgeneralization and it's incredibly sexist. When I hear girls saying stuff like this I often wonder if they can't get along with girls than perhaps there's something wrong with THEM not girls! This phrase is the epitome of female sexism. People often don't realize, it seems, that sexism goes beyond thinking that women don't deserve equal pay or fair treatment or the like. Sexism is lumping women into one category and saying things like "all women...." or "I don't get along with women." It's a gross over-simplification of human interaction to suggest that all people of one particular "group" act a certain way. It's completely and utterly ridiculous. It also makes the person saying it look incredibly ignorant. GET TO KNOW PEOPLE AS PEOPLE! It's important that we stop assuming people will act a certain way based on their gender, sex, race, class, etc. Let's move beyond these barbaric categories of existence and let's stop treating people differently because we simply can't understand someone beyond what they look like.
Absolutely disgusted and disappointed in the threats against Anita Sarkeesian. It's truly horrifying that in a country where individuality and freedom seem to be so important to people, that having an opinion and voicing it can be so dangerous. Americans are often horrified of what goes on in other countries where citizens are silenced by their government or other operative forces; however, women and minorities are silenced everyday by the "majority".
I've been wondering in our class discussions if identity is solely a socially constructed image of who we are. "Who" someone is, independent of race, gender, class, etc., is personal. Perhaps only the person being categorized can ever know the true identity of themselves; however, I wonder if people are shaped by what others tell them they are? Interesting things to ponder...
Interesting! Not a huge Denis Leary fan, but I LOVE THIS QUOTE! From experience I find this to be incredibly true. I mentioned in class a few weeks ago when discussing the "Passing for White, Passing for Black," that I was adopted by a white, Jewish family. Race was never something that was in the forefront of my mind, nor was I aware of race at all as a child. It wasn't until the kids in my kindergarten class poked fun at me for not "being like my parents," that race became apparent to me. I couldn't help running back to my family and asking that very same question. My father, baffled as to when I should learn the "truth" of my origination, half-heartedly answered that my mother had tanned a lot when she was pregnant with me and, thus, I came out tanner than the rest of my family. It all made logical sense to me, so I left it at that, never bringing up the topic again. I think children, like adults, notice differences among people, as they become seasoned, or "trained" if you will, to notice differences. As a child, the only thing that matters is if someone is nice. Playing in the sandbox or kickball with classmates was independent of race, gender, class, and the like. I wish to get back to that mindset every day.
Pretty much any animal medical researchers test is male. So too are the tissues they use to conduct tests. Despite the loads of research demonstrating important biological differences between how...
The science is in on science. While this doesn't directly relate to what we discussed in class thus far, it's an interesting read about the inherent gender inequality in something as neutral as science. Give it a quick read if you can. The gist of it: using androgynous animals in experiments yields results with gender biases. Many drugs have effects that are different for men and women due to the chemical make up of the sexes, and it's important that we (scientists, and consumers, alike) start taking this into consideration! The same has been suggested for using white, or albino, lab rats, in which the effect of melanin isn't known. This obviously presents a problem for anyone relying on medicine that isn't a white male. Of course, I don't mean to imply that this is in anyway malicious intent. It does however, illustrate the deep-rooted gender, and race, bias in today's world.
I think it's interesting that these are the issues that most feminists have been trying to tackle for years and for some reason Emma Watson's portrayal of feminism is more appealing than anyone else. Nonetheless I think she is confronting a rich task and doing a damn fine job of it. I hope that her presence and advocacy for women worldwide will have a huge impact. This may be feminism's chance to get leaps and bounds ahead in my generation. One can only hope! All hail Emma Watson!
Women in STEM presents. Join us
nobody says it but we all know what this is about
This picture is weirdly genius
Absurd relationship criteria that is put on couples of all kinds.
This segment of an episode of Horizon, called “Do You See What I See?” shows how language has an effect on how people see color, especially when comparing colors.
Not exactly what we discussed in Wednesday’s class, but when Dr. Dove discussed language at the beginning, this video popped into my head. As an evolutionary biologist, and particularly someone who studies the evolution of color, I find this study incredibly fascinating. One thing that truly excites me is the idea that language can shape the way we perceive the world. In this video you can see how the various ways in which people group color and the words by which we do so, can actually affect what we see! As to not ruin the video, I’m going to stop there. Please watch! The beginning is sort of dry and somewhat science-heavy, BUT the stuff involving the comparative study between Western and African cultures is so amazing and well-worth the watch!
I'm re-blogging this because it's SUPER relevant to what we discussed in class today. WATCH THIS! Do it now! You won't regret it, I promise!
Facepalm.
Urban Outfitters is at it again. When will it end?!
Video
I love these types of videos. They show the ridiculous double standard that exists in different circles. There is a similar video entitled "If Black People Said the Things White People Say." While it might seem like a rash or gross overgeneralization, more often than not I have heard white people say things to me that they would not even think to say to another white person. I don't necessarily think there is meant to be any negativity in their words, but rather, feeling as though there is some inherent difference between socializing with a white person versus a black person or a straight versus an LGBTQA person. People are people are people.
