There are so many animals waiting in shelters and rescue stations to be adopted!
Don’t neglect the old ones or the weird looking ones, they need a loving home too!
Don’t buy from breeders or pet shops, there is no need to obsess over one particular dog breed, you’re doing so much good by adopting the animals that already exist and are in need of your help. A strong bond or a companionship is never determined by breed anyway. :)
More work, and more mistakes, i’m becoming crazy! 😅 wip 3!
Edit1 : Clean (missing the eyelashes and the crown)
Edit2 : Colors+crown+eyelashes, next round (and it will be the last one), shadows+lights !
Edit3 : Final turn around, I know there is still a lot of mistakes, but i think it was a pretty good HARD exercise ! And it was the occasion to learn a little bit about how to use After Effect ! I’ll do an other one, but this time with a character that already exist in the animation world. Now I need to move on, and learn, work on animation exercise. Even if it was long, it was fun ! :)
I love Hamilton, but something about the way white fans engage with the musical really bothers me: a lot of them are posting in the tag about the actual, historical revolutionaries and founding fathers in a way that makes them seem like funny, sweet, good people. They weren’t. I don’t just mean “Jefferson was a piece of shit”: none of them were good. Every one of their asses saw black people as inferior, even if not all of them supported slavery. All of them participated in genocidal policy against indigenous peoples. If you’re watching/listening to Hamilton and then going out and romanticizing the real founding fathers/American revolutionaries, you’re missing the entire point.
Hamilton is not really about the founding fathers. It’s not really about the American Revolution. The revolution, and Hamilton’s life are the narrative subject, but its purpose is not to romanticize real American history: rather, it is to reclaim the narrative of America for people of colour.
Don’t romanticize the founding fathers and the revolution. They’re already romanticized. It’s been done. Your history books have already propagated those lies. The revolution is romanticized as an American narrative because it was a revolution lead by and for white men. Their story is the narrative of the nation and it is a narrative from which people of colour are utterly obliterated.
Do you understand what it’s like to live in a nation where you are made marginal and inconsequential in the historical narrative that you are taught from your first day of school? In the Americas, to be a person of colour is to be made utterly inconsequential to the nation’s history. If you are black, your history begins with slavery, and your agency is denied; they don’t teach about slave rebellions or black revolutionaries. You learn about yourself as entirely shaped by outside forces: white people owned you, then some white people decided to free you and wasn’t that nice of them? and then you’re gone until the civil rights movement. That is the narrative they teach; in which you had no consequence, no value, no impact until less than a century ago. If you are indigenous, you are represented as disappeared, dead, already gone: you do not get to exist, you are already swallowed by history. If you are any other race, you are likely not present at all. To live in a land whose history is not your own, to live in a story in which you are not a character, is a soul-destroying experience.
In Hamilton, Eliza talks, in turn, of “taking herself out of the narrative” and “putting herself back in the narrative.” That’s what Hamilton is about: it’s about putting ourselves in the narrative. It puts people of colour in the centre of the damn narrative of the nation that subjugates them; it takes a story that by all accounts has been constructed to valourize the deeds of white men, and redefines it all.
Why was the American Revolution a revolution? Why were slave revolts revolts? Why do we consider the founding fathers revolutionaries and not the Black Panthers or the Brown Berets or any number of other anti-racist revolutionary organizations? Whose rebellion is valued? Who is allowed to be heroic through defiance? By making the founding fathers people of colour, Hamilton puts people of colour into the American narrative, while simultaneously applying that narrative to the present. Right now, across the United States, across the damn world, people are chanting “black lives matter.” Black people are shutting down malls and highways, demanding justice for the lives stolen by police, by white supremacy. And all across the world, indigenous people are saying “Idle No More,” blockading pipelines, demanding their sovereignty. And “No One is Illegal” is chanting loud enough to shake down the walls at the border; people are demanding the end of refugee detention centres, demanding an end to the violence perpetuated by anti-immigration policies. People of colour are rising up.
…And white people are angry about it. White people are saying “if blacks don’t want to get shot by the police they shouldn’t sag their pants”; saying “get over it” about anti-indigenous policies of assimilation and cultural genocide and land theft; Jennicet Gutiérrez was heckled by white gay men for demanding that president Obama end the detention of undocumented trans women of colour. White people see people of colour rising up and they tell us to sit down. Shut up. Stop making things difficult. The American Revolution was a bunch of white men who didn’t want to be taxed, so white history sees their revolutionary efforts as just; they killed for their emancipation from England; they were militant. That, to white people is acceptable. But those same white people talk shit about Malcolm X for being too violent–a man who never started an uprising against the government leading to bloodshed. Violence is only acceptable in the hands of white people; revolution is only okay when the people leading the charge are white.
Hamilton makes those people brown and black; Hamilton depicts the revolution of which America is proud as one led by people of colour against a white ruling body; there’s a reason King George is the only character who is depicted by a white man. The function of the visual in Hamilton is to challenge a present in which people of colour standing up against oppression are seen as violent and dangerous by the same people who proudly declare allegiance to the flag. It forces white people to see themselves not as the American Revolutionaries, but as the British oppressors. History is happening, and they’re on its bad side.
So don’t listen to or watch Hamilton and then come out of that to romanticize the founding fathers. Don’t let that be what you take away from this show. They’re the vehicle for the narrative, and a tool for conveying the ideologies of the show, but they are not the point. Don’t romanticize the past; fight for the future.
While the division and its
workings are not generally known among lower ranked officials, it is regarded
with utmost respect, and a highly coveted rank among the few that are aware of
its existence, however , fewer know of its true workings.
Operating as a small
task force for anything and everything of the utmost importance required of the
emperor, The HOUND division is primarily made up of high functioning members of
the imperial military too valuable to dispose of for skill, or place in
imperial prisons, for information. While it is a position that can be applied
for or assigned to (however rarely) it is not generally known that its members are
made up of those who have either tried to leave the empire, have become disagreeable, or too aware…
Each Squad has a handler, of
either a dark council member or one that directly answers to it of superior
rank. The handler is in possession of 1 conditioning code word for the squad as
a whole and one for each ‘Pack’ member. Control and surveillance is always overseen
and maintained over each squad. Members rarely succeed 2 years of service.
why skyrim modding proves dude spaces understand content warnings-- they just hate ones that aren’t for them
The dude-dominant trend of mocking trigger warnings or content warnings and ‘safe spaces’ is obviously bullshit but let me tell you a story. (long post)
So my friend and I decided to publish a mod for The Elder Scrolls: Skyrim. They had been working on it for a pretty long time, and I helped out by providing some of the written materials, beta testing, and concept work. It was a pretty extensive mod, overhauling many aspects of the game and adding some entirely new ones.
This means that it would be incompatible with many other popular mods to install. This didn’t bother us because other overhauls of the same scale exist already, and they do well enough.
And it made hot files! It was pretty cool. We decided to provide involved support for it, especially after launch, as we still were fixing bugs and tweaking features. Their feedback also may be important for future updates.
However, because our mod made so many changes, we released a full readme with what types of things the mod changed, and what sorts of mods would probably not work with it. Our landing page gave a good sampling of the features within, way more detailed than most of the frontpages of whole video games on Steam.
But neither were good enough.
I can’t really presume their genders, but the heavily male-dominated culture over on NexusMods wasn’t comfortable with anything but a full spoiler list of every single tweak. Where to get every new item. Every change made, a full list of every available perk, beyond a simple summary. Previously secret or hidden surprises had to be spoiled, because how else would they know what they were getting?
The constant questions, ‘is this mod compatible with X’ despite pretty clear compatibility directions and restrictions continue. They want to know everything about the mod, every tiny detail of how it might interact with other mods we didn’t even consider, before trying it. And they’ll ask us before reading the readme or even the landing page and figuring it out themselves.
This isn’t about content as sensitive as personal stories of trauma, disturbing content, or anything along those lines. This is, presumably, mature people not willing to try a mod for a video game without the creators themselves personally holding their hand and spoiling all the content’s details to them, or asking for 1:1 geek squad support over reading simple compatibility notes.
We’re not entitled to anybody playing with our work. That’s up to each person to decide. But as we published and then were faced with that we (mostly I) had woefully underestimated the need for total detail disclosure. It became clear to me that this is a level of detail that blows simple “CW: blood” out of the water.
And it’s normal for them. To them, media isn’t like the “back in the day, you read a book and whatever was inside was inside!” situation that a lot of them tout. It’s like buying a car. They want to know the mileage of the car. They want to know if the car can be tuned up or have parts swapped out. They want to know about the measurements of the car, its headroom, the width of its axles, how high it is off the ground. They want to know what noise the unlock of the car makes, its emissions, its safety rating, who else owns the car, and what other cars that it’s similar to.
And that’s not unreasonable, at least for a sensible level of detail. But the reality is, if you said “no, I won’t tell you, you need to find out for yourself” these people wouldn’t suck it up. They would pass up your product because they do not know if it contains something that is displeasing to them– whether that is in a technical sense that it would not work well with other modules, or a hidden message or piece of unmarked content that may insult or disgust them.
Plenty of shitty clickbait has been written about how content warnings, media ratings, and clear specifications of a product are different from the plague of ‘trigger warnings’ but so far the only observable difference between them is the audience that trigger warnings is intended to serve: people with mental health concerns.They are all notes that may be in varying detail, that forewarn an audience or consumer of the content of something presented before they commit to it fully.
That speaks to me that what trolls really mean when they say ‘suck it up’ is anything but– They do not want others to stop having feelings or stop being cautious of potential hazards, but to be subject to them on purpose. Meanwhile, they get all the level of information they want about what they care about. It solidifies them as a legitimate audience and their needs as legitimate, and others and their needs as less so.
What they really mean is, “I would rather you not be informed, or see you being informed.” They would, in a matter of speaking, prefer that women and people of color and PTSD sufferers be continuously sold a mystery car, even a shitty one. They do not want to hear that the car they like, or the mod they want, or the books they read, or the movies they watch, do not suit the needs of someone else. Because if they like something, and someone says that it just doesn’t work for them, then that thing can’t objectively be always worthwhile or ‘good content.’
They don’t get upset when their peers request if this extensive overhaul is compatible with any number of extensive overhauls that touch similar features (spoiler: it’s not). They aren’t special snowflakes for wanting to know, even if they are very annoying and obviously aren’t using their brain or even reading the content warnings before asking for personalized assistance. The opposite: they chime in and even help provide the information to their peers or advice to the media maker unasked-for, or even demand more detail so they can begin optimizing before they even download the content at all.
They already are fluent in the idea of marking content according to the needs of a potential consumer– even entitled to more of that information than someone making media might want to divulge openly. What is despised is not somehow information cowardice or a potential echo chamber but that someone other than themself might have needs.
Clarke: FYI, I’m telling my coworkers that we’re dating so this creep will stop hitting on me AT WORK
Bellamy: You can’t just leave it at that. How creepy are we talking? You know if I don’t get specifics my mind jumps straight to the worst-case scenario.
Clarke: It’s not that big a deal? Mostly just annoying But he won’t take no for an answer so I told him I had a boyfriend
Bellamy: Not a girlfriend?
Clarke: They know I’m bi already because I ranted about gross stereotypes at the Christmas party It’s why they instituted a two-drink limit And if he doesn’t respect my hard “no” I doubt he’ll respect my girlfriend’s so Boyfriend
Bellamy: You sure you don’t want to date him? He sounds like a charmer.
Clarke: I was sure the first fifteen times he asked and my decision hasn’t wavered. I wouldn’t have even mentioned it to you except I know Anya comes to the bar sometimes and I didn’t want you to blow my cover
Bellamy: Consider your cover secure.
Clarke: Thanks. I owe you one.
Bellamy: What are fake boyfriends for?
* * *
(Wednesday, Feb 8)
Bellamy: I see you got my flowers.
Clarke: They’re hard to miss seeing as they take up MY WHOLE CUBICLE It smells like a rainforest My allergies are killing me Seriously. Why.
Bellamy: Can’t I just show my fake girlfriend that I appreciate her? Why must you always assume I have ulterior motives?
Clarke: Because I know how expensive flowers can be and you’re the biggest coupon-clipping Scrooge I know
Bellamy: I’m helping! I’m just trying to back up your story, Princess.
Clarke: You’re just trying to embarrass me in front of my coworkers is what you’re doing
Bellamy: Remember that time you made me do karaoke with you? Some might consider us even now.
Clarke: You know Valentine’s Day is next week right? If you do something like this on a random Wednesday, you’re going to have to do something for that too or else Cage will think we’ve broken up
Bellamy: So I’m going to have to top myself is what you’re saying.
Clarke: I don’t think that’s what I said at all
Bellamy: If you insist, Princess.
Clarke: I don’t insist. I STRONGLY DO NOT INSIST.
Bellamy: Unrelated question: what song would you most like to have serenaded to you?
Clarke: If that’s how it’s gonna be then start preparing yourself Cause it’s on, Blake
Honestly, the only live-action remake I want from Disney is The Hunchback of Notre Dame. I need them to take that stage adaptation and adapt it to film - sad ending and all. I need it to not cater to families. I need them to create a sweeping musical epic. I love the animated feature because of how grand and over-the-top the animation is and how sweeping the score is, but it suffers in how it tries to appeal to families. Hunchback isn’t a story that should be held back in that way. Don’t hold that story back - make it a PG-13 film with the most beautiful scenery and imagery with complex characters, and use Alan Menken and Stephen Schwartz’s score.
Like, the finale would be UNREAL if adapted to film. Quasimodo yelling “Sanctuary”, the citizens attacking the guards (”HEAR MEEEEE PEOPLE OF PARISSSSSS”), Quasimodo pouring lava from the towers (”COME ALL YOU SAINTS OF STONE”), Esmeralda’s quiet death, Quasimodo throwing Frollo off the side of Notre Dame. God, it would be EVERYTHING.
Not to mention, the songs that were added for the stage adaptation of Hunchback are realllllyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy good. Also, we’d get to pretend like “A Guy Like You” doesn’t exist which I already do so it’s chill. Not to even mention how beautiful and grand Notre Dame would look. “God Help the Outcasts” would be cinematically brilliant and subtle. “Out There” would be sweeping. “Topsy Turvy” would be very fun. “MADE OF STONE” WOULD BE SO GOOD. It would be perfect. Also, release it at the right time, and the entire piece could easily be an Oscars-contender.
In conclusion, Disney needs to greenlight a live-action Hunchback adaptation because it has the potential to be the most beautiful cinematic masterpiece they’ve released in years. Also, I want it real bad.