Yeah, I was thinking that given how visible it probably either tastes really bad, is toxic or mimics another animal that’s toxic. Toxic it is, then.
Roger Hydesays
Lovely, if (IMO) creepy image. Question, though: should the “pink is for girls” idea really be any more acceptable than, say, the “science is for boys” one?
I’m pretty sure PZ was speaking tongue-in-cheek.Though I’m bothered by the misplaced apostrophe. Surely, the toy stores’ pinkwashed aisles are meant for girls.
Roger Hydesays
@Ibis3 Mea culpa if true, but in my defense the tongue-in-cheek-ness doesn’t jump off the page. Also, if you take it as “the aisle for girls” doesn’t that make the apostrophe perfectly well-placed? It’s the girls’ aisle, surely!
Yeah, that happens to me very slightly more than I really deserve.
Robsays
I’m just glad it grows to 3cm long rather than 3m.
rqsays
Haven’t we seen this before?
Still impressive, though – I’m still surprised by the brightness of many colours produced by nature, and their ‘unnatural’ look.
I would think that if you’ve been reading PZ for even a few days, it would be clear he does not think that pink is for girls, but rather, he is making a commentary on how society assigns pink to girls. Although his actual posts specific to that go back a ways. There was the one about the evo-psyche paper that claimed dolls are pink (with photographic evidence that they are in general more beige). Also, the little girl’s video about there not being anything for girls that wasn’t pink in the whole toy store got embedded in a post here.
Nick Gotts (formerly KG)says
Haven’t we seen this before? – rq
We have – and the conclusion of discussion then was that there’s two of the beasties in the picture.
Nick Gotts (formerly KG)says
Oh yes and as ChasCPeterson@5 says, the top one does seem to be a centipede (one pair of legs per segment, not two).
randaysays
Once you annoy it and it squirts its cyanide out, is it then good to eat and is it tasty?
timanthonysays
You could at least tell us how to annoy it. Otherwise what’s the value?
John Moralessays
randay, probably tastes of almonds.
Larssays
and the conclusion of discussion then was that there’s two of the beasties in the picture.
Why, you’re absolutely right. I saw it, but it didn’t register, probably just because the caption didn’t tell me.
Oh vey. Teh Internetz is dumbing me down. :~(
koncordesays
What’s with the abundance of Mormon adverts recently? I can’t see them due to my ad blocker on my computer, so they only become obvious when using another persons computer or tablet. It’s really unseemly.
Usernames are smartsays
@randay (#12), dip it in batter, drop it in hot oil until golden brown, sprinkle with confectioners’ sugar, and enjoy with a glass of hot spiced cider!
Also, if you take it as “the aisle for girls” doesn’t that make the apostrophe perfectly well-placed? It’s the girls’ aisle, surely!
It’s well-placed now. PZ corrected it. So now the pink aisle is for all the girls (just as Godevolutionary biology sexist marketing execs at Toys ‘Я Us intended).
Yeah, I was thinking that given how visible it probably either tastes really bad, is toxic or mimics another animal that’s toxic. Toxic it is, then.
Lovely, if (IMO) creepy image. Question, though: should the “pink is for girls” idea really be any more acceptable than, say, the “science is for boys” one?
@Roger Hyde
I’m pretty sure PZ was speaking tongue-in-cheek.Though I’m bothered by the misplaced apostrophe. Surely, the toy stores’ pinkwashed aisles are meant for girls.
@Ibis3
Mea culpa if true, but in my defense the tongue-in-cheek-ness doesn’t jump off the page. Also, if you take it as “the aisle for girls” doesn’t that make the apostrophe perfectly well-placed? It’s the girls’ aisle, surely!
I think there’s also a centipede in that picture.
Yeah, that happens to me very slightly more than I really deserve.
I’m just glad it grows to 3cm long rather than 3m.
Haven’t we seen this before?
Still impressive, though – I’m still surprised by the brightness of many colours produced by nature, and their ‘unnatural’ look.
I would think that if you’ve been reading PZ for even a few days, it would be clear he does not think that pink is for girls, but rather, he is making a commentary on how society assigns pink to girls. Although his actual posts specific to that go back a ways. There was the one about the evo-psyche paper that claimed dolls are pink (with photographic evidence that they are in general more beige). Also, the little girl’s video about there not being anything for girls that wasn’t pink in the whole toy store got embedded in a post here.
We have – and the conclusion of discussion then was that there’s two of the beasties in the picture.
Oh yes and as ChasCPeterson@5 says, the top one does seem to be a centipede (one pair of legs per segment, not two).
Once you annoy it and it squirts its cyanide out, is it then good to eat and is it tasty?
You could at least tell us how to annoy it. Otherwise what’s the value?
randay, probably tastes of almonds.
Why, you’re absolutely right. I saw it, but it didn’t register, probably just because the caption didn’t tell me.
Oh vey. Teh Internetz is dumbing me down. :~(
What’s with the abundance of Mormon adverts recently? I can’t see them due to my ad blocker on my computer, so they only become obvious when using another persons computer or tablet. It’s really unseemly.
@randay (#12), dip it in batter, drop it in hot oil until golden brown, sprinkle with confectioners’ sugar, and enjoy with a glass of hot spiced cider!
@Roger Hyde
It’s well-placed now. PZ corrected it. So now the pink aisle is for all the girls (just as
Godevolutionary biologysexist marketing execs at Toys ‘Я Us intended).