My taste is amazing and my opinions are beyond reproach.

No, wanting to see the night sky isn't a twee retvrn to ghibli-ass take. It's not a matter of some anprim impulse to dismantle industrial society for ~nature aesthetics~, it's an extremely visible symptom of environmental degradation that gets downplayed because the externality seems trivial to most people: "Oh no, the night sky, what ever will we do without it."

But it actively disrupts light-sensitive circadian rhythms in plants and wildlife, which disrupts foraging patterns, reproductive and hibernation cycles, and contributes to wildlife population declines. It's not the major contributor to those declines, but it's an additional point of stress in an ecosystem already stressed by climate change and other forms of industrial pollution. And so much of it is wholly unnecessary.

I don't think people realize how far-reaching the problem is, either. That light isn't just confined to the places people use. You don't escape it by just taking the bus to the edge of town. That light carries, in some cases for hundreds of kilometers. Death Valley has some of the darkest skies in the US, and yet, the dome of light above Las Vegas is visible on the horizon over 250 km away! Anywhere within 50 km of a major urban center, just about anywhere in the world, never gets darker than a night under a full moon.

And this is very much a recent problem too. Before the switchover to LEDs, it was relatively expensive to light places. That meant actually accounting for the energy use and making sure it was being used where it was needed. That light was also warm-colored, so it didn't travel as far. With the decreased cost of lighting, it became standard to light places like daytime whenever they might be needed. Lighting didn't get safer, it just got more thoughtless.

The reason you see astronomy-types sounding the alarm most loudly is because they're the ones who have been seeing the full effects of light pollution and its encroachment on dark skies. It's a hobby for me too, but it's partly because I am a night owl who grew up in a small town with nothing else to do. I used to be able to clearly see the Milky Way horizon to horizon when I grew up in the mid-00s. The last time I visited about five years ago, I could only see it overhead. The population has fallen by like 10%, but the skies are brighter. I can tell when the college decided to leave the football stadium lights overnight. I can tell where the car dealerships that added overnight display lights are. I can even see when trucks with the fuckass LED light bars are coming over a hill from 5 km away.

Lying to the reader

Lying to themselves

Simply misinformed

Not paying attention

Has weird priorities

Assumed you knew

Hates you personally

Bad at communicating

Easily sidetracked

Will believe anything

Has weird prejudices

This is a pretty major letdown, ngl.

@velvetdemon I'm doing a full reply because I want to give this question the time and space it deserves, and I really do appreciate your curiosity about this.

The short answer: It is deeply unethical. There are nowhere near enough willing patients in the world to be able to do this, and it would be criminal to put them through this.

The long answer: The one side of the equation you're focusing on is: how much of a drug is too much, to the point where it will cause negative side effects or even death? And this is crucial to know. But it's not just a matter of finding out the lethal dosage of a heart cholesterol medication, you need to know that it can actually lower the cholesterol of any living thing. There is no way to know this without giving it first to...a living thing.

But beyond this, I need to emphasize: The goal of a drug trial is to effectively cure people who are already suffering from disease, who are living on limited time.

Drug trials don't just happen on any member of the public, they need to happen specifically on people affected by the disease you're trying to treat. There is at any time a very limited and very marginalized population of the world affected by early onset, familial Parkinson's disease. Because you cannot ethically induce disease in a human being, you are working with, speaking with, and helping patients and their families who are hopeful and desperate for a cure.

If you were to jump straight to human trials from petri dishes, not knowing absolutely anything about how the drug functions in a living, breathing animal body, it would look like this:

We didn't know that minute quantities of the drug interact lethally with x, y, z medication that people are commonly also taking. X number of patients have died as a result.

We didn't know that the drug is fatal to people with [common variant] in their genetics. X more patients have died.

We didn't know the drug exacerbates x, y, z chronic illnesses. X number of people have acquired permanent, lifelong disabilities.

We didn't know the best way to deliver the drug, so we tried multiple ways: the people who received it intravenously are now suffering from a painful, costly, and debilitating condition that did not happen with the ingested form.

I could go on, and on, and on.

The vast majority of these problems can be nearly or almost entirely averted by testing other animals first.

These are all people who possibly could have waited for the normal progression from animal testing to human testing and thus received better outcomes. Some people will pass away in the time it takes to get to that point, and that's heartbreaking, and we all wish science could be faster.

animal research is not the mad scientist wild west that PETA wants you to think it is. there are extremely strict federal laws in place to protect the well being of these animals. animal welfare organizations like AAALAC ensure that lab animals are treated with dignity & respect and are given enough specialized care & enrichment to be happy and content in captivity, just like AZA accreditation with zoos.

not a single animal from a zebrafish to a mouse to a dog to a macaque goes unaccounted for. if an animal gets moved to a new cage, paired for breeding, has a procedure performed on it, gives birth, gets sick or injured, dies, etc. it is legally required that this information is recorded and kept on file for the US federal government to access. failing to record & retain this information is very much punishable by US federal law.

let me tell you - if you abuse or kill an animal, even a mouse - you are almost certainly getting both fired & blacklisted from the industry. if you abuse or kill a more ‘advanced’ animal, such as a dog or monkey, you will likely face criminal charges. killing a monkey is as serious and disastrous as a nuclear meltdown. you are expected to reasonably explain every illness, injury, or death of an animal under your care. you must record all of this information. animals that are clearly suffering with low QOL are required to be euthanized according to AVMA guidelines.

research animals are highly expensive. yes, even the "lesser" animals like mice. the cheapest mice will run you a few hundred $ per individual, with some of the most expensive mice i've cared for being $25,000 per individual. in research we have the "three Rs" - reduction (reduce amount of necessary animals to a minimum), refinement (refine processes to ensure research is accurate and animals feel no pain or distress), and replacement (replace animals with non-living research models as they become available). i can assure you no proper research team is wasting animals (*do not* say "b-b-but elon musk--" his research team is actively being investigated for animal abuse by the government).

research methods that do not require live animals are currently being looked into & efforts spearheaded by - you guessed it - the animal research industry itself (notice how the animal rights people are strangely silent & unhelpful when it comes to this?) but current technology is rudimentary and does not compare to live animal models.

some research animal fun facts (US edition):

all species of animals are only allowed to have one single major surgery performed on them in their entire lifetime.

institutions with nonhuman primates must have a behavior program in place (run by knowledgeable primate specialists) to ensure that they are happy and receiving enough daily enrichment and social interaction.

institutions with dogs are required to have physical exercise programs in place. this means every individual dog gets a substantial amount of leashed AND free-roaming exercise daily, including playgroups with other dogs.

a majority of nonhuman primates get to retire to sanctuaries like peaceable primate sanctuary, and almost all dogs get retired and adopted out by organizations like homes for animal heroes. some institutions will also adopt out unneeded young rabbits, guinea pigs, rats, etc.

some strains of mice glow neon green (or orange or blue) under UV light. this is not harmful to them and is commonly seen in cancer research.

But in most of the films the droids being slaves is just a piece of the setting that the film never really highlights as wrong or immoral.

For the same reason if you make a fun cool action hero film about a Knight you cannot suddenly remind everyone that he has a bunch of serfs that hate him and want to have rights without doing some significant damage to the audience support for the character.

The droids being a slave class is built deeply into the setting, and all the main characters are involved in supporting this system. And that’s largely fine until the moment you bring that up.

that is to say, the stereotyping of trans women as predators makes it harder for survivors to come forward. a number of them discuss wanting their abuser to be understood as an individual who harmed them, not as a representative of their entire demographic

*look inside*

-allowed cis men to submit

-transmasc abuse victims not allowed to talk about non transfem abusers

-used fake anti trans suicide statistics invented by nazis

-no longer allows trans men to talk at all

"Scam" you mean people are fighting back against housing discrimination??? I don't think these people know what the word scam means

Scams are designed to trick someone into giving up money based on lies. This is just.. asking for information then legally enforcing the law??

A Section 8 tenant is filing dozens of $100,000 lawsuits. Is it a discrimination fight or a shakedown? - Los Angeles Times

Jack Flemming

10–13 minutes

A gaggle of scorned landlords and real estate agents across L.A. have a message: If Alexys Watson messages you on Zillow asking if you accept Section 8 vouchers, choose your next words very, very carefully.

Over the last eight months, dozens of landlords and real estate agents have responded to Watson’s inquiries — and dozens have been sued for at least $100,000. The lawsuits allege discrimination for refusing a Section 8 applicant, regardless of whether they actually declined her application.

“I have to ask the owners and get back to you,” one agent wrote. $100,000 lawsuit.

“The house might be too old to meet the requirements,” another wrote. $100,000 lawsuit.

A review of hundreds of lawsuit exhibits show: One landlord accepted her application, but never got the house inspected by the city to qualify it for Section 8 tenancy. At least nine others never even put a decline into writing; the only exhibits in the lawsuits filed against them are screenshots of call logs (sans audio) and texts from Watson to each one claiming that they declined her over the phone.

Each time, a lawsuit.

More than 40 of them filed since summer.

Watson declined to speak for this article. Her lawyer, Alexander Robinson, claims the lawsuits are a result of rampant discrimination against a single mother genuinely looking to find housing for her and her children, but being turned away because she’s a Section 8 recipient.

Defendants claim they are being shaken down. Instead of risking a trial and the costs it would bring (a small fortune in legal fees and at least $100,000 in damages if they lose), many are choosing to settle, paying tens of thousands of dollars to avoid a legal battle.

Robinson disagrees. He said the law is being broken, and the lawsuits are a response.

“The law makes it illegal to make a discriminatory statement,” he said. “She’s not asking for discrimination. But when she finds it, should she ignore it? Should she allow that activity to continue?”

He said Watson reached out to him after a no-fault eviction, which threw her into housing instability and kicked off her current housing search. He declined to provide any information on settlement amounts — or his contingency fees — but according to multiple defendants and attorneys familiar with the payouts, they start around $5,000 and range north of $35,000.

Most of Watson’s lawsuits name multiple defendants — not only the agents or landlords with whom Watson interacted, but also the homeowners themselves and the owners of the real estate brokerages. One defendant, who spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of further lawsuits, said Robinson demanded individual settlements from so many people in one case that the total settlement demand neared $100,000. The defendant is still deciding whether to pay or fight.

Robinson said in these situations, state law extends liability to brokerages and homeowners, not just the front-line agent interacting with the tenant. He disputed the claim that naming multiple defendants is an arbitrary tactic to inflate settlement demands and said framing it as a punitive cash grab undermines the discrimination protections that California has created.

The string of suits is stirring up a larger conversation on what does and doesn’t qualify as discrimination in Southern California’s dog-eat-dog housing market, where sky-high housing costs push both tenants and landlords to extremes.

Watson’s lawsuits all center on the Fair Employment and Housing Act, a state law that prohibits landlords from discriminating against potential tenants based on things like race, gender, ancestry, citizenship, etc. In 2020, California added source of income to the list, meaning landlords can’t turn away a tenant if they’re planning to pay rent using a Section 8 voucher.

These cases are testing the limits of the law: Does typing a Zillow message saying you don’t accept Section 8 make you liable? Does failing to order a government inspection of your property once a Section 8 tenant applies violate the law? Is misunderstanding Section 8 rules grounds for a lawsuit?

Defendants are questioning whether the punishment fits the claim. In the wake of last year’s devastating fires, landlords who price-gouged their listings to take advantage of fire victims mostly received mere warning letters; in this case, landlords and real estate agents are paying $30,000 settlements or more for sending a message on Zillow.

The Section 8 program is one of the country and state’s most powerful tools for fighting homelessness. Launched in 1974, it subsidizes rent for more than 2.3 million people nationwide, including more than 600,000 in California and 78,000 in L.A. Voucher holders typically pay around 30% of their adjusted income, and government agencies cover the rest of the rent.

Vouchers are extremely valuable, and the waiting list to get them is years-long. You can typically keep them for as long as you meet eligibility guidelines — Watson has had hers for 17 years, according to her lawsuits. They can also move with the tenant; when a lease ends, recipients generally have 180 days to secure a new place or else their voucher goes back into the lottery, though extensions are often granted.

The suits all follow the same format: Watson applies to a rental listing on Zillow, and for a variety of reasons, her application is rejected. The vast majority are based on brief exchanges on the Zillow app or over text.

Several lawsuits reviewed by The Times included specific language refusing her Section 8 voucher, including one filed after Watson attempted to rent a four-bedroom house in West Hills listed at $5,200:

Watson: Just wanted to confirm the owner is open to section 8 applicants?

Defendant: Sorry no not at this time.

Watson: thank you

Other cases are more ambiguous over the home’s Section 8 eligibility, including one filed after Watson tried to rent a commercial property listed as a “creative office space” in Mid-Wilshire for $4,700:

Watson: I’m interested in your property. Are you open to section 8 voucher holders?

Defendant: Good afternoon — this property has not been inspected/approved for Section 8.

In Yolanda Bowman’s case, she got an inquiry from Watson about a four-bedroom home in Carson. Bowman invited her to an open house in November, and she toured the property.

According to Bowman, a real estate agent, she talked with Watson over the phone on Nov. 19 and told her about a credit screening fee she’d have to pay to advance her application. She sent her a follow-up letter two days later with instructions on how to submit the payment.

Bowman said Watson never paid the fee.

In exhibits filed in her lawsuit, Watson accused Bowman of ignoring her application, with Bowman responding that “the owner of the property has decided not to accept Sec 8 and has leased the property to a private entity.”

Bowman said the stalled application was entirely due to the unpaid screening fee, not any Section 8 discrimination. But her choice of words led to a lawsuit.

“It’s the furthest thing from discrimination,” Bowman said, adding that the homeowner she was working with currently has a Section 8 tenant in another property she owns. “It was my mistake for even mentioning [Section 8], but the milk’s out of the carton now. If I hadn’t responded at all, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.”

Jeremy Alberts, an attorney familiar with Section 8 discrimination cases, said that if you don’t respond to Watson’s messages, there’s no good-faith basis for a lawsuit. But multiple defendants interviewed by The Times insisted that not responding at all feels more discriminatory than responding in good faith.

One defendant, who requested anonymity due to a confidentiality clause tied to a settlement agreement they signed, said, “I don’t think [Watson] is genuinely looking for a place to live. I think she’s phishing for people to reject her application for any number of reasons so she can sue them.”

A 2025 report from the California Civil Rights Department conducted a source-of-income discrimination test and found that 54% of households across L.A. County and Ventura County demonstrated Section 8 discrimination.

Robinson, Watson’s attorney, declined to provide any information on Watson’s current living situation but said she’s relying on temporary arrangements and earnestly trying to find a house for her and her family.

“We’re in the middle of a housing epidemic, and this law was passed by the Legislature to say that this needs to be addressed,” he said. “Ms. Watson is an example of all the various challenges that come with trying to live in L.A.”

Aaron Carr, executive director of Housing Rights Initiative, a nonprofit watchdog group, said people like Watson are providing a valuable service to society by exposing California’s discrimination problem.

“Being a voucher holder is a soul-crushing exercise in rejection, humiliation and human suffering,” he said. “If you don’t want people coming after you for breaking the law, stop breaking the law.”

Carr said discrimination is particularly rampant in L.A. due to two factors: lack of housing and lack of enforcement. And if California won’t commit funding to enforcing its laws, tenants will take things into their own hands.

“It’s not the most elegant thing, but ideally, it’ll make companies aware of these rules so next time a voucher holder applies, they’ll be willing to rent to them,” he said. “And it will be life-changing for the tenant.”

Watson isn’t the first person to test these cases. Another voucher holder, Mia Camillah, filed a similar string of lawsuits in 2024 and 2025. Michelle Uzeta, executive director of the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, filed a discrimination lawsuit on behalf of a Section 8 tenant in 2022. The Times chronicled the tenant’s search, which was resolved only after Uzeta intervened pro bono.

“I’d like to believe everyone who discriminates does so without understanding, but that’s not the reality we’re in,” Uzeta said. “There’s so much stigma around Section 8, but we’re not talking about people on drugs or people who can’t work. We’re talking about students, families and working people that need extra support.”

Multiple defendants questioned whether Watson still qualifies for Section 8 eligibility after receiving so many payouts from settlements. But Robinson said settlement recoveries aren’t treated as ongoing income and don’t alter the underlying housing circumstances. He said Watson’s funds are being managed conservatively for long-term stability.