Cropping and docking are going away. Which side of history will your breed be on?
Some years ago a fellow came to my office and insisted that he needed to dock the tail of his dog. I asked, "How will your dog be better when it doesn't have a tail?" He replied, "Well, that's the standard of gundog owners associations around the world." I said, "Who cares?" (Alan Ashton, veterinarian, New South Wales, Hansard, April 06, 2004) I have a sixteen-year-old daughter who is just about...

A good discussion post. While I may disagree with some of the opinion in here, this lays out the science in a very good way.

I will reiterate that I am neither for not against cropping/docking. My dog is cropped and docked (and his dewclaws were removed), he has no decreased quality of life from the procedures but I will not fool myself into thinking that the surgeries were not painful when he experienced them. I do not see it as abuse but do see it as unnecessary.

There is a reason many of the breeders on my list are breeders who allow buyers to buy a 100% natural dog. However, in this breed, that is still unheard of in the majority of breeders nowadays and these people number less than 10. Last year they numbered less than 5. Perhaps by the time I’m looking to purchase another doberman, their numbers will have doubled once more.

You can call a random Swedish person and talk to them about their country. Just for fun. If you’re into that kind of thing.

Swedish Tourist Association CEO Magnus Ling says, “In troubled times, many countries try and limit communication between people, but we want to do just the opposite.”

We are making Sweden the first country in the world with its own phone number and giving our fellow Swedes the opportunity to answer the calls, express themselves, and share their views, whatever they might be.”

To be connected to a random Swede, call +46 771 793 336. That’s +46 771 SWEDEN. Awwwww.

Source   Source 2

Animation: Environment Rendering

So say you have an animated show. Spend all that time and energy rendering these awesome characters. Boy they sure look great. Hyper bright and colorful. But what’s this? They don’t seem to fit against the background well. They kind of get lost in the shuffle of colors.

Now if this were a still image this might be okay, but remember things are moving. You do not have time to absorb every detail in a shot before we’re on to the next shot. So the environment has to work with the characters. It’s not the focus, the characters are.

Some shows solve this problem by having a very painterly background. As with Lilo and Stitch (and many other Disney films)

The background contrasts with the characters by being fully rendered with soft lights. There’s no line work. no black even (but characters can have solid black). So the flatly colored characters pop against the rendered background.

Unfortunately this method can be rather pricey as it takes a lot of time to render out backgrounds to this level. TV typically doesn’t have the budget a film has.

Some shows will keep the background very abstract, lacking dark lines still. But there’s far less contrast than on the main characters.

Here’s My Life as a Teenage Robot for example

These characters have colored lines or solid shapes (like the bg), but they’re generally darker than the bg. And the background has large areas of negative space for the characters to stand against. They’re almost always the most detailed thing in the shot.

Sometimes the background has just as strong a contrast as the characters (because it’s night, or spooky, or you’re just into colors like that).

So you keep the background abstract and full of strong shapes still. But maybe you make sure the lines on the characters are bold enough to stand out no matter how much dark might be in a scene. Toss some accent lighting on there too to keep it colorful and make sure big black shapes don’t melt into the background.

Or make the character the only thing of that particular color, and the bgs generally a complimentary, split-compliment or just rarely analogous color. 

Maybe they’re also generally the brightest, most saturated thing in the room too.

The original Ben 10 had a nifty trick. They wanted to keep the bg and character designs consistent to each other (with the exception of occasional, sparingly used, gradients). What do they do to keep the characters the focus of your eye always?

Put some perlin noise back there. It muddles the bgs just enough that your eye will go right to the characters. Handy trick that can keep costs low (the style is easily reproducible).

So that’s some subtle texture. But what if the bg is straight up textures?

We’re back to shape rules now, but now the bg is the most complex thing and the characters are the simplest.

What do all these shows have in common? That contrast. Something to make a character pop out. The ratio of more/less detailed, more/less saturated, darker/brighter always has to skew more one way or the other to make your characters stand out. Different scenes will have different solutions to this problem, but you can count on some style consistencies so it never looks like you suddenly jumped to a different show.

Something to keep in mind for you folks working on comics, animated projects, or “cartoon” styled illustrations. Next time you’re indulging nostalgia or enjoying your favorite animated fare, take note of how they solve issues like this. You can learn a lot and might find it applicable to your own work.


Whether you agree with Suey Park or not, the way this interview was handled was abominable and disgusting. This was set up from the very beginning to make her opinion look “stupid." 

I have to agree - using racist jokes, even in the name of so-called "satire” will not do anything to actually end racism. it just gives white people an excuse to laugh at POC’s expense, and feel like they’re not being assholes for it. look at chapelle’s show. People may say that Suey is overreacting, but honestly, as she points out, sometimes you HAVE to overreact because it’s the only way to be heard. In America especially, (white) people are terrified of making black jokes, but Asian jokes are still free reign. Do you think Colbert’s team would have written a similar joke about black people? Or even Latinos? Casual racism against Asians is still considered OK, and it’s NOT OK, and we can debate what “satire” is all we want, but we shouldn’t debate an Asian’s woman’s right to be angry or simply fed up after a lifetime of having to deal with this bullshit. White liberals are the worst.

Like the quote says, white people really think that racism is “a feeling,” they REALLY don’t get it is a system that we all play a part in whether we want to or not. Ambushing Suey like this was not productive, it was not a teachable moment. All they wanted to do was make her look like an unreasonable Angry Asian woman, pitting her against two white men who were completely unequipped intellectually to handle the conversation in a useful way. “As a white man, I have no right to share my opinion…” How fucking patronizing.

White men are so fucking butthurt when they are called out for being white men, when the fact that they benefit from living in a patriarchal, white-run society is acknowledged. How dare she call them out, right? How dare she point out that they could never even begin to understand where she comes from because they’ve never fucking had to? This makes my blood boil. When I first saw the joke in question, guess what? I didn’t find it offensive. I couldn’t wrap my head around what was so wrong. Like others, I thought to myself, “but it’s ~satire~~~ right?”

But guess what? I am not an Asian woman.

The experience of an Asian woman is beyond my realm of understanding. So what did I do? I read, and I learned, and I unlearned the racist and anti-Asian thinking that we are all susceptible to, whites and POC alike, when we live in a racist society. I may not understand fully, but if there’s one thing I’m not going to do, I’m not going to ridicule or diminish anyone’s right to feel angry, to turn that anger into a joke. I have some Asian-American friends who have rolled their eyes and called this ridiculous.

I also can’t judge them for not finding the tweet offensive, for agreeing with their white liberal friends that it was “satire.” But there is a larger discussion to be had about anti-Asian attitudes that people are going out of their way to step over in order to intellectually belittle Suey Park and I am NOT HERE FOR IT. 

- Z

Pro-life Master Post

I don’t know about you, but I’m tired of repeating myself when it comes to debates about abortion. I’ve created this master post to provide links that refute the most common pro-choice arguments.

But the fetus isn’t even a life. It’s a clump of cells. It doesn’t matter.

3 reasons why a fetus is a human being

Straight from the embryology textbook:

A zygote [fertilized egg] is the beginning of a new human being. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete … unites with a female gamete or oocyte … to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.

Even more proof that life begins at fertilization

What is the unborn?

Okay, it’s a human, but it’s not a person.

The shockingly bloody history of legal personhood

From Personhood:

A criterion for personhood that depends on certain functions of human activity implies that individuals who perform the chosen function more excellently should have higher human value. Individuals suffering from severe Alzheimer’s disease or under general anesthesia, who may not be self-aware or able to create future expectations, could no longer be considered persons. We know, however, that the human under general anesthesia retains his personal identity despite his temporary lack of self-awareness, so his personhood must cohere in his underlying nature. Legally speaking, “persons” are guaranteed the fundamental rights of individuals, including the right to life. Historically, abuses of personhood have led to the genocide of groups deemed “non-persons” by more powerful political or social groups. For example, up until the 14th Amendment, African-American slaves were legally considered three-fifths of a person. Native Americans were exploited because they were treated as less than full persons. The racial distinctions used to label these groups as “non-persons” were conveniently invented to justify the violation of human rights.

Justifications for abortion are inherently ableist

What makes human valuable?

But it’s basically just a parasite!

Why the embryo or fetus is not a parasite

You’re just against it because you’re (religious, Republican, conservative, etc.), but I’m not (religious, Republican, conservative, etc.).

Secular Pro-life

Life Matters Journal

Feminists for Life

Pro-life OBGYNs

Pro-life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians

Democrats for Life

Pro-life Humanists

New Wave Feminists

Pro-life Pagans

Pro-life Socialists

Why should non-Christians care about abortion?

But if you make abortion illegal, women will die! Haven’t you heard of back alley abortions?

The truth about back alley abortions

More about the coat hanger myth

Refuting the back alley myth

But what about cases of rape or incest?

Rape and incest victims reject abortion

Hard cases, exceptional choices

An honest look at the rape and incest exceptions

A pro-life answer to the rape question

Answering the rape exception

Inside the world of anti-abortion activists who were conceived in rape or incest

While on the topic, the pro-life community must rally in support of the Rape Survivor Child Custody Act

What if the woman is going to die?

Is abortion ever necessary to save the life of the mother?

What about the health of the mother?

What if the child is going to have a short life anyways?

Hard cases: Jeannie Wallace French

Hard cases: Tracy Haugen

Hard cases: Diane Simoni

Hard cases: Angelica Talavera

Abortion is needed to prevent overpopulation.

Simply stated: no. It’s not.

Women don’t regret their abortions!

Silent No More awareness campaign

Testimonies from post-abortive women

Abortion Recovery

Abortion workers regret their experience in the industry

Well, if you’re against abortion, why aren’t you against [insert other human rights injustice]?

We are against all forms of aggressive violence. That includes, but is not limited to: unjust war, abortion, euthanasia, slavery, torture, rape, embryonic stem cell research, human trafficking, abuse, sexism, racism, police brutality, suicide, etc.

Check out organizations like Life Matters Journal (read the most recent issue here!)and Consistent Life to find out more about this consistent approach to human rights issues.

That being said, not every pro-life organization is against all of the above. Dismissing their arguments against abortion because they happen to not be against some other form of injustice is an ad hominem fallacy.

Why ad hominem fallacies derail conversations

If you’re gonna be against abortion, you better be doing [insert some charitable action].

This is similar to the previous argument. Dismissing someone’s argument because you feel that they aren’t “doing enough” is another ad hominem fallacy. 

That being said, pro-life organizations do a whole lot to support those in need:

Catholic Charities USA (which is obviously against abortion) is #13 on the Forbes list of the 50 largest US charities.

Pregnant on Campus supports pregnant or parenting students and provides them with resources.

Abortion Recovery helps men and women who have been affected by abortion.

Project Rachel also helps post-abortive women.

Option Line provides free counseling for pregnant women.

Pregnancy resource centers provide free ultrasounds, pregnancy tests, STI screening, parenting classes, and material assistance.

Pro-life organizations also assist in the adoption process.

You can’t be a feminist if you’re pro-life! Being pro-life is anti-woman.

That’s a straw man argument. Straw men make for poor arguments.

Besides, try to tell that to our feminist foremothers who were anti-abortion.

And finally, the most popular pro-choice argument:

My body, my choice!

Why “It’s my body, I can do what I want!” won’t do

De Facto Guardian and Abortion

Why pregnancy is not comparable to forced organ donation

Again, you can’t compare pregnancy and forced organ donation

Dismantling the “bodily rights” argument without using the responsibility argument

From secularprolifeprofamily:

When you realize why the political pro-life/pro-choice divide truly exists, the whole “bodily autonomy” argument falls apart.At its core, it’s not merely about protecting fetuses or not. It’s about whether abortion should be a legally sanctioned medical procedure.And the right to bodily autonomy doesn’t guarantee any sort of medical procedure no matter what.In most jurisdictions, no practitioner will legally give breast implants to an underage girl. Surgeons refuse to amputate the limbs of BIID sufferers. Are those infringements upon bodily autonomy? Of course not. Nobody is fundamentally entitled to procedures that may be irresponsible or unethical.

The False Strength of the ‘Bodily Autonomy’ Argument for Abortion

Fantastic Beasts discussion: Was Ariana Dumbledore an obscurus?

While still unconfirmed, Ariana Dumbledore was potentially an Obscurial too, as the description of her “illness” given by her brother Aberforth fit the description of an Obscurial; “It destroyed her, what they did: she was never right again. She wouldn’t use magic, but she couldn’t get rid of it; it turned her inward and drove her mad, it exploded out of her when she couldn’t control it, and at times she was strange and dangerous. But mostly she was sweet and scared and harmless”. Furthermore, if she was indeed an Obscurial, her interactions with a young Grindelwald, could also explain why the Dark Wizard was later so interested by the power of Obscurus. Ariana also lived longer than the average Obscurial, having died at the age of 14, whereas most Obscurials, with the exception of Credence Barebone, didn’t live past age 10. If Ariana was an Obscurial, then this was a fact kept hidden by the Dumbledores, since it was widely believed no Obscurial had existed for at least two hundred years, even thirty years after her death.

Yes, Furiosa exists in a lineage (see above), and, yes, plenty of other action films have featured female leads. But what’s notable here is how Furiosa being a woman both is and isn’t integral to her character. (In the same way that her missing arm both is and isn’t integral to her character.) In Alien, the character of Ripley was written as a man, then cast as a woman, which was a breakthrough at the time — but also a kind of cinematic drag act. Why can’t a woman play a man’s role? Well, sure — but the better question, only now being asked, is, Why can’t a woman’s role take the place of the man’s role? Furiosa could never be played by a man — the character would make no sense — and not, as with many other female action heroes, because of the kind of costume she wears. She is not simply Indiana Jones in hot pants or Lolita with armor-piercing rounds. Furiosa is a woman, and she is a hero, and she’s cool as hell, and she’s simultaneously recognizable and revelatory as all three. If you’re an action fan and you can’t admit that you’d eagerly watch ten more Furiosa films in the next ten years, then I’d have to ask again if you’re an action fan.

The unquestioned Black classics in cinema:

Boyz N Da Hood
Menace II Society
Poetic Justice
Do The Right Thing
Love & Basketball
How High
How Stella Got Her Groove Back
Coming To America
The Wiz
Players Club
Don’t Be A Menace To South Central While Drinking Your Juice In the Hood
Set It Off
Cooley High
Lean On Me
What’s Love Got To Do With It
Class Act
Lady Sings The Blues
Soul Food
Waiting To Exhale

The underrated but actually better than all the previously mentioned Black classics in cinema:

Love Jones
School Daze
Brown Sugar
South Central
Why Did I Get Married
Eve’s Bayou
The Inkwell
Higher Learning
Jason’s Lyric
The Wood
The Five Heartbeats
Above The Rim
House Party 3
Dead Presidents
Sugar Hill
In Too Deep
Sunset Park
Akeelah & The Bee
New Jersey Drive
He Got Game
Thin Line Between Love And Hate
American Gangster
Django Unchained

The hilariously overrated Black classics in cinema:

Best Man
You Got Stomped On The Drumline
Vampire In Brooklyn
Bad Boys
Tales From the Hood
Pootie Tang
The Barbershop
Hollywood Shuffle
Get Rich Or Die Tryin
Hustle & Flow
Training Day

Feel free to categorize and add any I missed…

…and I’m blocking anybody that mentions Big Mama’s House and/or Soul Plane

It was easier than I thought to get back into the groove of things… Chemistry vocab and diagrams of the noggin…

Question for you (in relation to an English project): how do you think time and memory impact us as individuals and what does our viewpoints on time suggest about humanity in general?

So far I think that time is only an idea and our forced perception of being able to control/manage time shows a fear of the unknown; a fear of what could happen, of being forgotten, and forgetting ourselves and our memories, the essence of who we are.
I’d love to hear your ideas or any quotes/thoughts related to the topic, it would be super helpful!



Jane Elliot speaking truth on the Oprah Winfrey Show

She tells the truth racism, sexism, homophobia exists due to the fact that people cannot think outside the box and that scares the shit out of people. #Hate it!



do me a favor and 1) enjoy the video 2) reblog this post? it means a lot to meeeee <3


How Did Book 3 CHANGE Korra? - A Thought Comic

You can comment via this link:

(If you have an argument to make against anything I say in this comic, you should probably check out the comments. I’ve probably already responded to and provided a counterargument against one like it).

psa: on distinguishing fan entitlement

fan entitlement is:

- sending abuse to creators;

- sending abuse to other fans;

- abusing anyone who disagrees with your interpretation of the story;

- actively seeking out people who disagree with your interpretation specifically to abuse them;

- demanding creators maintain a 100% perfect public persona (by your definition) and savaging them the second they slip up, regardless of context or history;

- behaving as though creators, actors and anyone else involved in the production of a narrative owe you, specifically, their time and attention, just because you’ve paid for it/read it/watched it.

fan entitlement is not:

- being critical of creative decisions;

- being critical of fandom;

- sharing your own interpretation of the story;

- debating with others about various theories and interpretations of the story;

- holding creators accountable for their content and public behaviour;

- advocating for fan theories, diverse narratives, headcanons and the discussion of toxic tropes, or engaging in any other form of criticism.


If it seems like a lot of these points are similar, it’s because they are, and by the same token, I’m not going to pretend that there’s never a YMMV element to determining which thing is actually happening. The key distinction, rather, is one of conduct: the difference between talking about and talking to

For instance: there are some ships I think of as not only gross, but representative in their popularity of wider social and cultural issues both within fandom and more generally. Discussing those problems and those ships in particular, in my own space, on my own initiative, or by joining an existing conversation? That is talking about, the backbone of meta and criticism. But leaving hate on every fic that features those ships or sending abusive messages to the people who write them? That is talking to, and if you’re addressing someone directly, on a personal level, the golden rule is this: Don’t Be A Dick.  

Note, please, that the golden rule also extends to addressing creators, and that there is an actual salient difference between criticism and abuse. Criticism is a response to something a person has done: a comment directly addressing their works or actions. Abuse is simply attacking them, and while I’m not going to pretend a creator’s actions are never directly responsible for eliciting fan pushback, I guarantee you that the issue itself, whatever it might be, is pretty much never served by responding with abuse. By all means, talk trash and vent online about the shitty things that happen, but talking about in the general sense (posting on your blog, in comment threads, in private chat) is still very, very different to talking to (@ing a creator’s Twitter, emailing them, sending then private messages). Even though both forms of discourse can be equally visible, I promise you that the distinction is an important and relevant one.

Here’s the thing about fandom trends: we’re all influenced by the cultures in which we live, just as fandom, in turn, is influenced by us. Having opinions about fandom doesn’t mean neglecting to be courteous to fans and creators; it means refraining from ad hominem attacks. The problem on tumblr is that the reblogging mechanism makes this something of a liminal space, discussion-wise, such that it’s difficult to make hard and fast rules for interaction in this medium. By virtue of posting a thing that can be, not just commented upon, but reblogged into a multi-essay thread, and where it’s essentially held that “successful” posts invite this sort of discussion, the personal and the general - which is to say, the contextual distinction between talking to and talking about - tend to blur.

This is why tag wars happen, why we end up in regular, cyclical arguments about the exact nature of the boundaries we’d each like to impose on what is still, ultimately, a public space. It’s a fundamental basic of discourse that engaging in criticism opens you up to having your position criticised in turn, and yet a lot of people are shocked and outraged when it happens to them, as though they imagined they were speaking from some unassailable, automatic high ground. And at the same time, you’ve got people who never learned the difference between abuse and criticism; whose culturally-trained biases are so ingrained, they honestly don’t recognise that attacking the person is not the same as attacking the person’s argument. 

I’ve been a dumbass online before. I doubtless will be again. But lately, I’m just exhausted by the number of people who cannot manage the simple fucking distinction between talking about and talking to, and who think it’s okay to engage in abuse in any case, so long as they really and truly believe they’re right. 

Here’s a simple rule of thumb: if you can imagine Jared Leto doing or saying it to prepare for his role as the Joker, it’s not actually edgy; it’s just a dick move. Don’t be Jared Leto. Don’t be a dick.

(Which is, by the way, an example of talking about instead of talking to. See how easy it is?)