Skip to main content

tickling your fancy?

i came across this article on the bbc yesterday, which you can read, or i can summarise thusly:

it's about scientists in england tickling animals as research.

ostensibly, they're researching how laughter evolved and while i'm sure that in some cases, laughter is indeed the best medicine, i have a feeling that this will not help them cure cancer any time soon. i'm trying not to be judgmental, because damn, the videos are cute, but it does raise some questions for me.

first of all, i don't need scientists to tell me that animals are ticklish, because i have arthur and the few times i was daft enough to try to brush his belly fur, he demonstrated in no uncertain terms that he was not into it. he used to play this horrible prank of rolling on his back and showing said belly as a temptation to touch him, but it was actually just a horrible trap that resulted in the loss of a few friends. [meaning they stopped visiting, not that he killed them. as far as you know.] it was several years before i mastered the technique of rubbing him with enough force that it didn't tickle and from there, things were much better. so yes, animals can be ticklish and, like a lot of humans whose name starts with kate, they aren't particularly fond of being tickled.

second, i'm not sure where i should stand on this issue with regards to animal research. after all, i'm opposed to animal testing and i try to advocate for alternatives wherever possible. and technically, this research involves little except animal testing. but when i think of the sort of things i oppose, giving hugs and tickles isn't really what i had in mind. i mean, the whole point is to study the evolution of something that indicates happiness. well, laughter can also indicate nervousness, i guess and maybe there's a second study involving placing a rat and a new mate in an enclosure with his previous mate and twelve of their babies where they see if he starts to titter, but i haven't read about that one yet. so i'm not sure if this really meets the definition i had in mind for animal cruelty.

third, i get the feeling that people who went into the sciences are just constantly thumbing their noses at those artsy fops who decided to do things like comparative literature or philosophy degrees, the ones who didn't want to be restricted by the regimens of science. now, all of a sudden, all those guys who were rushing to their labs in university, while we snickered at the fact that we had half the class work that they did are getting back at us by demonstrating that they can come up with jobs that are cooler than we ever dreamed of. "you ended up working in an office? haha, biatch, i tickle animals for a living!"

i'm never going to have a job that cool.

Comments

as long as you're here, why not read more?

losers?

just a short time ago, i waxed prosaic about trump supporters who felt betrayed by their candidate pursuing in office the exact things that he said he would. short version: i have no sympathy.

today is a bit different. in the wake of america's bombing of a syrian air strip, in response to a chemical weapons attack by the syrian government, my facebook and twitter feeds were peppered with plaintive shades of "we believed you". these are the people who heard trump say that he wanted the united states to step back and focus on defending its own. indeed, trump did say such things, over and over; america cannot be the policeman of the world. even arch-liberal cynics like me had to admit that this was a refreshing argument to hear from someone outside the paul family, and, could easily have been turned into trump's greatest argument against hillary clinton. [he chose to go another way, which also worked.]

trump also said, repeatedly, that america needed to invest heavily …

long division

after the united states election last year, there were the usual calls for the country to unite behind the new president. that never happens anymore, because, since george w. bush scored a victory in 2004, having launched the country into a war in iraq for no reason, the people on the losing side of a presidential election have been pretty bloody angry about it. democrats hated bush 43. republicans really hated obama. democrats really hate trump.

it didn't help that trump didn't make the typical conciliatory gestures like including a couple of members of the opposite party in his cabinet, or encouraging his party to proceed slowly with contentious legislation. barack obama arguably wasted at least two and as many as six years of his tenure as president trying to play peacemaker before he felt sufficiently safe to just say "screw you guys" and start governing around the ridiculous congress he was forced to deal with. not-giving-a-shit obama was the best president in …

don't speak

you might think that it sounds dramatic, but linguistic genocide is something that happens. people in power will go to great lengths to eradicate certain languages, not just for the sheer joy of making the world a lesser place, but as a way of beating down the culture that's associated with it. language has a unique reciprocal bond with culture, and every group that has attempted to break down another has recognised that forbidding a cultural group from communicating in their own language is an extremely effective way to tear apart their culture.

there are lots [and lots and lots and lots] of examples of this sort of thing, some successful, some not, but far too many to cover in one blog post. however, i thought it was worth looking at some languages that have been the subjects of active repression, and what the political consequences of that have been.

devastation :: the native north american languages :: it should come as no surprise that the largest genocide in history [by a ma…