That'd work until you happen to get a reptile enthusiast on the show that can recognize the species, at which point you just have a show of a guy completely missing the point whilst nerding out over snakes.
Microblog Memes
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
I would watch that show. π
Not a reptile enthusiast, but knowledgeable enough to know a few things about them.
A well fed snake, hell most snakes (not all, some constrictors you don't want to fuck with) won't see a human as food, and won't attack unless provoked. Don't sneak up on a snake, don't step on a snake, don't harass a snake and it won't give 2 fucks about your presence.
A venomous snake usually (there's always an exception) has a "neck", if you can see where it's head ends and it's body begins it's more likely venomous than it's danger noodle looking counterpart.
There are a lot of exceptions. Most of them, as it happens.
Vipers have that "neck" and a wider head than their bodies. Elapids typically don't, and can be extremely venomous. In fact, the most deadly venomous snakes in the world are elapids including cobras, taipans, and black mambas.
Tl;dr: Rarely wise to step on snek.
it's not only unwise to step on snakes, it's also rude. which is worse
Count me in!
I understand the problem people have with men and more specifically toxic masculinity, but this gender wars bullshit only serves to further separate people. What's the purpose of saying "men are rapists" or "men are violent"? It's fine in the context of venting/talking with people facing similar problems, but because it entirely misses the sociological causes, it can cause people come to incorrect conclusions like "kill all men" or "all men are inherently bad because..." which essentialises their gender.
Men aren't inherently bad. It's patriarchy and toxic masculinity that you should be upset at - two sides of the same coin, really.
This gender war identity politics shit is just key jingling to distract the masses from the fact that the new robber barons are simultaneously fleecing everyone's retirement and inserting a knife into our collective kidneys.
Glad to see a lot of comments just ain't falling for it.
Didn't we learn as children that stereotypes are bad and hurtful? Like why is this one an acceptable thing to lump all men together under the same group? The rhetoric rarely makes a distinction. It lazily doors not differentiate the different problem groups within that and stops at blanket statements that cover more people who aren't the issues than are.
When you treat an entire gender as the enemy, stop being surprised when the young men are increasingly not acting like allies.
The power of rhetoric being forgotten is probably my chief criticism of the βpurity testβ wing of the left. Perfect being enemy of the good is very lost on people who seem not to want to acknowledge that even things they donβt like might have nuance.
Guess we should fear all snakes then! Or all sharks! That hasn't lead to extreme fear based reactions where entire populations suffered because of fear due to a portion of the population being potentially dangerous.
The point about not knowing which one might be dangerous is a good point, but example is terrible. Use unsafe mechanical equipment or something instead.
Dudes will queue to use unsafe mechanical equipment, while telling you "hold my beer".
Here's everyone's daily reminder that, in the US at least, 40% of rapists are women, and fully half of rape victims are men.
Reminds me of when Donald Trump Jr. compared Syrian refugees to a bowl of M&Ms with some of them poisoned. Same argument, same mindset.
So we're fixing the division along gender lines by becoming... more divided?
Feels like the insinuation here is that, as a woman, it's acceptable to base your personality on men as long as you believe all men base their personalities on hating women.
Maybe just accept that humans are complicated and nuanced and you can't judge an entire gender based on the actions of the worst members of that gender.
I'm going to ignore the most heinous aspects of this and just say, I'd love to be introduced to a variety of venomous and non-venomous snakes and would likely find it to be a pretty cool experience. Snakes are neat and the venomous ones are often beautiful and fascinating.
That's snakist.
It's pretty easy to tell the difference between venomous and non-venomous snakes.
It's a trap fellas! Playing with snakes is gay so you get boned whichever way you answer.
How to differentiate between snakes easily: https://reptilestime.com/venomous-vs-non-venomous-snakes/
That said, snakes tend to avoid being visible, as they could become someone's lunch, so YMMV.
You can also tell if a bite is venomous by the marks (usually venomous snakes have fangs, non-venomous have teeth).
This entire article is an irresponsibility stupid thing to put on the internet. It lacks the asterisk of "in North America" at the top because all it contains a is a list of halfassed ways to determine if you're looking at a viper or not, and for the most part rattlesnakes (which are pretty damn distinctive to begin with). True, many venomous snakes in North America are indeed vipers including copperheads, our several aforementioned varieties of rattlesnakes, and cottonmouths.
But the most deadly of the snakes found in and around North America and indeed the rest of the world are not vipers; they're elapids or colubrids, which display few or none of these alleged telltales.
For instance, here is a coral snake which is an elapid and one of the few snakes you'll encounter in the continental US that can absolutely kill you stone dead with its neurotoxic venom.
Take note of the:
- Lack of triangular head
- Round pupils
- Fangs not visible
- No rattle
- Banded pattern
- Fairly blunt tail
...And it also has at least two very similar lookalikes which are not dangerous to humans, namely the milk snake and the kingsnake. So, are you absolutely sure which one you're looking at before you touch it? A better idea is, don't touch it.
And outside of North America this is even worse advice because the rest of the world is absolutely rotten with deadly non-viperid snakes.
Flip it around.
Dating show where the men have a one in six chance of being hooked up with a psychotic.
Now watch the guys who'd line up for a chance to be on the show.
I think the point is that people who say (shout) "Not All Men" are usually frustratingly insensitive and the thought of throwing them into a snake pit is fun. We know it's not all men, we aren't stupid, but we also know that even 1% would be one percent too many to feel safe alone with a stranger (and, unfortunately, statistics suggest harassment is certainly more than 1%!).
Well, most people aren't that stupid. There's a few who are, but I don't think they'd be posting here, lol.
That said, reading the comments, I get why some are offended even though being male is the privileged class in this comparison (after all, I don't feel afraid to walk home at 1am). Men are fucked by the patriarchy, told to repress their emotions, degrade people who break from masculinity, and so forth. But instead of saying "you're being sexist against men," please try to think of the systemic problems that led to that X% of assholes who make it unsafe for a woman (or POC, LGBTQ, etc) to walk alone on a street in America.
Divide ans conquer