- Recite a poem.
- Read the first page to one of your favorite books.
- Read the little blurb on the back of your shampoo bottle.
- Do a tongue-twister.
- Say something in a different language.
- Share an anecdote.
Do the rains in Spain stay mainly on the plains?
- Summarize the last film/TV episode you watched.
- Let us hear your ringtone and text message sound.
- Tell a joke.
- What did you have to eat today?
- Talk about something that really scares you.
- Talk about something that makes you happy.
- What is your favorite word?
- What is your least favorite word?
- What turns you on?
- What turns you off?
- What sound or noise do you love?
- What sound or noise do you hate?
- What is your favorite curse word?
- What profession other than your own would you like to attempt?
- What profession would you not like to do?
- If Heaven exists, what would you like to hear God say when you arrive at the Pearly Gates?
- If you’re brave enough, singing us a little song.
This could be fun.
do men have resting bitch faces as well or do they not have negative characteristics ascribed to them for putting on a neutral rather than a deliriously happy facial expression
Sneer. The term you are looking for is a fixed sneer.
the stereotype that women talk more than men is infinitely amusing to me because men are literally incapable of shutting the fuck up
i hope this post gets popular enough that i hurt a man’s feelings
It’s not a stereotype it’s a proven fact you femanazi piece of shit.
lmao there it is
You wanna talk proven facts? This shit’s been done, son: researcher Dale Spender in Australia used audio and video tape to independently evaluate who talked the most in mixed-gender university classroom discussions. Regardless of the gender ratio of the students, whether the instructor was deliberately trying to encourage female participation or not, men always talked more—whether the metric was minutes of talking or number of words spoken.
Moreover, men literally have no clue how much they talk. When Spender asked students to evaluate their perception of who talked more in a given discussion, women were pretty accurate; but men perceived the discussion as being “equal” when women talked only 15% of the time, and the discussion as being dominated by women if they talked only 30% of the time.
Spender’s conclusion, if I may parahprase: you only think we talk too much because you’d rather we were silent.
Don’t fuck with me, asshole, I’m a scientist.
Edit: I can’t believe I got her name wrong multiple times. The researcher in question is Dale Spender and the original publication of this research was called Man Made Language (1980).
Not an overly great scientist at that, near as I can uncover, Ms. Spender’s only credentials are a Masters in what I think is english, but could potentially be in linguistics. Throw in a sample consisting entirely of college students in the late seventies, and I think you’ll agree that a single 35-year-old study conducted by a clearly biased researcher is hardly the last word in this discussion.
Besides, the book is mainly about how inequalities in language are used to strengthen societal inequalities as institutions. It’d be much more academically interesting if it wasn’t filled with nonsense about how these linguistic inequalities are part of a conspiracy orchestrated by men to keep women down. She then goes on to liken it to racism, in true Second-Wave feminism fashion. It’s a goddamn shame, because Ms. Spender has some truly fascinating ideas about the nature of language, but they’re buried under layers of hastily-reached, emotionally charged conclusions.
For example, this nonsense about men overreporting women’s speech rates meaning that men prefer women to be silent. The only scientific conclusion to be drawn from the data is simply that men tend to perceive women talking more often than they actually do. Anything beyond that is pure conjecture, and has no place in scholarly work.
You may be a scientist, but perhaps it may be time to consider auditing an intro to research class, or logic and rhetoric 101. Afterwards, maybe do a study of your own to verify Ms. Spender’s findings, or at least to add more data to the gender studies academic sphere.
Meet Claudia Mitchell, the first woman with a bionic arm.
In 2006 she was outfitted with the arm to replace the arm she lost in a motorcycle accident. Her prosthesis, a prototype developed by the Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago is one of the most advanced prosthetic arms developed to date.
Mitchell, who lives in Ellicott City, was the fourth person- and first woman- to receive a “bionic” arm, which allows her to control parts of the device by her thoughts alone. The device works by detecting the movements of a chest muscle that has been rewired to the stumps of nerves that once went to her now-missing limb.
She hopes to upgrade to a prosthesis, still under development, that will allow her also to “feel” with an artificial hand.
A while after the initial surgery, surgeons took the first step by rewiring the skin above her left breast so that when the area is stimulated by impulses from the bionic arm, the skin sends a message to the region of her brain that feels “hand.”
Future arms will be able to perform even more precise movements, but even the first-generation device “has changed my life dramatically,” she said. “I use it to help with cooking, for holding a laundry basket, for folding clothes — all kinds of daily tasks.”
Technology like this gives hope for the future because it is a great example how science can actually improve the quality of people’s life!
You can see a video of her using her bionic arm here:
This meme is false. Cashews are a source of tryptophan, which is needed for the body to produce serotonin - but it is in no way a significant a source of serotonin on its own, and even still, it’s not the same thing as a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (which is not, as some may falsely believe, simply a pill full of serotonin). The chemical compounds of tryptophan and serotonin are different, not to mention that SSRIs don’t really work that way.
If you share this image, you need to understand that the armchair psychiatry that you learned from a meme could cost someone THEIR LIFE.
Leave science to scientists, and quit it with the religious belief in anything natural because it doesn’t always work. I have a lot of crunchy tendencies, but there’s a point where it stops being reasonable and starts being dangerous and deluded.
If you don’t have depression, and I’m not going to phrase this nicely: shut the fuck up about how other people should treat theirs. It’s not just a matter of being sad, nor is it solely a case of having low serotonin. Doing this is a dangerous game, it’s not your place, and you clearly don’t understand what you’re saying or the potential consequences of your actions. Mental illnesses are just as valid as physical illnesses, and the consequences of poor treatment are just as severe.
Anti-depressants are not always the right or only treatment, but they are frequently lifesaving medications. Cashews are not, and suggesting that they might be safer than a medication that you don’t need or even remotely understand the chemical composition of is reckless and uneducated.
nothing makes a gamer more nervous than when the game autosaves in a seemingly harmless location
"this is an awfully convenient collection of healing items"
"why is all this ammo here"
"where did all the enemies go"
"This room has rather a lot of wide, open space in it."
"The music stopped suddenly."
"No, there it is."
"….That’s an awful lot of bass."
If the multiverse theory is true, then there’s a universe where it isn’t.
Multiverse theory doesn’t cover paradoxical situations
Except in the universe where it does
i’m having an aneurysm
No, it’s fine. Because the multiverse theory posits that, due to the very nature of quantum mechanics, every decision made causes the universe to split into several splinter dimensions, leading to an infinite number of universes.
The problem is the common misconception that “infinite” is synonymous with “all-encompassing”. There can be an infinite amount of universes, and there can still be conceivable universes that do not exist. A good analogy is that there are an infinite amount of real numbers between 0 and 1, but none of them are 2. Likewise, there are an infinite amount of universes in the multiverse theory, yet there are none wherein the multiverse theory does not exist.