dank semanticism

new levels of larp unlocked

The brothers Green being cute.

when i was a freshman in college i wanted to dress up for halloween because i thought surely college students would have the spirit. so i elected to put a whole entire Skull Kid from legend of zelda majora’s mask cosplay together and wear that fucking ensemble to college on halloween.

i step on campus and realize immediately that not one other person is dressed up. not so much as a cat ear headband. so imagine this fucking dude sitting in a class of otherwise normally dressed people looking like this. that was me. this was my 9/11

he literally has the opposite problem of misha collins

Dealing with auditory processing disorder

LAWFUL: take the parts you heard and turn it into a clarifying question, e. g. "you saw your cousin where?" or "she's writing a what?"

NEUTRAL: "what did you say?"

CHAOTIC: take a wild stab at what the person said, e. g. "you want to baptize a mackerel?"

instead of exterminating rats, the state of New York should hire a rat trainer to round them all up and teach them to do odd jobs. they could clean up litter, scrub the manhole covers… run electrical wires. maybe do some plumbing

there should be a dedicated rat feeding station in every subway. if you pass out drunk on the bus a squadron of 50-60 purebred albino rats should carry you gently down the street back to your home. i know this may all sound rather infeasible—but if you hire me, the pied piper,

This kid is going places

Give 'em the ol razzle dazzle

The Sandman promotional poster based on 1-star Google reviews + what one reviewer thought the show should be named instead

“I never thought this would happen to me” says tumblr user who regularly posts in The Sandman tags knowing full well Neil Gaiman looks through the tags

We did it friends. Sandman is so gay we’re trending in June and have the bi pride colors on the tag

this is the most tumblrified man to have ever existed

I know a guy, but the guy is Google

something i really enjoy in horror movies is when the victim(s) start to hunt the killer in return in order to kill them first, both because it's an interesting parallel that (if done well) asks the audience to consider the question of when violence and killing are a justifiable means to an end in order to survive and at what point it crosses the line from acceptable to abhorrent and condemns the perpetrator, and also because it's a little bit funny. like i can do that too bitch you're not special.

the cognitive dissonance from people who want the products of modern medicine but get weird about animal research. like im sorry but this is necessary for the survival of the society we currently live in. and the scientists who work on these things are not evil cackling psychopaths. anyone you talk to in animal research has incredibly complex feelings about their work and incredibly complex relationships to the animals in their care. there are regulations and oversight and penalties in place to make the work as humane as possible and scientists are overwhelmingly the ones enforcing and advocating for better care.

@velvetdemon I'm doing a full reply because I want to give this question the time and space it deserves, and I really do appreciate your curiosity about this.

The short answer: It is deeply unethical. There are nowhere near enough willing patients in the world to be able to do this, and it would be criminal to put them through this.

The long answer: The one side of the equation you're focusing on is: how much of a drug is too much, to the point where it will cause negative side effects or even death? And this is crucial to know. But it's not just a matter of finding out the lethal dosage of a heart cholesterol medication, you need to know that it can actually lower the cholesterol of any living thing. There is no way to know this without giving it first to...a living thing.

But beyond this, I need to emphasize: The goal of a drug trial is to effectively cure people who are already suffering from disease, who are living on limited time.

Drug trials don't just happen on any member of the public, they need to happen specifically on people affected by the disease you're trying to treat. There is at any time a very limited and very marginalized population of the world affected by early onset, familial Parkinson's disease. Because you cannot ethically induce disease in a human being, you are working with, speaking with, and helping patients and their families who are hopeful and desperate for a cure.

If you were to jump straight to human trials from petri dishes, not knowing absolutely anything about how the drug functions in a living, breathing animal body, it would look like this:

I could go on, and on, and on.

The vast majority of these problems can be nearly or almost entirely averted by testing other animals first.

These are all people who possibly could have waited for the normal progression from animal testing to human testing and thus received better outcomes. Some people will pass away in the time it takes to get to that point, and that's heartbreaking, and we all wish science could be faster.

But the cost of expediting science could mean a life of profoundly greater suffering or an even shorter life than the one where no intervention happens at all. And at that point, you have completely exhausted your trust, your goodwill, and your patients' hope, after you've failed to do anything or even worsened the lives of people who are already deeply suffering.

hi, i’m an animal research professional. making sure laboratory animals stay alive, healthy, and enriched has been my full-time job for several years now.

animal research is not the mad scientist wild west that PETA wants you to think it is. there are extremely strict federal laws in place to protect the well being of these animals. animal welfare organizations like AAALAC ensure that lab animals are treated with dignity & respect and are given enough specialized care & enrichment to be happy and content in captivity, just like AZA accreditation with zoos.

not a single animal from a zebrafish to a mouse to a dog to a macaque goes unaccounted for. if an animal gets moved to a new cage, paired for breeding, has a procedure performed on it, gives birth, gets sick or injured, dies, etc. it is legally required that this information is recorded and kept on file for the US federal government to access. failing to record & retain this information is very much punishable by US federal law.

let me tell you - if you abuse or kill an animal, even a mouse - you are almost certainly getting both fired & blacklisted from the industry. if you abuse or kill a more ‘advanced’ animal, such as a dog or monkey, you will likely face criminal charges. killing a monkey is as serious and disastrous as a nuclear meltdown. you are expected to reasonably explain every illness, injury, or death of an animal under your care. you must record all of this information. animals that are clearly suffering with low QOL are required to be euthanized according to AVMA guidelines.

research animals are highly expensive. yes, even the "lesser" animals like mice. the cheapest mice will run you a few hundred $ per individual, with some of the most expensive mice i've cared for being $25,000 per individual. in research we have the "three Rs" - reduction (reduce amount of necessary animals to a minimum), refinement (refine processes to ensure research is accurate and animals feel no pain or distress), and replacement (replace animals with non-living research models as they become available). i can assure you no proper research team is wasting animals (*do not* say "b-b-but elon musk--" his research team is actively being investigated for animal abuse by the government).

research methods that do not require live animals are currently being looked into & efforts spearheaded by - you guessed it - the animal research industry itself (notice how the animal rights people are strangely silent & unhelpful when it comes to this?) but current technology is rudimentary and does not compare to live animal models.

some research animal fun facts (US edition):

so yes, you can rest knowing that laboratory animals are treated with the utmost respect by their caretakers. and you can stop this awful, ignorant talk of human experimentation that will only end in the abuse of nonwhite people, LGBT people, disabled people, indigenous people, and so many others. please just take a look at this wikipedia page if you think “ethical” human experimentation can exist.

just learned that the guy who wrote that classic circus theme was apparently named juicy fuck??

bet y’all doubted me huh

just want to shake op’s hand real quick for making me type the words “JUICY FUCK CIRCUS” into my search engine

Everything you’d need to know about Hellboy’s character in two panels.

Reading this like a manga gives a different image

Jesse: "Yo, Mr. Fring, I've been thinking about this quote, man. "One must imagine Sisyphus happy." What do you make of that?"

Gus: "Ah, Jesse, I see you've stumbled upon the existential musings of Albert Camus. It's an intriguing concept, to say the least."

Gus: "Sisyphus, condemned to an eternity of rolling a boulder uphill only to watch it roll back down again, represents the futility and absurdity of life's struggles."

Gus: "However, Camus suggests that by accepting and embracing this absurdity, one can find happiness."

Jesse: "Yeah, but I mean, isn't that just some crazy philosophical bullshit? How can someone be happy in such a fucked-up situation?"

Gus: "Happiness, Jesse, is a state of mind. It's not about the circumstances we find ourselves in, but rather how we choose to perceive and respond to them."

Gus: "Sisyphus, despite his eternal struggle, can find meaning and purpose in his repetitive task. By embracing his fate and finding fulfillment in the act itself, he transcends the burden he carries."

Jesse: "That's deep shit, man. So, what, you're saying we should just accept all the crap that comes our way and be happy about it?"

Gus: "Not necessarily. Acceptance doesn't mean complacency. It means acknowledging the realities of our situation and finding a way to navigate them while maintaining our inner peace."

Gus: "It's about finding meaning in the journey, even if the destination remains elusive."

Jesse: "Yeah? I guess that makes sense in some messed-up, twisted way... Hey, speaking of finding happiness, have you tried Taco Bell's Nacho Fries? They're insane, man!"

Gus: "...Nacho Fries, Mr. Pinkman?"

Jesse: "Oh, you gotta try 'em, Mr. Fring! They're like these crispy, seasoned fries with this gooey cheese dipping sauce. It's like a flavor explosion in your mouth, man. I bet you'd love 'em."

Gus: "If they are as remarkable as you claim, perhaps we can find a moment to indulge. After all, even in the face of existential ponderings, we mustn't forget to appreciate life's simpler pleasures."

Jesse: "That's what I'm talkin' about, Mr. Fring! We'll have ourselves a little culinary adventure amidst all the fucking chaos. Life's all about finding those moments of joy, even if it means embracing the absurdity along the way, right?"

Gus: "Indeed, Jesse. Life's contradictions often lead us to unexpected discoveries. Perhaps, we may find a glimpse of Sisyphus' elusive happiness in the process."

our discord unanimously agreed that ratatouille is a mecha and I cried laughing after making this joke