Wild Unicorn Herd

• Legendary illustrator Leo Dillon has died.
• SF Signal has a roundtable about race in sf with David Anthony Durham, Aliette de Bodard, Adrian Tchaikovsky, and Ken Liu.
• At Harvard Medical School, Bryan Wei, Mingjie Dai and Peng Yin have created a font made of DNA.
• Wiscon happened. (I was kind of out of it last weekend but I know a lot of Tumblr people went.)
• I mentioned that Andrea Hairston won the Tiptree, right?

Someone is mailing body parts to the Conservative Party of Canada.

It’s been a really weird news day.

ai-yo:

James had a kingsmill white bread complexion, he blushed slightly it seemed like someone had spread strawberry jam over his cheeks. His hair was the colour of custard that had been watered down severely like the nasty one they served back in primary school that I begged the lunch ladies not to let near my cake. I didn’t care that the cake may have been dry I didn’t want that shit near my cake.

zorascreation:

The Nick.com “Explore Republic City” website describes Korra as “a tomboy with a fiery personality”… 

LOLOLOL

They’re trying so hard to say “Korra’s queer” without having to say it explicitly. Y’know, heterosexism in children’s entertainment and all. 

LOLOLOLOL

SHE’S GAAAAAAAAAAAAAY.

LESBIAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN.

QUEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEER. 

HOMOSEXXXXXXXXXXXUAL. 

thatofficegifofjimnoddingandpointing.gif

Escher Girls, collecting “pictures of female characters in impossible or ridiculous poses or with disturbing anatomy because the artists need to show teh sexy”. (Submitters often provide more realistic redraws, too.) It’s like an endless hilarious river of BODIES DON’T WORK THAT WAY.

Also I legit screamed with joy when I learned it’s run by Ami Angelwings, whose comics commentary I used to read back in the day.

crossedwires:

jhameia:

Jay Smooth is my internet boyfriend

have no words

awesome people are awesome

mako is my new TV boyfriend

engagement is hard yo

i will go down with this ship

also star trekking across time and generations

Well that was fun.

chimichanga

rodents of unusual size

one true band

stringer/macroeconomics

sandra oh for jessica jones

egg tarts

donuts of retribution

wolverine: the little canadian that could!

i judge all shows by hlots standards

rambutan

everyone cries when they’re stabbed

socially awkward firebenders

• whitewashed!
• i hate everything
• levar burton
• detroit is not your metaphor
• uhura knows her shit
• never metafiction i didn’t like
• is it cute asian kid day here or what
• cyborg revolution now
• oh elizabeth moon no
• racism harshes my squee
• new worlds
• healthcare opinions! getcher opinions on canadian healthcare right here! three for a penny!
• epic pwnage
• rice is never off topic
• don’t read the comments

Thank you to the many helpful science whizzes (retroviridae, mermaidsparkles, and a couple anons) who wrote in and pointed out the obvious: DNA is not protein. I’ve corrected the original post.

(No idea why I wrote that, as I do know what DNA stands for and whatnot—hey, no one is on the ball 100% of the time. skulks away in shame)

tariqk:

wildunicornherd:

tariqk:

wildunicornherd:

thinksquad:

Here is a Science fair project presented by a girl in a secondary school in Sussex . [snip bullshit]

NO, YOU PIG-IGNORANT ASSWIPES. [snip science rage]

Very nice takedown, but there really is a pretty good Snopes post talking about it, as well as making more of a big deal over the method used to “prove” the OP’s point. [snip]

Heh, I shoulda guessed it was on Snopes. And yes, it is important to point out the shit-ton of things wrong with the “experiment”.

The one thing that keeps bugging me about your post, though, was that it began with yelling at the OPs. The phrase “pig-ignorant asswipes” come into mind.

Yeah, I mean, I get annoyed (pissed off, even, sometimes) with charlatans who want to take advantage of the general distrust of science and the scientific method, but I generally find being a douche helps my case less and instead cements other people’s perceptions of me and science-literate (or just skeptical people in general) as arrogant douchebags.

I mean, to use a metaphor that doesn’t map 100% to the whole situation: I work in IT. There are some things I find “obvious” (like, oh, I don’t know… don’t disable your antivirus just because it gives out some really annoying warnings that happen because it says your thumbdrive is infected with malware… because it is infected with malware) that other people don’t. In situations like this, I’ve seen two ways this can be handled:

1. Treat the person like they’re idiots for making such an obvious mistake, tell them what they did wrong and why it’s wrong.
2. Tell them what happened, tell them why doing some things can result in good things happening to them, and show them how to fix things themselves.

Route #1 is very satisfying, especially when the person you’re helping to troubleshoot things is annoying and deserves to be smacked down. Really, I know the temptation: I’ve met assholes in my time in customer support, and me and another survivor of the IT support trenches love to swap stories about how this one particular asshole got his comeuppance (protip: you want to get drivers for your PDA, you’re better off downloading it off the Internet from the official site rather than buying it off a someone selling pirated CDs). And point #2 is really slow, most people won’t get it, they’ll keep doing it again and again, and it really does feel thankless.

But I’ll tell you this: if you do #2 well, not only are you likely to get better compliance in the long run (because #1, while effective in the short-run, just means that end-users view you as assholes and that everything you say is treated as a commandment that can be ignored and subverted when convenient), but the same people who made that mistake can now spread the word out for you, thus saving you time and blood pressure.

Actually, I should be practicing what I preach and I should really talk about how I figure out if something is true or a hoax.

Generally the feeling I watch out for is the desire to reblog something, and when I get that feeling, I do this:

I type: “« a few short keywords from the article I want to reblog » site:snopes.com” on Google.

What this does is that it forces Google to search through snopes.com for articles mentioning those words. Usually this points me to a page that mentions the subject, and if it does, I post the link and say it’s fake / real / disputed / not what it seems.

If that doesn’t work I go through a few other sites: hoax-slayer.com is another one, and works pretty well for Facebook. A pretty good site for Facebook shares, mind you, is sophos.com, which can tell you more about that Justin Bieber scandalous video that your friend posted on Facebook, or that App on Facebook that allows you to see who has viewed your profile.

If I can’t find anything from Google-fu, I normally shrug my shoulders, repost what I did find in the reblog, and ask anyone else if they can verify the original post. That generally works okay — either someone else with better google-fu can dispute or disprove it, or someone else can post more info collaborating it, and so on.

Yeah, it takes more time. But hey. At least you’re not spreading rumors on the Internet without checking up on some facts.

Yeah, I admit I chose the gratuitously dickish option and am not likely to win anyone to the side of critical thinking. *hangs head*

I might have had more mercy if this iteration didn’t originate from an ~intellectual blog that purports to be “fighting ignorance, superstition, privilege, and power”.

tariqk:

wildunicornherd:

thinksquad:

Here is a Science fair project presented by a girl in a secondary school in Sussex . [snip bullshit]

NO, YOU PIG-IGNORANT ASSWIPES. [snip science rage]

Very nice takedown, but there really is a pretty good Snopes post talking about it, as well as making more of a big deal over the method used to “prove” the OP’s point.

TL;DR:

• One plant could have been compromised from the very beginning and would have died even if both plants were treated alike.
• The container used to store or boil the microwaved water could have introduced a residual substance into the water that hindered plant growth.
• The soil or bedding material used for one of the plants might have contained something (either originally or introduced later) that hindered plant growth.
• The two containers of water might have been heated and/or cooled unequally, resulting in one plant’s receiving warmer water than the other.
• The plants might have been subject to differing environmental factors (e.g., light, heat) due to their placement, or affected differently by external factors (e.g., insects, pets).
• Since the experiment was not conducted “blindly,” the possibility that the experimenter in some way influenced the results cannot be ruled out.

Generally when I see stuff like this, I just look out for a snopes post and post links to them. Getting mad is okay, too, but if I did that I’d have had a heart attack before I was 35, what with all that Internet rage.

Heh, I shoulda guessed it was on Snopes. And yes, it is important to point out the shit-ton of things wrong with the “experiment”.

fuckyeahafricanmythology:

baltimorescifi: 

Hi. I know this is slightly outside of the realm of this blog, but I could really use your help. Can you recommend any books about daily life in medieval sub-saharan Africa? Anything about how people lived on the ground, day to day, in the Ghana/Mali/Songhai empires, would be incredible. There are so many books about the daily lives of Ancient Egyptians, and so few about the regular lives of the REST of the continent.

Short of that (a difficult request, I know), know any good books on contemporary daily rural/tribal life (basically, outside of cities) in sub-saharan Africa? If you could point in me in the right direction, I would be greatly appreciative.

Thanks, for both your help, and for running this great (and much needed) blog.

Not sure about this one if anyone knows please help baltimoresci-fi out

Hey, researchy people! Anyone?

marshmallowmegamama:

it worries/distrubs me how many people are identifying with the equalists (on the legend of korra)—AND using comparisons to malcom X or the black panthers to justify that identification.

because:

1. the nation of islam and the black panthers (among many many other “power” groups) had critiques of violence. they didn’t outright mindlessly advocate LET’S BLOW UP WHITEY! they made the idea of violence more complex. or: we have the right to defend ourselves. a terrifying thing to white people who were used to the idea of lynching black people for crimes as simple as being uppity. but *still a defensive/protective type of violence*.

another example: take a look at how many power groups were either ambivalent or outright condemned the weathermen. because the underground was agressive in their violence—not using it to protect the communities they were supposedly defending—NOR were they using it to advance the needs of the community.—and yet—how much violence against communities of color did the weathermen *justify* because of their tactics?

also: look at how much of the violent rhetoric was turned internal—or: abuse of women was rampant, using the FBI to target each other was not unheard of, using violence to shut up somebody who broke from the group absolutely happened.

i feel like the comparisons of the equalists to the panthers are playing on an uneducated understanding of the critique of violence most power groups had—and really relying on 60s imagery of black men with fists in the air and gun in their hands—in a way that *decontextualizes* that image. it also plays into the conservative right narrative that suggests that the power groups were terrorists because they were all hell bent on killing whitey—aggressive violence—rather than hell bent on protecting their communities FROM whitey—or defensive violence (not sure if that is an actual name, but you know what i mean). it’s a harmful narrative to continue, and it’s not really engaging in a meaningful critique of violence either way.

2. in any conflict, there’s *always* ALWAYS a third (and fourth, fifth, sixth) option, and that option is very much like what tenzin is suggesting (but I want to hear more of before i support—is it “cut and run” or is it “finding another solution” like what aang offered?). and to suggest that oppressed people will ONLY find violent means to fight their oppression again, invisibilizes SO many people who absolutely REQUIRE that we understand them outside of the aggressor/defenseless dichotomy. see: palestinians. probably the majority of palestinians are using non-violent protest as an *extremely* political statement against their oppression—but the only thing USian’s ever hear about are the “terrorists” or the “suicide bombers.” to be sympathetic to those using violence and their reasons is one thing. to suggest that the *natural* response to oppression is violence is to reinforce a narrative that the only choice isreal (as an example) as when it comes to palestinians is to destroy them completely—because they will *always* be in an active state of aggression—because to *be palestinian is to be oppressed*.

3. to suggest that it makes sense that power is an “either/or” thing (either the benders have it or the equalists have it) is to suggest that there is no such thing as true liberation.

5. to suggest that the only choice oppressed peoples have is to be controlled/control is to suggest that oppressed peoples are more invested in “making whitey pay” than they are in “not being murdered.” again—this is a narrative steeped in white supremacy in the US.

6. I promise you—most people of color in the US would *instantly* rebel at Mr. Amon for one reason alone—he calls himself “your leader”—when what has he done to be “our” leader outside of take people’s bending away and scare the shit out of everybody at a social gathering? Do you know how much fucking shit “our leaders” take from us? and these are people who actually walked the walk a long time ago. the only reason we still put up with their asses is *because* they walked the walk a long time ago. What has Amon done to walk the walk? What has he done to show he is accountable to the community of non-benders? Has he gotten anybody jobs? (I ask this while being fully suspicious that he may have given asami’s dad his start up money) Has he gotten better housing for non-benders? Does he live within communities of non-benders? etc. how did he account for the wrath of non-benders who were subjected to the raid by hassok? who maybe lost a family member or had to bail a family member out of jail—and thinks that amon is a trouble maker who is hurting their family?

Our communities have different ways of demonstrating accountability—and declaring yourself The Leader is almost never one of those ways. Just look at how many people rebel at Jval, AM, Courtney M, Jill, etc being “The Leaders” of the feminist movement.

WHat methods has Amon used to gain compliance? Sure—benders are clearly helping him get to the point where he’s at—but just like there were earth benders who married fire benders and didn’t want fire benders to leave their lands (in the comic book, the promise), i promise you that there are non-benders who are (like pema) married to benders or mothers to benders or whatever—and are terrified of amon, and don’t want his type of “liberation” for their children or families EVEN AS THEY FACE OPPRESSION.

7. if amon is willing to take away bending to gain compliance—what is he willing to do to non-benders who don’t obey? this is should be the number one question at all times for anybody who is thinking through violence, violent resistance, etc. if the person who has declared himself “your leader” is willing to shoot your enemy, what is he willing to do to you? if he is willing to rape your enemy, what is he willing to do to you? if he is willing to punish people who he thinks deserve it—what is he willing to do to you when YOU deserve it?

this is why so so so so many power groups in the 60s were about defense and doing it violently if necessary—but were MORE about building strong able loving communities where power existed in multiple complex spaces—this is why intersectionality and a “shifting lens” was formalized into academic lingo. because they recognized that power existed not as “one ring to rule them all” but as a spider web on multiple paths in multiple directions. violent overthrow wouldn’t work because it *didn’t fracture power*—or: it only hits *one* site of power (ex: the US still exists even in a post-911 world).

if your leader is willing to execute your enemy in a stadium in front of everybody AND HE HAS THE POWER TO DO SO—then that means he HAS THE POWER TO DO IT TO YOU TOO. being on “the same side” has never saved anybody from shit.

8. I could go on and on as violence/organizing tactics is an important issue to me.

but i’ll wrap it all up just by saying—for heaven’s sake—feel sympathy for non-benders. you can even feel sympathy for the equalists. but PLEASE. challenge and interrogate the seemingly “natural” response to violence. and most of all, challenge and interrogate the need to understand the equalists through the lens of power movements in the 60s. because without doing that, it is FAR too easy to be sloppy and draw on decontextualized and simply *wrong* narratives about the power movements as a means to satisify our idea of what an oppressed person *should* be (which oddly, usually looks like something on a t-shirt, rather than a tired person who enjoys watching mad men and nail polish and who every once in a while manages to get down and lick some stamps for their local grassroots org), rather than what they ARE.

It feels audacious to add anything to MMM’s commentary, but…i think to straight up draw analogies about US racial dynamics is a boring interpretation. It turns Avatar into the equivalent of all those sci-fi shows where aliens = people of colour. And the creators are too smart to do that, I think; they’re deliberately imagining a world without whiteness — how colonialism, nationalism, etc. would look in a fundamentally different setting, and where the end goal is returning balance to the world rather than the decisive triumph of good over evil. I’m not saying don’t talk about racial parallels in Avatar though; I mean, when you start thinking “so and so represent white people” think about the absence of whiteness in Avatar. It’s got to be more interesting than “equalists are the black panthers” or whatever.

ignore this if it makes no sense, it’s 2 a. m. and i wrote this all without my glasses