this post was submitted on 27 Apr 2025

469 points (99.6% liked)

Science Memes

14497 readers

1287 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.

Rules

Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
Keep it rooted (on topic).
No spam.
Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.

Research Committee

!spiders@lemmy.world

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

Sal@mander.xyz

fossilesque@mander.xyz

SciBot@mander.xyz

fossilesque@lemmy.dbzer0.com

469

Accessibility in Science (europe.pub)

submitted 1 week ago by fossilesque@mander.xyz to c/science_memes@mander.xyz

17 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 17 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] Maroon@lemmy.world 30 points 1 week ago

BuT DoNT u KnOW HoW XPeNSiV it Is To ManuFaCTUrE them?!?

Like removed, please. It's fucking cell culture and chromatography. Everything is automated and straightforward. You didn't discover that Ab, you didn't invent shit... Just profiting off of some PhD student's work.

[–] msage@programming.dev 12 points 1 week ago

Who doesn't hate their clients?

And doesn't feel at least a bit of hate for themselves?

[–] sepi@piefed.social 5 points 1 week ago

nail edit

[–] mEEGal@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago

yeah jeffrey

[–] judgyweevil@feddit.it 3 points 1 week ago

And paywalling papers

[–] RedSnt@feddit.dk 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

The title has been altered a bit for the clip shown in the picture, but the clip ends pretty hilariously imo.

[+] JoMiran@lemmy.ml -12 points 1 week ago (6 children)

To be technically correct, as far as I understand it Epstein was not and did not cater to pedophiles (prepubescent). They catered to Ephebophiles (14-19) and Hebephiles (pubescent, or 11-14).

Men who were adults in the seventies and eighties (boomers for sure) had a strange fascination with teen girls. It's all over film and music of the era. I'm Gen-X and I found it as gross then as I do today. I never got how the culture at large didn't have a huge problem with it.

[–] marte@lemmy.eco.br 42 points 1 week ago (3 children)

I understand not every predatory sexual behavior towards young people is pedophilic, because young people vary in age and maturity.

However, this is such a strange and uncalled "technically correct" reply, why would we care enough to differentiate between hebephile or whatever it is called and pedophile. Nobody cares, it's still predatory and gross behavior no matter the name.

[–] JoMiran@lemmy.ml 15 points 1 week ago

I was trying to focus on how that generation had a fascination with teens while simultaneously yelling "think of the children". Definitely not a defense of their actions.

[–] stray@pawb.social 11 points 1 week ago

I think it matters in terms of psychological health. Internally thinking that an older teenager is attractive is a pretty normal thing that might happen to an allosexual human, whereas the same attraction for a younger teen or child is clear "get in therapy now before something bad happens" territory.

Please note that I have specified internal thoughts and not making gross conversation about how hot young people are and/or approaching them with sexual intentions.

But I agree that this is really not the context to bring up the difference.

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 week ago

However, this is such a strange and uncalled “technically correct” reply

There's always at least one...

[–] stray@pawb.social 23 points 1 week ago

I get what you're saying, but popular usage is what it is at this point, and pointing out the wider range of accurate terminology is just going to get people accusing you of being a pedophile.

[–] floo@retrolemmy.com 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

It has been my experience that those who go out of their way to illustrate this distinction are doing so defensively because they, themselves, don’t want to be “falsely labeled” as a pedophile.

Yet, either way, you’re a kiddie-fucker. No amount of “eeh, technically…” will ever change that.

[–] zea_64@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 week ago

Or they're autistic and felt compelled to pedantically correct something technically false. I'm guilty of doing that too.

[–] InternetCitizen2@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago

4chan is back fyi

[–] Venus_Ziegenfalle@feddit.org 4 points 1 week ago

Men who were adults in the seventies and eighties (boomers for sure) had a strange fascination with teen girls.

That shit never went away I'm afraid. Ephebophilia isn't even a recognized condition like pedophilia because it's considered an adequate response to stimuli.

[–] Midnitte@beehaw.org 4 points 1 week ago

Richard Stallman, is that you?