“Get a rat and put it in a cage and give it two water bottles. One is just water, and one is water laced with either heroin or cocaine. If you do that, the rat will almost always prefer the drugged water and almost always kill itself very quickly, right, within a couple of weeks. So there you go. It’s our theory of addiction. Bruce comes along in the ’70s and said, “Well, hang on a minute. We’re putting the rat in an empty cage. It’s got nothing to do. Let’s try this a little bit differently.” So Bruce built Rat Park, and Rat Park is like heaven for rats. Everything your rat about town could want, it’s got in Rat Park. It’s got lovely food. It’s got sex. It’s got loads of other rats to be friends with. It’s got loads of colored balls. Everything your rat could want. And they’ve got both the water bottles. They’ve got the drugged water and the normal water. But here’s the fascinating thing. In Rat Park, they don’t like the drugged water. They hardly use any of it. None of them ever overdose. None of them ever use in a way that looks like compulsion or addiction. There’s a really interesting human example I’ll tell you about in a minute, but what Bruce says is that shows that both the right-wing and left-wing theories of addiction are wrong. So the right-wing theory is it’s a moral failing, you’re a hedonist, you party too hard. The left-wing theory is it takes you over, your brain is hijacked. Bruce says it’s not your morality, it’s not your brain; it’s your cage. Addiction is largely an adaptation to your environment. […] We’ve created a society where significant numbers of our fellow citizens cannot bear to be present in their lives without being drugged, right? We’ve created a hyperconsumerist, hyperindividualist, isolated world that is, for a lot of people, much more like that first cage than it is like the bonded, connected cages that we need. The opposite of addiction is not sobriety. The opposite of addiction is connection. And our whole society, the engine of our society, is geared towards making us connect with things. If you are not a good consumer capitalist citizen, if you’re spending your time bonding with the people around you and not buying stuff—in fact, we are trained from a very young age to focus our hopes and our dreams and our ambitions on things we can buy and consume. And drug addiction is really a subset of that.”
they really brought david tenant’s son in and said hey do you want to play a gay little boy in good omens 2. just a little camp mf. nepotism done right.
Ok, I need to respond to that “dominant genetic trait” tag specifically, because the reality is significantly funnier- that’s Ty Tennant, Georgia (Moffett) Tennant’s son from before she married David Tennant. David adopted him, IIRC, and he’s raised him from a very young age, so he IS David Tennant’s son, but it’s not genetic, and if you know the hilarious irony of David and Georgia’s relationship (Peter Davidson played David Tennant’s favorite Doctor, David met Georgia while he was playing the Doctor and she was playing the Doctor’s daughter, every Doctor who fan at the time was vaguely amused by this because the Doctor married the Doctor’s daughter making the Doctor become the Doctor’s father-in-law), it becomes even funnier that Ty gets to flirt with his father’s coworker. Just a recursive mess of family business hilarity. Ty deserves this opportunity.
“Oh [other profession] wants better working conditions? WELL [MY profession] is HARDER I work TWENTY HOUR DAYS and I am NOT ALLOWED BREAKS and I’m PAID FOR SHIT and I have NO INSURANCE and I NEVER SEE MY CHILDREN so WHY are YOU COMPLAINING LOL”
have you considered that maybe YOUR job ALSO should not suck that much
Story time. This is not so much for OP but for anyone else who might not have union experience: Bear in mind that there is a strong propaganda effort to get people to this viewpoint. They’re not being willfully obtuse.
I spoke to a neighbour the other day. She’d just taken voluntary a lay-off from her factory job because she had an ongoing injury and they wouldn’t let her adjust her hours in a sensible way. She’d been struggling to make it work anyway but her back was getting really bad. So when they put the word out that they were looking for volunteers to take lay-offs, she put up her hand. Still, she was proud to tell me that she was considered one of their best and fastest workers, even with the injury. She was frustrated that one of the newer workers seemed to have gotten various accommodations, even though that worker was nowhere near as good.
I could tell that she’d been having similar conversations with her coworkers on the factory floor for years. Who got extras they didn’t “deserve.” Who was a shoddy worker and made life harder for everyone. Who came in to work even though their parent had just died to make sure that nobody had to pick up their slack. And all of that pervaded with propaganda about “greedy unions” who slim down your already-skinny paycheque just because they’re all lazy slackers who don’t want to pull their weight and don’t appreciate the nice boss for hiring them. (This is the same across all types of jobs. Next story time I’ll talk about two university profs who grew to fame and fortune via unions and the social safety net and yet both engaged in union busting.)
My neighbour’s injury, incidentally, was a result of her work at the factory, but she didn’t want to try for compensation or anything else. She’d “never taken a single sick day in 20 years” and wasn’t “the kind of person who made waves” so she was just going the regular unemployment route but finding the systems obscure and challenging. She was hurt and shocked that her old employer would treat one of their best workers this way and leave them to deal with the fall-out by themselves.
Meanwhile, Canadian (federal) government workers were striking in Ottawa. And she expressed frustration that they felt “entitled to strike” when the (provincial) services she was accessing were so shoddy and difficult to navigate. Why did they “get to” strike if their work was apparently so poor? She had no sympathy for them.
I pushed back gently. Her factory floor job wasn’t union, but the admin staff was union. They seemed to get a better deal. We spoke about strength in numbers, and how hard it is to try and get your due from your employer without anyone to help you. And how they make all these forms complicated on purpose so it’s easier to deny you money or other support. And how it would be great to have someone to go to meetings with you, who knew all the legal stuff, and who could help you with the forms, and get you the money for the medical services you needed.
She wasn’t pro-union by the time I left, but we’d agreed on a few things, and I’d framed a few of her concerns in a way that made her more ambivalent about strikes (rather than outright hostile). Still, as we were saying our goodbyes, she said, “let’s hope they hurry up and get back to work eh!”
Because imagine what it would cost her to turn around and agree that unions are good, and strikes are good, and you should fight your employer for your fair compensation and your rights. Twenty years of taking no sick leave, working herself to the bone on not enough money, laid off and struggling with the system for basic support. She’s proud of her suffering, all the times she didn’t complain, all the times she pushed on even as the going got harder and harder.
Because if she can’t be proud of it… then what? She’s dumb for taking a non-union job? She should’ve organised and could’ve had better pay and a severance package and free physiotherapy for life? If she accepts that unions and strikes are good, she’s still in pain, still unemployed, still stuck with her lack of support, but now also feels like a fucking idiot for giving 20 years of her life to a boss who threw her out without a second thought.
So. Don’t put up with union busting and do talk to the people in your life about solidarity, but do realise that being anti-union isn’t just folks being aggressively wrong for the sake of it. They’ve been lied to. And they possibly have a lot of complex grief and identity and other experiences tied up in this.
“If she accepts that unions and strikes are good, she’s still in pain, still unemployed, still stuck with her lack of support, but now also feels like a fucking idiot for giving 20 years of her life to a boss who threw her out without a second thought.”
This.
And this applies to a lot of other things you might want people to change their minds about.
Do you know what the consensus on pit bulls is? Some people say the negative stereotypes surrounding them are unfair, while others insist they’re inherently dangerous dogs that shouldn’t be kept as pets. Both views are biased to some degree, so I don’t know which to believe.
and same as german shepards, same as huskies, same as dalmations, they have specific breed requirements and aren’t right for every home! also like all dogs, they have to be trained to be a reliable and safe pet. but with their needs met and good training, they’re about the same as any other dog in their size range (with individual exceptions for personal history and trauma of course)
Except pit bulls have the ability to lock their jaws unlike other dog breeds. So even if pit bulls aren’t more likely to attack someone, an attack is likely to be much worse than an attack by any other breed.
common misconception! not actually true tho
they just have very strong jaws, but so do many other large breeds
The misinformation about pit bulls is so easily disproven but also bewildering.
They’re literally just a large and strong dog breed. That’s it. That’s all there is to it. They are not inherently more dangerous than any other large breed with a strong guard and/or prey drive.
They’re just dogs.
They aren’t alligators. They aren’t wolves. They aren’t bears or lions or tigers or hyenas or dingoes or boars. They’re just dogs.
And that’s all there is to them.
Friends of ours have a pit. Me, I have a husband eternally ready to play with a dog. “She’s gonna love you,” Friend predicted the first time he met her. But then we walked in, and the pit sniffed me hello, then took one look at him, and ran off. Not even a sniff! My husband was bereft! He is practically a Disney Princess and yet this dog ran away immediately? What was he doing wrong?
Five seconds later she returned with her best toy, dropped it proudly on his foot, and I swear to god she made heart eyes at him. “YOU will play with me! I can tell!”
Any pit is a LOT of dog. But a good pit is a lot of GOOD dog.
If you use Zoom, be aware that they’ve decided they’re going to use your input (from both free and paid accounts) to train their new AI tools. And there’s apparently no way to opt out of this. :/
im dying over this thread of algorithmically-generated/otherwise low-effort Kindle covers
don’t forget
grossly inappropriate copy of animal farm that is on my nightstand at this very moment
…When you’re getting ready to design a book cover and you’re not sure what you do is going to be good enough.. it’s always reassuring to see something like [all of the above].
I actually hypothesize that big bird is a late surviving direct descendant of Deinocheirus
would you be willing to expand on this hypothesis
same general body structure, has hands instead of full wings, has a slight hump, similar beaks
clearly Deinocheirus’ descendants evolved to have more upright postures, a shorter tail, and forward facing eyes over the past 66 million years
This implies Big Bird slowly evolved into a carnivore.
look, it’s been a while since I saw Follow that Bird, because it makes me cry every damn time, but I’m pretty sure Big Bird eats grains
that said, this means Big Bird is an herbivore that convergently evolved carnivore-like traits, which should be significantly more alarming to all of us
Ok, I want to know why it should be more alarming. Am I missing something?
Are you trying to imply that this is batsean mimicry of a big bird looking actually carnivorous species, or is this stretch?
I’m not a scientist, just an enthusiast.
So herbivores are more alarming than carnivores in general because carnivores get full. Herbivores are always on alert for predators and either have one of two responses: run (these can trample us) or fight (these will destroy us). This is why herbivores are usually much more dangerous than carnivores - for one quick example, more people are killed by the herbivorous hippopotamus each year than by sharks (yes, all species thereof)
so, an herbivore convergently evolving carnivorous traits means its an herbivore designed to take out potential dangers with the swiftness and lethality of a predator
that is extremely alarming
consider the cassowary. now imagine it more exact and capable. now imagine it the size of big bird.
we should all be glad he is a friendly presence on sesame street and not the unholy terror he should be
To add more to Big Bird’s biology, it should be noted that his species is either very diverse in morphology, or his clade contains many species that live in various countries’ Sesame Streets. Some of them, like Bibo from Germany, look pretty much the same as American Big Bird, but others are quite different. In the Netherlands we have Pino, who could easily be the same species but has a more pronounced crest, orange beak, and blue feathers everywhere except the area around the eyes. On the rare occasions he has actually met Big Bird, he called him Cousin Jan.
Brazillian Sesame Street is inhabited by Garibaldo, who judging by beak and leg morphology is likely a different species. Between the sleeker legs and the very sharp beak, I think a stork-like lifestyle is likely for his ancestral population.
Then there’s Abelardo from Mexico, who seems to come from a population that convergently evolved several parrot-like traits. An interesting detail about this is that, unlike most other vertebrates, parrots don’t absorb their pigments through their diet, but make their own pigments called psittacofulvins. Given that his relatives are quite colourful themselves and can probably obtain plenty of carotenoids from their diet, I don’t think that is likely to be the case in Abelardo.
Caponata from Spain looks very different from all her family members, even the more divergent ones. This could be since she is the only female member of the clade I have managed to find so far. However, the very different feet make me think she might hail from a very derived species instead. I can’t even imagine what sort of evolutionary pressures could lead to a bird evolving such strange feet.
Other Sesame Street birds are a little harder to find information about, with mostly older sightings. There seem to have been sightings of one named Toccata in Quebec. His shaggier white feather coat covering more of his legs and being thicker around his neck does suggest adaptations of the harsh winters up north.
Portuguese Poupas has different colouration and seems to have some sort of feather puff going on around the ankles as well. The feathers around the head are notably swept backward as well. I think this is a somewhat derived population of the American species. Minik Kuş from Turkey may hail from this population too, or perhaps from some intermediate or interbred population, as they seem to be more morphologically similar to the more typical Big Birds.
someone needs to throw together a phylogeny and I recognize that, as a bird researcher, who has done too many phylogenies of birds, I am the prime candidate, but I have too much to do for SVP…
Before the internet, librarians were the gatekeeper of knowledge. For your reading pleasure, the New York Public Library released a cache of queries and conundrums called in from the 1940s to the 1980s.
Anonymous
